Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:52 pm
by Irn-Bru
BnGhog wrote:No, I am not denying the reality that some are poised to succeed. What is being proposed is a Rookie salorie cap. IF there were a 3 year cap for Rookies, They would all make the same.
And that would be the most unfair and unjust rule change the NFL has ever made.
I don't deny one has more "potential" than the other but that is the only reason one gets paid more.
So production at the college level means literally
nothing to you? That's a curious position to hold. . .
But why pay a buy at all based on potential, if guy like Tom Brady is drafted in the 6th round, and getting paid 1/4 of what Ricky Williams got paid right out of the draft.
Based on potential? Makes no sense.
Okay, so you just picked the biggest draft steal in NFL history. Here's a question, why in the world did LaDainian Tomlinson get paid more than Dan Alexander right out of the draft?
Not fair!
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:19 pm
by yupchagee
Irn-Bru wrote:BnGhog wrote:No, I am not denying the reality that some are poised to succeed. What is being proposed is a Rookie salorie cap. IF there were a 3 year cap for Rookies, They would all make the same.
And that would be the most unfair and unjust rule change the NFL has ever made.
I don't deny one has more "potential" than the other but that is the only reason one gets paid more.
So production at the college level means literally
nothing to you? That's a curious position to hold. . .
But why pay a buy at all based on potential, if guy like Tom Brady is drafted in the 6th round, and getting paid 1/4 of what Ricky Williams got paid right out of the draft.
Based on potential? Makes no sense.
Okay, so you just picked the biggest draft steal in NFL history. Here's a question, why in the world did LaDainian Tomlinson get paid more than Dan Alexander right out of the draft?
Not fair!
It has been my experience that employers look at college transcripts when deciding on if or how much to offer a recent grad.
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:40 pm
by Irn-Bru
yupchagee wrote:It has been my experience that employers look at college transcripts when deciding on if or how much to offer a recent grad.
MBAs from Harvard Business School also tend to make more money than MBAs from Southwerstern Mississippi College of Arts. . .even though they've never worked an 8-hour shift in the workforce.
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:00 pm
by BnGhog
Well maybe to some extent. I see your point I could see paying a 1st rounder more than a 6th rounder. And maybe little differences between each place. But IMO that difference should be minimal. Not much difference in "Potential" in a 1st overall pick and a second.
If that took place, I could see a $100,000 difference in pay between Thomas and Mix. But I don't think that "Potential" alone is worth 1million difference between Mix and Thomas. And there may not be now, I just saying I don’t think the value difference is 1million. ? You don’t pay a guy more money with a higher GPA as long as they are both Graduates.
A guy who was with the team last year has a good rapport with JC, and has PROVEN to be a force on special teams in the NFL, is worth less money than a guy who was just drafted and has PROVEN nothing AND COULD be a total bust. I would have no problem with a rule what would not allow this and we could give him a much needed raise and Bonus, once he has proven himself. That would allow more cap space and more money for the vets. And of course I would use the biggest draft steel in history, to prove a point, what better example there to use? Someone who got drafted and paid in the perfect spot for his potential and lived up to said potential, that wouldn’t prove my point at all. Anyway, wasn't really trying to start a discussion on this, was more of a side note.
I can see and agree with your point, But that don’t change how I feel, I still think the NFL should have a cap. Even with a cap we can still pay a 1st rounder more than a 6th rounder. (IMO it should not be millions of dollars difference based on potential but that is a different discussion, and not the point I was trying to make from the beginning anyway.) I don’t think a first pick should be paid more than a pro bowler. AND I don’t think a team should have to waste the roster spot and cap space to sign a 1st round pick to a million dollar plus signing bonus contract when he could be a bust.
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:20 pm
by BnGhog
Irn-Bru wrote:MBAs from Harvard Business School also tend to make more money than MBAs from Southwerstern Mississippi College of Arts. . .even though they've never worked an 8-hour shift in the workforce.
Irn-Bru wrote:Okay, so you just picked the biggest draft steal in NFL history. Here's a question, why in the world did LaDainian Tomlinson get paid more than Dan Alexander right out of the draft?
Not fair!
Why didn't you use Harvard and Prinston as your examples? That wouldn't prove your point would it?
Sure, NOW we can say Tomlinson was not a bust. But WHAT IF Dan Alexander out performed Tomlinson, and Tomlinson had been cut the next year. It does happen.
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:50 pm
by Irn-Bru
BnGhog wrote:If that took place, I could see a $100,000 difference in pay between Thomas and Mix.
