Thomas supposedly 50-50 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thomas supposedly 50-50 (/thread-13235.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thomas supposedly 50-50 (/thread-13235.html)
Thomas supposedly 50-50 - washingtonismoney - 12-19-2016
To come back, per Wilner: https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/810901594027851776
Thomas supposedly 50-50 - washingtonismoney - 12-19-2016
To come back, per Wilner: https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/810901594027851776
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - Mick - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 12:17 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:To come back, per Wilner: https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/810901594027851776
I thought you meant to play in the Sun Bowl. Honestly.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - Mick - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 12:17 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:To come back, per Wilner: https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/810901594027851776
I thought you meant to play in the Sun Bowl. Honestly.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - OutsiderFan - 12-19-2016
As I said on this topic in a long since pushed down other thread, the NFL is projecting Thomas as an OLB given his small for NFL DE size. He's never played that position in his life to my knowledge. Would Stanford give him the opportunity to play OLB for a year, to audition for the NFL, or does Thomas put on 10-15 more pounds and make a real concerted effort to stay a DE at the next level?
Thomas might be tracking the same position evolution as former Cal DL Lorenzo Alexander, on an accelerated timeline. He played DT at Cal, went undrafted in 2005, and played a few seasons before making the switch to OLB after three years with the Redskins. He was actually leading the NFL in sacks - at 33 years old - for a few weeks this season before getting hurt with Buffalo.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - OutsiderFan - 12-19-2016
As I said on this topic in a long since pushed down other thread, the NFL is projecting Thomas as an OLB given his small for NFL DE size. He's never played that position in his life to my knowledge. Would Stanford give him the opportunity to play OLB for a year, to audition for the NFL, or does Thomas put on 10-15 more pounds and make a real concerted effort to stay a DE at the next level?
Thomas might be tracking the same position evolution as former Cal DL Lorenzo Alexander, on an accelerated timeline. He played DT at Cal, went undrafted in 2005, and played a few seasons before making the switch to OLB after three years with the Redskins. He was actually leading the NFL in sacks - at 33 years old - for a few weeks this season before getting hurt with Buffalo.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - JohnR34231 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 12:46 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16306.msg183016#msg183016 date=1482175066]
To come back, per Wilner: https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/810901594027851776
I thought you meant to play in the Sun Bowl. Honestly.
[/quote]
Well, if you use the logic being thrown around concerning CMac, if Thomas is seriously considering opting for the draft he should skip the bowl game also out of fear of injury.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - JohnR34231 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 12:46 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16306.msg183016#msg183016 date=1482175066]
To come back, per Wilner: https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/810901594027851776
I thought you meant to play in the Sun Bowl. Honestly.
[/quote]
Well, if you use the logic being thrown around concerning CMac, if Thomas is seriously considering opting for the draft he should skip the bowl game also out of fear of injury.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:04 PM)JPRI link Wrote:Well, if you use the logic being thrown around concerning CMac, if Thomas is seriously considering opting for the draft he should skip the bowl game also out of fear of injury.I disagree, I think the two situations are different to a degree where the C-Mac logic doesn't apply.
It's all about upside/downside. The downside (injury) is clear.
There isn't much upside to McCaffrey playing. He was featured a lot as a freshman and was a superstar as a sophomore and junior, getting massive usage and NFL scout scrutiny. Clearly the NFL has seen all that it has to see and has a complete evaluation on him, which will be adjusted based on his performance at the combine.
On the other hand, Thomas can still raise his stock with a strong performance in the bowl. He didn't play as a freshman, as a sophomore he was a starter (and Pac-12 honorable mention) but not a standout. Obviously this year he has been a star and has attracted a lot of scouting attention. But his profile (and the amount of tape on him) pales in comparison to McCaffrey.
I do think that the Fournette/McCaffrey route will become much more common, to the point that in a few years it may be standard for established high profile players to sit out bowl games, but almost all other players (even stars like Thomas) still have something to gain by playing in bowl games and will continue to do so.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:04 PM)JPRI link Wrote:Well, if you use the logic being thrown around concerning CMac, if Thomas is seriously considering opting for the draft he should skip the bowl game also out of fear of injury.I disagree, I think the two situations are different to a degree where the C-Mac logic doesn't apply.
It's all about upside/downside. The downside (injury) is clear.
There isn't much upside to McCaffrey playing. He was featured a lot as a freshman and was a superstar as a sophomore and junior, getting massive usage and NFL scout scrutiny. Clearly the NFL has seen all that it has to see and has a complete evaluation on him, which will be adjusted based on his performance at the combine.
On the other hand, Thomas can still raise his stock with a strong performance in the bowl. He didn't play as a freshman, as a sophomore he was a starter (and Pac-12 honorable mention) but not a standout. Obviously this year he has been a star and has attracted a lot of scouting attention. But his profile (and the amount of tape on him) pales in comparison to McCaffrey.
I do think that the Fournette/McCaffrey route will become much more common, to the point that in a few years it may be standard for established high profile players to sit out bowl games, but almost all other players (even stars like Thomas) still have something to gain by playing in bowl games and will continue to do so.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - JohnR34231 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:28 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=16306.msg183054#msg183054 date=1482181454]I disagree, I think the two situations are different to a degree where the C-Mac logic doesn't apply.
Well, if you use the logic being thrown around concerning CMac, if Thomas is seriously considering opting for the draft he should skip the bowl game also out of fear of injury.
It's all about upside/downside. The downside (injury) is clear.
