Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Star - Rookie Power Rankings Week 2


Admiral Ackbar

Recommended Posts

So far this preseason Bleacher report has created weekly "power rankings" for all NFL rookies. This weeks they have Star ranked 22nd (out of 25), which is 14 spots lower than he was the week before.

 

This is basically what they stated about him:

 

  • They call Star a "human bulldozer" giving him a 16.4/20 on a college tape measuring scale, but then give him a 5.4/10 on strength saying " his functional strength and dominance do not show up on test numbers (i.e Combine).

 

  • The columnist goes on saying that he is a great fit for Carolina and well get an early opportunity (stuff we already should know).

 

  • Then after talking about how he has received high praise from Ron Rivera in TC, the article goes on to say that in his game one performance he had an uneventful night and was moved easily by Eben Britton, rankings were a 2.5/5.

They give Star an overall ranking of 36.4/50 for the week. I haven't really watched Star a lot this preseason mainly b/c we know what your going to get from him, which is clogging up the hole.

 

So do you guys think this is an accurate ranking of Star? Do you think his stock has fallen or risen in the Eagles game? Are you impressed with Star at this point? (even though its early)

 

Other rookie's of interest where: Desmond Trufant (24th) Manti Te'o (16th) Geno Smith (13th) EJ Manuel (4th)

 

Link: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1737596-nfl-rookie-power-rankings-for-preseason-week-2/page/28

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't for the Internet, Bleacher Report would be written in crayon.

If that is the case then much of the things written here would be formed with alphabet soup letters on a high chair tray.

 

I get that it is started as an open source publishing concept but it's not really that anymore. Of course you have to take things with a grain of salt but don't you have to do the same for what is published everywhere? It's not all terrible just because some of it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It’s wild to me that so many of you guys are threatened by the idea of an opposing team fan who is polite in 2025. He’s been posting here on and off for years, usually when our teams play each other which hasn’t been for a while. I’d maybe understand this treatment if it was a falcons or saints fan, but packers fans in general are one of the nicer fan bases as long as you aren’t another NFC north team (especially the bears).   
    • Some players excel on the big stage, while others freeze and succumb to the pressure. I’m not convinced Cam took a dive. I think he didn’t handle the stage very well. The pressure got to him and he folded. He wouldn’t be the first quarterback or player to struggle in a Super Bowl. Two HOF examples - John Elway and Jim Kelly. The 2002 MVP, Rich Gannon, threw 5 interceptions against the Bucs. Poor performances happen.  Unless of course you believe all these players threw the games they played in, but if that occurred, surely someone by now would have admitted taking a dive? 🤷‍♂️
    • It was always a matter of time with Cam’s playing style and a shorter shelf life than passers that protect themselves. I suppose Cam could have still been playing in 2028 ten years after the hit took place, but he would need to have evolved as a quarterback and become more of a passer than the dual threat maestro he was. It’s sad because it makes us think of what could have been, but I do feel it was always a matter of time until all the hits took their toll.
×
×
  • Create New...