Where does 100k come from? Why not 20k; why not $1 million?
But I don't think that "Potential" alone is worth 1million difference between Mix and Thomas.
It's more than potential. . .as has been argued above. . .you can't keep saying that Thomas hasn't proved anything yet.
Sure, NOW we can say Tomlinson was not a bust. But WHAT IF Dan Alexander out performed Tomlinson, and Tomlinson had been cut the next year. It does happen.
Players become busts for all sorts of reasons—sometimes it's the franchises fault! You're using "what ifs" and your feelings to make an argument that would unjustly take millions away from many players.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 1:25 am
by HEROHAMO
I always pull for the longshot. I hope this guy makes the team and maybe even become a star?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:53 am
by VetSkinsFan
Irn-Bru wrote:BnGhog wrote:If that took place, I could see a $100,000 difference in pay between Thomas and Mix.
Where does 100k come from? Why not 20k; why not $1 million?
But I don't think that "Potential" alone is worth 1million difference between Mix and Thomas.
It's more than potential. . .as has been argued above. . .you can't keep saying that Thomas hasn't proved anything yet.
Sure, NOW we can say Tomlinson was not a bust. But WHAT IF Dan Alexander out performed Tomlinson, and Tomlinson had been cut the next year. It does happen.
Players become busts for all sorts of reasons—sometimes it's the franchises fault! You're using "what ifs" and your feelings to make an argument that would unjustly take millions away from many players.
If you're having a debate (this being two or more parties having a difference in opinion), it's required to use "what ifs" and your opinions(which are usually based off or morals, beliefs, and feelings). To dicredit him for using these are kinda narrow minded.
And what is wrong with a rookie salary cap? What is wrong with a player coming in and earning his money based on his PAST CURRENT LEVEL EXPERIENCE? To say a rookie has proven anything on the professional level is absurd short of how fast he can run or catch a ball in a T-shirt. That's being done all across the nation in back yards and parks. I believe that the cap should float depending on field and draft position (It's absurd for a QB to get paid like a Punter), but to have a OT get paid what Long did a few weeks ago before he's even been in camp is ludicrous. And to use your example, I don't think young execs straight out of college, regardless of school and resume, come in making more than 95% of the established people in their field and position. If they do, let me know, I'm looking to move up in the world.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:33 am
by yupchagee
VetSkinsFan wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:BnGhog wrote:If that took place, I could see a $100,000 difference in pay between Thomas and Mix.
Where does 100k come from? Why not 20k; why not $1 million?
But I don't think that "Potential" alone is worth 1million difference between Mix and Thomas.
It's more than potential. . .as has been argued above. . .you can't keep saying that Thomas hasn't proved anything yet.
Sure, NOW we can say Tomlinson was not a bust. But WHAT IF Dan Alexander out performed Tomlinson, and Tomlinson had been cut the next year. It does happen.
Players become busts for all sorts of reasons—sometimes it's the franchises fault! You're using "what ifs" and your feelings to make an argument that would unjustly take millions away from many players.
If you're having a debate (this being two or more parties having a difference in opinion), it's required to use "what ifs" and your opinions(which are usually based off or morals, beliefs, and feelings). To dicredit him for using these are kinda narrow minded.
And what is wrong with a rookie salary cap? What is wrong with a player coming in and earning his money based on his PAST CURRENT LEVEL EXPERIENCE? To say a rookie has proven anything on the professional level is absurd short of how fast he can run or catch a ball in a T-shirt. That's being done all across the nation in back yards and parks. I believe that the cap should float depending on field and draft position (It's absurd for a QB to get paid like a Punter), but to have a OT get paid what Long did a few weeks ago before he's even been in camp is ludicrous. And to use your example, I don't think young execs straight out of college, regardless of school and resume, come in making more than 95% of the established people in their field and position. If they do, let me know, I'm looking to move up in the world.
What's wrong with letting the free market determine a player's value?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:52 am
by BnGhog
HEROHAMO wrote:I always pull for the longshot. I hope this guy makes the team and maybe even become a star?
Me too! Nothing would be sweeter than having Mix (the guy from the Giants practice squad) scoring the winning TD against the Gnats.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:07 am
by GSPODS
yupchagee wrote:What's wrong with letting the free market determine a player's value?
Nothing, other than the small fact that no one is worth millions of dollars to play a game for a maximum of 20 weeks out of a year.
The "Free Market" will evenutally price players right out of the league.
At some point in time, the CBA will have to address the issue.