There isn't much upside to McCaffrey playing. He was featured a lot as a freshman and was a superstar as a sophomore and junior, getting massive usage and NFL scout scrutiny. Clearly the NFL has seen all that it has to see and has a complete evaluation on him, which will be adjusted based on his performance at the combine.
On the other hand, Thomas can still raise his stock with a strong performance in the bowl. He didn't play as a freshman, as a sophomore he was a starter (and Pac-12 honorable mention) but not a standout. Obviously this year he has been a star and has attracted a lot of scouting attention. But his profile (and the amount of tape on him) pales in comparison to McCaffrey.
I do think that the Fournette/McCaffrey route will become much more common, to the point that in a few years it may be standard for established high profile players to sit out bowl games, but almost all other players (even stars like Thomas) still have something to gain by playing in bowl games and will continue to do so.
[/quote]
If he were playing against, say, Alabama, I would agree.
He's played 12 games this year already. Will playing a 13th against a team not even ranked in the top 25 raise his stock significantly? IMO, no.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - JohnR34231 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:28 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=16306.msg183054#msg183054 date=1482181454]I disagree, I think the two situations are different to a degree where the C-Mac logic doesn't apply.
Well, if you use the logic being thrown around concerning CMac, if Thomas is seriously considering opting for the draft he should skip the bowl game also out of fear of injury.
It's all about upside/downside. The downside (injury) is clear.
There isn't much upside to McCaffrey playing. He was featured a lot as a freshman and was a superstar as a sophomore and junior, getting massive usage and NFL scout scrutiny. Clearly the NFL has seen all that it has to see and has a complete evaluation on him, which will be adjusted based on his performance at the combine.
On the other hand, Thomas can still raise his stock with a strong performance in the bowl. He didn't play as a freshman, as a sophomore he was a starter (and Pac-12 honorable mention) but not a standout. Obviously this year he has been a star and has attracted a lot of scouting attention. But his profile (and the amount of tape on him) pales in comparison to McCaffrey.
I do think that the Fournette/McCaffrey route will become much more common, to the point that in a few years it may be standard for established high profile players to sit out bowl games, but almost all other players (even stars like Thomas) still have something to gain by playing in bowl games and will continue to do so.
[/quote]
If he were playing against, say, Alabama, I would agree.
He's played 12 games this year already. Will playing a 13th against a team not even ranked in the top 25 raise his stock significantly? IMO, no.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:49 PM)JPRI link Wrote:He's played 12 games this year already. Will playing a 13th against a team not even ranked in the top 25 raise his stock significantly? IMO, no.Maybe, maybe not. But his situation being undoubtably different from C-Mac's was my point. If Thomas records two sacks on Trubisky it will surely boost his profile, whereas C-Mac scoring two touchdowns probably doesn't move the needle at all in terms of NFL evaluation.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:49 PM)JPRI link Wrote:He's played 12 games this year already. Will playing a 13th against a team not even ranked in the top 25 raise his stock significantly? IMO, no.Maybe, maybe not. But his situation being undoubtably different from C-Mac's was my point. If Thomas records two sacks on Trubisky it will surely boost his profile, whereas C-Mac scoring two touchdowns probably doesn't move the needle at all in terms of NFL evaluation.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - teejers1 - 12-19-2016
Games 6-12 this year didn't "move the needle" for C-Mac and the NFL, either. DC 86, c'mon now . . .
P.S. McCaffery is not getting past the Broncos draft spot, whether he played or not; whether he got injured or not. We'll never know, but I've heard that from a relatively decent source.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - teejers1 - 12-19-2016
Games 6-12 this year didn't "move the needle" for C-Mac and the NFL, either. DC 86, c'mon now . . .
P.S. McCaffery is not getting past the Broncos draft spot, whether he played or not; whether he got injured or not. We'll never know, but I've heard that from a relatively decent source.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - Mick - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 03:24 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Games 6-12 this year didn't "move the needle" for C-Mac and the NFL, either. DC 86, c'mon now . . .
P.S. McCaffery is not getting past the Broncos draft spot, whether he played or not; whether he got injured or not. We'll never know, but I've heard that from a relatively decent source.
Do you mean their first, second or third round picks?
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - Mick - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 03:24 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Games 6-12 this year didn't "move the needle" for C-Mac and the NFL, either. DC 86, c'mon now . . .
P.S. McCaffery is not getting past the Broncos draft spot, whether he played or not; whether he got injured or not. We'll never know, but I've heard that from a relatively decent source.
Do you mean their first, second or third round picks?
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 03:24 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Games 6-12 this year didn't "move the needle" for C-Mac and the NFL, either. DC 86, c'mon now . . .I'm not sure I understand your point, it seems that we are agreeing. McCaffrey had put enough on tape by mid-season that his NFL evaluation was probably complete, save for the combine testing and measuring. Obviously quitting mid-season would have been absurd, but my point was that Thomas took a major step forward this year in terms of visibility, to the point that every game (including the upcoming bowl) potentially increases his stock, whereas McCaffrey's stock probably could only go down - if he suffered an injury.
Re: Thomas supposedly 50-50 - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 03:24 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Games 6-12 this year didn't "move the needle" for C-Mac and the NFL, either. DC 86, c'mon now . . .I'm not sure I understand your point, it seems that we are agreeing. McCaffrey had put enough on tape by mid-season that his NFL evaluation was probably complete, save for the combine testing and measuring. Obviously quitting mid-season would have been absurd, but my point was that Thomas took a major step forward this year in terms of visibility, to the point that every game (including the upcoming bowl) potentially increases his stock, whereas McCaffrey's stock probably could only go down - if he suffered an injury.