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

    • I would write “give remmers tight end help” on a yellow sticky note and stuck it in shulas playbook the night before superbowl 50. 
    • And don’t worry about Bryce he will be great… Peyton Manning had a horrible rookie year too 😂
    • Nothing wrong with it at all until you start telling others they are bad fans or not fans. But you are the good fan because you never say negative stuff about the team.    I did many years of that type of uninformed fanning because there really was no info and coverage like there is with the internet.    I mean, I used to go to the store and get Street and Smith’s annual football issue. That was about the extent of what you could get if you didn’t live in a big city with sportswriters covering and reporting.  There was no video to look at or replay the games and if you didn’t live in the market you could only rarely see your football team play.    TI have fanned since being a kid in the early 1960s, and as late as 1995 - ‘97 I lived in Atlanta and good luck getting more than 3 or 4 games a year on TV. No radio either. No print coverage outside of an AP recap and box unless they played Atlanta.  People today that have always had the network connection don’t know.    I wasn’t very educated about the Panthers until I finally got internet. 
×
×
  • Create New...