If a rookie left tackle who has never played a down is worth $10 Million per year, what is a free agent Tom Brady or Peyton Manning worth?
If a rookie left tackle is worth $10 Million per season, what is the next #1 QB draft pick worth? Not as much as multiple SuperBowl, Conference Championship and ProBowl QBs.
The same can be said for any position. No rookie's potential is worth more than a veteran's proven production. The players will have to settle this issue amongst themselves, between the rookies and the veterans. All the owners care about is building a competitive team under the salary cap. Some owners don't even care about that.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:14 am
by Irn-Bru
VetSkinsFan wrote:If you're having a debate (this being two or more parties having a difference in opinion), it's required to use "what ifs" and your opinions(which are usually based off or morals, beliefs, and feelings). To dicredit him for using these are kinda narrow minded.
I'm okay with using "what ifs" and opinions (all the better if the opinions have more backing than one's feelings, which is all BnG was claiming). But relying on them entirely. . .well, that's another matter. . .
And, there's still room to criticize a bad argument if it's a bad argument. Ultimately, BnG's case rests on the assumption that there is
no reliable correlation between any individual player's history before entering the NFL and his performance in the NFL. But that's patently absurd. (There's a reason that most probowl-caliber players are drafted in the 1st and 2nd rounds, after all. . .)
VetSkinsFan wrote:And what is wrong with a rookie salary cap? What is wrong with a player coming in and earning his money based on his PAST CURRENT LEVEL EXPERIENCE?
I haven't said that I'm against the rookie salary cap. In fact, I don't think it's a bad idea. But there's a bit difference between a rookie salary cap and some of the ideas that I'm seeing on this board (e.g., establishing set contracts for the first overall pick, second, etc).
VetSkinsFan wrote:To say a rookie has proven anything on the professional level is absurd short of how fast he can run or catch a ball in a T-shirt. That's being done all across the nation in back yards and parks.
So playing college at the Div. 1 level prepares players for the NFL only as much as sandlot pickup games?
Maybe you can see why I think BnG and you are completely discounting a very important aspect of what's going on here.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:45 am
by GSPODS
Mathematical Draft Value Formula:
S(255/x)= P(16/x)p(255/x)
S = Selection Number
P = Position
p = Potential
Selection Number (255/1) = Postion (QB)(16/1) X Potential(255/1) = 1,040,400
Where 1 is the first draft selection AND
Where QB is the #1 most valuable of the 16 player positions AND
Where the draft selection's potential is #1 of the 255 players selected in the draft.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:28 pm
by BnGhog
Irn-Bru wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:If you're having a debate (this being two or more parties having a difference in opinion), it's required to use "what ifs" and your opinions(which are usually based off or morals, beliefs, and feelings). To dicredit him for using these are kinda narrow minded.
I'm okay with using "what ifs" and opinions (all the better if the opinions have more backing than one's feelings, which is all BnG was claiming). But relying on them entirely. . .well, that's another matter. . .
I don't know why Im replying at all, I have already said I was really not trying to argue. And I have told you that I see your point, and only was trying to say "IMO we need a rookie cap. But for some unknown reason I keep on responding. Hmm go figure.
You are saying that I only used "what ifs" that have no more backing than one's feelings. But the "what ifs" I am using, is simply simply "what if so and so is a BUST. It is common knowlege that some draft picks are busts, I don't know how you think I am makeing that up. Should I go look up all the busts for you in the 1st and 2nd rounds over that 5years to prove there are High paid busts every year. I feel this is a lot of work to prove something that is pretty much common knowlege.
Irn-Bru wrote:And, there's still room to criticize a bad argument if it's a bad argument. Ultimately, BnG's case rests on the assumption that there is no reliable correlation between any individual player's history before entering the NFL and his performance in the NFL. But that's patently absurd. (There's a reason that most probowl-caliber players are drafted in the 1st and 2nd rounds, after all. . .).
Do I have to go back and quote myself as well, why am I responding if you aren't going to bother reading them. I told you I don't want to dismiss what they have done at the college level. But what a guy does at a college level don't ALWAYS turn into the same production in the NFL, is what I said, remember the word I used above "Bust". There is a reason a guy is drafted in the 1st and 2nd round, this is why I said there should be some leeway to pay some more or less.
Irn-Bru wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:And what is wrong with a rookie salary cap? What is wrong with a player coming in and earning his money based on his PAST CURRENT LEVEL EXPERIENCE?
