I Just Watched 6 Games Worth Of Quinton Coples Snaps...

[teeray]

You know what is amazing about Coples. Supposedly he didnt even try and he still got

7.5 sacks

[MadHatter]

You know what is amazing about Coples. Supposedly he didnt even try and he still got

7.5 sacks

That is why I am ok taking him if Rivera has done his homework. Guy knows defense...has had a top defense everywhere he has coached...and had great DLines without big name players.

Coples has tremendous skill and ability. If Rivera can get the best from him he will be a great player.

I trust him on defense.

[mav1234]

Don't be like that, it is game tape. You guys act like the coaches have this special tape that shows a players attributes like you find in a video game.

...they do have "special tape." Do you think they just sit there watching gameday broadcasts to evaluate players?

[teeray]

...they do have "special tape." Do you think they just sit there watching gameday broadcasts to evaluate players?

True but the only positions that you really have to have coaches tape on is CB, S, QB, and WR. You can get enough information for all other positions with regular broadcast tape to make general observations.

Coaches tape of course is always better.

[rodeo]

Not close to the"I saw game film on Youtube and based on my observations and using up my own system have evaluated him as" type of irrefutable proof which is better of course than official stats.

He didn't present anything as irrefutable proof. He watched 6 complete games and offered his opinion on them, and was immediately met with the hypothesis that when the games he watched were uploaded to YouTube, they somehow lost their viability. It doesn't matter whether he watched the games on YouTube or a tv or Stormfront.org, judge his opinion by its content without looking for a cheap way out in attacking the video format.

I'm familiar with this argument, because this time last year I heard "Oh you think Newton is better than Gabbert because you watched some tape on YouTube? Idiot!"

[NCstoner420]

...they do have "special tape." Do you think they just sit there watching gameday broadcasts to evaluate players?

They have 22 tape, don't act like you know something the rest of us don't know. When looking at defensive linemen, normal television broadcast is good enough to see how a player reads and reacts to the run/pass.

[mav1234]

True but the only positions that you really have to have coaches tape on is CB, S, QB, and WR. You can get enough information for all other positions with regular broadcast tape to make general observations.

Coaches tape of course is always better.

General observations, yes, but the idea that youtube videos are as good as what scouts have to evaluate players is ridiculous.

[teeray]

General observations, yes, but the idea that youtube videos are as good as what scouts have to evaluate players is ridiculous.

I don't think it is that much better for O-line, D-line, and RB. Is coach's tape better?? Sure. But you can for the most part see what you need to see on both lines and in the backfield on regular broadcast tape in my opinion.

I should have included LB in my previous post as positions you need coaches tape for BTW.

[mav1234]

the thing is, youtube highlights/lowlights are pretty bad for judging a player, no matter the position. but you're right that if you watch enough games you can get an idea of a lot of o/dl play.

[Catalyst]

he talked nothing specific about containment against the run, hand placement, getting pressure and hurrying the QB. you don't even need to be able to access game tape you can find it on youtube. SCP basically went looking for Coples videos with his mind already made up.

No. No. No. No. No. No.

I went looking for Coples videos HOPING to be impressed. It looks like we're taking him and I wanted to be impressed, I wanted something to change my mind. I was looking for anything to grab hold of and come away with a good feeling about this guy. I saw nothing to change my opinion that he's a HWS guy, much like Vernon Gholston years ago, who simply isn't a good enough football player to justify taking top-10.

Someone asked this, so the games I watched were:

Virginia Tech (2011)

Miami (2011)

Missouri (2011 I think, vid doesn't say)

Tennessee (2010)

One vid with breakdowns from Clemson/FSU/N.C. State (2010)

So actually that's 7 games, not 6. I continue to not be convinced that we're actually drafting this guy. I know how big a game tape guy Hurney is so I can't fathom why we'd be THAT interested in a guy who is all height/weight/speed with average (and that's being generous) on-field ability and production.

But whatever; I'm done. If we take him I'll root for the guy all the way. Just like I did for Everette Brown. Hopefully he turns out better.

