Quote:
Originally Posted by kccrow
Dumbass.
That said in my best Dane voice...
Now that we've cleared the air (and by the way no offense necessarily was taken, although that was a sad attempt at a pot shot)...
I'm not at the combine because I choose to make more money than a hack scout by doing accounting. Of course, with one undergrad major in physical education, I more than have the prerequisite skills to assess body movement and become a scout but then I couldn't pleasure your asses with my hot takes.
Also, pundits talk out of both sides of their ass fairly consistently. I gave you the proof. You can't call a workout bad when I provided a list of recent top picks that have virtually identical numbers. Who was it bad compared to? Certainly not men of similar or lesser size that play a similar position. He's right there with a good percentage of his peers. Certainly not compared to the guards and centers that will be blocking him. So, then, what is it that was so horrendous? The fact is, you can't say it was and your only argument thus far is to say "well the pundits say so." If you called it slightly below average, then you'd probably have an argument. He wasn't quite as quick and didn't have quite the burst of some of his peers in shorts. You know what though, this is the game of football. The game of football isn't played in shorts and track shoes. Settle's tape is very good. I'll take good on the field over good in shorts every single day of the week and twice on Sundays, especially when we're arguing a goddamned nose tackle.
|
I agree with Crow. I think it may just be that people get hard ons for big guys doing well at things big guys should not be good at, e.g. people creaming their pants over Vita Vea's 40 time (even though he tweaked his hamstring) comparatively makes Settle look worse for being bad at something a big guy should be bad at, especially because the 40 time is irrelevant.