I haven't said that I'm against the rookie salary cap. In fact, I don't think it's a bad idea. But there's a bit difference between a rookie salary cap and some of the ideas that I'm seeing on this board (e.g., establishing set contracts for the first overall pick, second, etc).
I don't recall saying there should be a set contract for the first overall pick, I said, I think there is a differece value in the 1st and so on pick, so the teams should be able to have leeway there. I only said, I don't think there is a big difference in value between the 1st overall pick and the 2nd overall pick. Where do you get out of that, that we need a set contract for the first overall pick? You're putting words in my mouth that I simply have not said.
Irn-Bru wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:To say a rookie has proven anything on the professional level is absurd short of how fast he can run or catch a ball in a T-shirt. That's being done all across the nation in back yards and parks.
So playing college at the Div. 1 level prepares players for the NFL only as much as sandlot pickup games?
Maybe you can see why I think BnG and you are completely discounting a very important aspect of what's going on here.
When did I say that again. How did saying, what a player does in college don't mean he can do the same in the NFL, turn into, "what he did in college means nothing in the draft or for his value"?
Edited to fix stupid spelling errors.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 1:17 pm
by yupchagee
GSPODS wrote:yupchagee wrote:What's wrong with letting the free market determine a player's value?
Nothing, other than the small fact that no one is worth millions of dollars to play a game for a maximum of 20 weeks out of a year.
The "Free Market" will evenutally price players right out of the league.
At some point in time, the CBA will have to address the issue.
If a rookie left tackle who has never played a down is worth $10 Million per year, what is a free agent Tom Brady or Peyton Manning worth?
If a rookie left tackle is worth $10 Million per season, what is the next #1 QB draft pick worth? Not as much as multiple SuperBowl, Conference Championship and ProBowl QBs.
The same can be said for any position. No rookie's potential is worth more than a veteran's proven production. The players will have to settle this issue amongst themselves, between the rookies and the veterans. All the owners care about is building a competitive team under the salary cap. Some owners don't even care about that.
Football players are entertainers. Viewed in this light, their compensation is not out of line with other successful entertainers. Who is to say what is excessive?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 1:19 pm
by yupchagee
GSPODS wrote:Mathematical Draft Value Formula:
S(255/x)= P(16/x)p(255/x)
S = Selection Number
P = Position
p = Potential
Selection Number (255/1) = Postion (QB)(16/1) X Potential(255/1) = 1,040,400
Where 1 is the first draft selection AND
Where QB is the #1 most valuable of the 16 player positions AND
Where the draft selection's potential is #1 of the 255 players selected in the draft.
What is the theoretical basis for this equation?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 2:40 pm
by BnGhog
yupchagee wrote:Football players are entertainers. Viewed in this light, their compensation is not out of line with other successful entertainers. Who is to say what is excessive?
This is not wrestling!!! Many would rather have a guy that puts up the numbers of ocho cinco without the entertainment element of ocho cinco.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:42 pm
by yupchagee
BnGhog wrote:yupchagee wrote:Football players are entertainers. Viewed in this light, their compensation is not out of line with other successful entertainers. Who is to say what is excessive?
This is not wrestling!!! Many would rather have a guy that puts up the numbers of ocho cinco without the entertainment element of ocho cinco.
I never said it was wrestlimg, but it is definitely entertainment. People pay to watch them. Antics or lack thereof have nothing to do with it.
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:38 pm
by VetSkinsFan
yupchagee wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:BnGhog wrote:If that took place, I could see a $100,000 difference in pay between Thomas and Mix.
Where does 100k come from? Why not 20k; why not $1 million?
But I don't think that "Potential" alone is worth 1million difference between Mix and Thomas.
It's more than potential. . .as has been argued above. . .you can't keep saying that Thomas hasn't proved anything yet.
Sure, NOW we can say Tomlinson was not a bust. But WHAT IF Dan Alexander out performed Tomlinson, and Tomlinson had been cut the next year. It does happen.
Players become busts for all sorts of reasons—sometimes it's the franchises fault! You're using "what ifs" and your feelings to make an argument that would unjustly take millions away from many players.
If you're having a debate (this being two or more parties having a difference in opinion), it's required to use "what ifs" and your opinions(which are usually based off or morals, beliefs, and feelings). To dicredit him for using these are kinda narrow minded.