[panthers55]

He didn't present anything as irrefutable proof. He watched 6 complete games and offered his opinion on them, and was immediately met with the hypothesis that when the games he watched were uploaded to YouTube, they somehow lost their viability. It doesn't matter whether he watched the games on YouTube or a tv or Stormfront.org, judge his opinion by its content without looking for a cheap way out in attacking the video format.

I'm familiar with this argument, because this time last year I heard "Oh you think Newton is better than Gabbert because you watched some tape on YouTube? Idiot!"

First of all unless you have played the game, coached it or at had some kind of informal training, you don't know what to watch for and you likely don't know what a player is supposed to do on a particular play or scheme. So how can you evaluate what is the right thing to do when you don't know what he is supposed to do. For example if the player is in a read and react scheme then he is supposed to stand there and not penetrate but watch for where the play is going and then react. The next guy is in a penetrating 1 gap scheme and his job is to go around the edge and get into the backfield at all costs. Sometimes the DE has edge containment and other times he is going to stunt inside and engage the guard while the DT takes an outside move and has outside containment. Or when they are in an over front they are doing something slightly difference then when they are in a under front.

Sure if someone gets pancaked it is pretty obvious they didn't do their job but maybe they actually got off the ball well, used good hand technique and made a good push but was lined up against another first rounder or saw the ball go to the other side on a run and is supposed to break things off and pursue down the field.

I don't know, but the possibilities are endless. So not only is the issue that youtube TV broadcast video doesn't really isolate the individual but most people can't evaluate what they are actually seeing because they don't really know enough about schemes, specific play calling responsibilities and appropriate technique to make an informed decision. I won't say that I know any more than others but you won't see me making a thread like this for the most part either,

[PantherBrew]

^full of win.

[FirstRoundPick]

First of all unless you have played the game, coached it or at had some kind of informal training, you don't know what to watch for and you likely don't know what a player is supposed to do on a particular play or scheme. So how can you evaluate what is the right thing to do when you don't know what he is supposed to do. For example if the player is in a read and react scheme then he is supposed to stand there and not penetrate but watch for where the play is going and then react. The next guy is in a penetrating 1 gap scheme and his job is to go around the edge and get into the backfield at all costs. Sometimes the DE has edge containment and other times he is going to stunt inside and engage the guard while the DT takes an outside move and has outside containment. Or when they are in an over front they are doing something slightly difference then when they are in a under front.

Sure if someone gets pancaked it is pretty obvious they didn't do their job but maybe they actually got off the ball well, used good hand technique and made a good push but was lined up against another first rounder or saw the ball go to the other side on a run and is supposed to break things off and pursue down the field.

I don't know, but the possibilities are endless. So not only is the issue that youtube TV broadcast video doesn't really isolate the individual but most people can't evaluate what they are actually seeing because they don't really know enough about schemes, specific play calling responsibilities and appropriate technique to make an informed decision. I won't say that I know any more than others but you won't see me making a thread like this for the most part either,

So when Nick Hayden use to get pushed back six yards, we may have been wrong saying he sucked. He could have just had deep containment?

[frash.exe]

No. No. No. No. No. No.

I went looking for Coples videos HOPING to be impressed. It looks like we're taking him and I wanted to be impressed, I wanted something to change my mind. I was looking for anything to grab hold of and come away with a good feeling about this guy. I saw nothing to change my opinion that he's a HWS guy, much like Vernon Gholston years ago, who simply isn't a good enough football player to justify taking top-10.

Someone asked this, so the games I watched were:

Virginia Tech (2011)

Miami (2011)

Missouri (2011 I think, vid doesn't say)

Tennessee (2010)

One vid with breakdowns from Clemson/FSU/N.C. State (2010)

So actually that's 7 games, not 6. I continue to not be convinced that we're actually drafting this guy. I know how big a game tape guy Hurney is so I can't fathom why we'd be THAT interested in a guy who is all height/weight/speed with average (and that's being generous) on-field ability and production.

But whatever; I'm done. If we take him I'll root for the guy all the way. Just like I did for Everette Brown. Hopefully he turns out better.

i checked on the missouri game too. he got good pressure against the pass, and they had most of their success avoiding him running the ball