And what is wrong with a rookie salary cap? What is wrong with a player coming in and earning his money based on his PAST CURRENT LEVEL EXPERIENCE? To say a rookie has proven anything on the professional level is absurd short of how fast he can run or catch a ball in a T-shirt. That's being done all across the nation in back yards and parks. I believe that the cap should float depending on field and draft position (It's absurd for a QB to get paid like a Punter), but to have a OT get paid what Long did a few weeks ago before he's even been in camp is ludicrous. And to use your example, I don't think young execs straight out of college, regardless of school and resume, come in making more than 95% of the established people in their field and position. If they do, let me know, I'm looking to move up in the world.
What's wrong with letting the free market determine a player's value?
Such insight.
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:31 pm
by CanesSkins26
Vinny Cerrato to Anthony Mix: lose 15 pounds
By Anthony Brown | May 10th, 2008
Redskins chief honcho Vinny Cerrato said that wide receiver Anthony Mix needs to lose about 15 pounds to boost his speed. Cerrato made the statement on Redskins Radio broadcast on Comcast Sports Network yesterday.
Mix is listed on the Redskins roster at 6-5, 235 pounds, but Cerrato said Mix reported to mini-camp at 245 pounds.
The Redskins said they had to get taller at wide receiver to implement Jim Zorn’s West Coast offense. They did that quick with Mix and draftees Devin Thomas, 6-1, and Malcolm Kelly, 6-3.
Isn’t it interesting that, while the Skins want taller receivers, Zorn wants QB Jason Campbell, 6-5, to play smaller in the pocket?
_________________________
Popular opinion holds that Kelly and Thomas give the Redskins an advantage in the red zone for the “jump ball.” Apart from the inherent risks involved — jump balls can be snagged by anybody — it misses the point. The need for size in the West Coast offense is a matter of size as well as height.
West Coast receivers run through a lot of traffic for short distances in a fast paced passing game. Defensive backs smack them around within five yards of the scrimmage line, then they get covered by linebackers and the strong safety. West Coast receivers have more run blocking assignments to support tailbacks running or receiving to the edge of the line.
West Coast receivers need the bulk to take and make the hits. That’s a concern with smallish receivers like Antwaan Randle El, 5-10, 190, and 5-10 Santana Moss who weighs in at 200 pounds now. Moss was listed at 185 last year.
Terrell Owens is the prototype West Coast receiver among current players. He is 6-3, 213. Keyshawn Johnson, a very good possession receiver, played at 6-4, 211. Our own Art Monk, fearless in the middle of the field, played at 6-3, 210.
Cerrato wants receivers who play at receiver weight, right around 210 to 220 pounds. Anthony Mix could play linebacker at 245. The Skins want him to outrun linebackers. That’s the point of Cerrato’s message.
http://mvn.com/nfl-redskins/2008/05/10/vinny-cerrato-to-anthony-mix-lose-15-pounds/
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 7:08 pm
by yupchagee
CanesSkins26 wrote:Vinny Cerrato to Anthony Mix: lose 15 pounds
By Anthony Brown | May 10th, 2008
Redskins chief honcho Vinny Cerrato said that wide receiver Anthony Mix needs to lose about 15 pounds to boost his speed. Cerrato made the statement on Redskins Radio broadcast on Comcast Sports Network yesterday.
Mix is listed on the Redskins roster at 6-5, 235 pounds, but Cerrato said Mix reported to mini-camp at 245 pounds.
The Redskins said they had to get taller at wide receiver to implement Jim Zorn’s West Coast offense. They did that quick with Mix and draftees Devin Thomas, 6-1, and Malcolm Kelly, 6-3.
Isn’t it interesting that, while the Skins want taller receivers, Zorn wants QB Jason Campbell, 6-5, to play smaller in the pocket?
_________________________
Popular opinion holds that Kelly and Thomas give the Redskins an advantage in the red zone for the “jump ball.” Apart from the inherent risks involved — jump balls can be snagged by anybody — it misses the point. The need for size in the West Coast offense is a matter of size as well as height.
West Coast receivers run through a lot of traffic for short distances in a fast paced passing game. Defensive backs smack them around within five yards of the scrimmage line, then they get covered by linebackers and the strong safety. West Coast receivers have more run blocking assignments to support tailbacks running or receiving to the edge of the line.
West Coast receivers need the bulk to take and make the hits. That’s a concern with smallish receivers like Antwaan Randle El, 5-10, 190, and 5-10 Santana Moss who weighs in at 200 pounds now. Moss was listed at 185 last year.
Terrell Owens is the prototype West Coast receiver among current players. He is 6-3, 213. Keyshawn Johnson, a very good possession receiver, played at 6-4, 211. Our own Art Monk, fearless in the middle of the field, played at 6-3, 210.
Cerrato wants receivers who play at receiver weight, right around 210 to 220 pounds. Anthony Mix could play linebacker at 245. The Skins want him to outrun linebackers. That’s the point of Cerrato’s message.
http://mvn.com/nfl-redskins/2008/05/10/vinny-cerrato-to-anthony-mix-lose-15-pounds/
245 sounds more like a TE than a WR.
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 7:28 pm
by CanesSkins26
yupchagee wrote:CanesSkins26 wrote:Vinny Cerrato to Anthony Mix: lose 15 pounds
By Anthony Brown | May 10th, 2008
Redskins chief honcho Vinny Cerrato said that wide receiver Anthony Mix needs to lose about 15 pounds to boost his speed. Cerrato made the statement on Redskins Radio broadcast on Comcast Sports Network yesterday.
Mix is listed on the Redskins roster at 6-5, 235 pounds, but Cerrato said Mix reported to mini-camp at 245 pounds.
The Redskins said they had to get taller at wide receiver to implement Jim Zorn’s West Coast offense. They did that quick with Mix and draftees Devin Thomas, 6-1, and Malcolm Kelly, 6-3.
Isn’t it interesting that, while the Skins want taller receivers, Zorn wants QB Jason Campbell, 6-5, to play smaller in the pocket?
_________________________
Popular opinion holds that Kelly and Thomas give the Redskins an advantage in the red zone for the “jump ball.” Apart from the inherent risks involved — jump balls can be snagged by anybody — it misses the point. The need for size in the West Coast offense is a matter of size as well as height.
West Coast receivers run through a lot of traffic for short distances in a fast paced passing game. Defensive backs smack them around within five yards of the scrimmage line, then they get covered by linebackers and the strong safety. West Coast receivers have more run blocking assignments to support tailbacks running or receiving to the edge of the line.
West Coast receivers need the bulk to take and make the hits. That’s a concern with smallish receivers like Antwaan Randle El, 5-10, 190, and 5-10 Santana Moss who weighs in at 200 pounds now. Moss was listed at 185 last year.
Terrell Owens is the prototype West Coast receiver among current players. He is 6-3, 213. Keyshawn Johnson, a very good possession receiver, played at 6-4, 211. Our own Art Monk, fearless in the middle of the field, played at 6-3, 210.
Cerrato wants receivers who play at receiver weight, right around 210 to 220 pounds. Anthony Mix could play linebacker at 245. The Skins want him to outrun linebackers. That’s the point of Cerrato’s message.
http://mvn.com/nfl-redskins/2008/05/10/vinny-cerrato-to-anthony-mix-lose-15-pounds/
245 sounds more like a TE than a WR.
Exactly right.
ey and Winslow both weigh around 245. Not sure what Mix was thinking coming into the minicamp at that weight. I can't think of any effective receivers that weigh that much. Hell, 245 is a few pounds more than Mike Williams' listed weight.
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:49 pm
by Irn-Bru
I can't believe Mix came in at that weight. I'm hoping that it's 245 because of muscle. . .otherwise I can't fathom why he'd risk it and possibly blow his chance to make the team.
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:35 pm
by CanesSkins26
Irn-Bru wrote:I can't believe Mix came in at that weight. I'm hoping that it's 245 because of muscle. . .otherwise I can't fathom why he'd risk it and possibly blow his chance to make the team.
Even if it is because of muscle, it still makes little sense. Even bigger receivers like Boldin, TO, Fitzgerald, and Braylon Edwards don't go much above the 220lbs mark. Hard to imagine that Mix, even if he drops 10 or so pounds is going to have the quickness to contribute significantly as a wide receiver. I know that Auburn tried this at one point with Mix, but should the Skins consider trying to turn him into a tight end? Right now Mix is basically the same size as
ey and Fred Davis.
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:58 pm
by yupchagee
CanesSkins26 wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:I can't believe Mix came in at that weight. I'm hoping that it's 245 because of muscle. . .otherwise I can't fathom why he'd risk it and possibly blow his chance to make the team.
Even if it is because of muscle, it still makes little sense. Even bigger receivers like Boldin, TO, Fitzgerald, and Braylon Edwards don't go much above the 220lbs mark. Hard to imagine that Mix, even if he drops 10 or so pounds is going to have the quickness to contribute significantly as a wide receiver. I know that Auburn tried this at one point with Mix, but should the Skins consider trying to turn him into a tight end? Right now Mix is basically the same size as
ey and Fred Davis.
My understanding is that he couldn't block at all.