Tyler boyd

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-06-2016, 04:29 PM)Stormborn Wrote: It's always funny how those 40 times magically decrease at pro days compared to the combine 40s.

Boyd plays closer to his 4.5 time than Jones's 4.4 time anyways.

That is a completely subjective assessment combined with conformational bias. Nothing scientific about it.

I have a method to tie my shoe, but no one would confuse it with science.

I believe Keenan Allen had a first round grade until he tested positive for Mary Jane.

What was Anquan Boldin's 40 time and draft projection?

[Shake n Blake]

I do believe there is a "science" to selecting the best players. Otherwise, why do 1st and 2nd round players have a much higher success rate than 6th and 7th rounders?

It's not all about luck.

That said, just like with science, there can be flaws, mistakes and theories that don't rely completely on facts.

[bengalsturntup5532]

Total different players dude,how was sanu athletic,he was more of a strong runner when he got the ball that's what he looked to me was strong. Sanu didn't have the route running,hands or catch radius of boyd.speed?yeah maybe the same speed.not as big as Sanu muscle wise, ok probably true. But you're making boyd sound like shit.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-08-2016, 02:15 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I do believe there is a "science" to selecting the best players. Otherwise, why do 1st and 2nd round players have a much higher success rate than 6th and 7th rounders?

It's not all about luck.

That said, just like with science, there can be flaws, mistakes and theories that don't rely completely on facts.

Scientific theories are based upon facts. That's why they are theories, e.g. germ theory (disease is caused by germs, not evil spirits.) Not to be confused with the layman's use of theory as in something which isn't proven. That's literally the opposite of what a scientific theory is.

[Psycholomonkey]

(05-06-2016, 07:53 PM)3wt Wrote: What I like about this guy is that he makes a lot of contested catches - his hands seem very reliable.  If you're not going to get separation you better come down with the ball - and from the little I've seen (highlights I'll grant you) he just seems to.

Can't wait to see him play

Totally agree with this. When you see him get facemasked with no flag, then make the catch, you know how he will do against the steelers.  We will be held, interfered with, and facemasked without penalty, so you've got to play through it.  

[grampahol]

You mean they don't pick them with a ouija board? I'll be darned.. It's certainly not a proven science or no NFL player would ever fail to live up to expectations. They use some scientic elements , but picking players is not a science of itself. I'm always amazed how people think there's some secret formula to success.

[jeremydc]

(05-09-2016, 03:27 AM)Psycholomonkey Wrote: Totally agree with this. When you see him get facemasked with no flag, then make the catch, you know how he will do against the steelers.  We will be held, interfered with, and facemasked without penalty, so you've got to play through it.  

Should be reliable in the slot on third down.

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-06-2016, 02:03 PM)Stormborn Wrote: Simply put, he's a smaller and less athletic Sanu (faster 40 doesn't equate better athlete). He's smoother in his routes and seems to have softer hands, but both have the same problem of getting separation. 

Sanu and Keenan Allen are two very accurate ceilings for him, and both were 3rd round players themselves. Hence why others and I thought the pick was a reach. 

As far as the offense not skipping a beat, we've no one outside of maybe Core who can replicate Jones's role, so, not sure about that.

It would be ironic if Boyd (2nd rounder) replaced Sanu (3rd rounder) and Core (5th rounder) replaced MLJ (5th rounder) and, again, the later round draft pick outperforms the earlier one.

I like Core a lot, but I really, really liked MLJ.  Not just because of his speed, but I liked that he seemed to always come out when the situation was the most important.  However, I think a great deal of his success can be attributed to the coverage focus for AJ and, last year anyway, Tyler Eifert.  

I am very excited that the Bengals, again, have young talent in the WR corps.  I can't wait to see how it plays out and I am pulling for Alford to be utilized in some packages to utilize his vertical speed.  

[Shake n Blake]

(05-09-2016, 03:08 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Scientific theories are based upon facts.  That's why they are theories, e.g. germ theory (disease is caused by germs, not evil spirits.) Not to be confused with the layman's use of theory as in something which isn't proven. That's literally the opposite of what a scientific theory is.

Right. With the theory of evolution, we came from apes...or fish...or something. 

Many scientists have changed their minds about the big bang theory: http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

Sure, the theories are based on some facts, but there is a lot of guesswork and assuming involved. Similar to drafting.

[Garrus]

(05-09-2016, 11:37 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Right. With the theory of evolution, we came from apes...or fish...or something. 

Many scientists have changed their minds about the big bang theory: http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

Sure, the theories are based on some facts, but there is a lot of guesswork and assuming involved. Similar to drafting.

We share a common ancestor with apes, we did not come from them. Common misconception from those ignorant in science.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-09-2016, 11:47 AM)Garrus Wrote: We share a common ancestor with apes, we did not come from them. Common misconception from those ignorant in science.

Right. That's what some scientists think...this week. Until someone comes out with a different theory. I'm sure you've also accepted the big bang as fact as well.

With that, I'm done. This isn't PnR.

[milksheikh]

How did this go from Tyler Boyd discussion to how evolution occurred and the big bang theory

[*ochocincos*]

(05-06-2016, 03:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did you just say there is a science? That would be false. If there was a science to it then teams wouldn't miss as badly as they do so consistently. It is educated guessing.

There's educated guessing all the time in science. It's called a hypothesis.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2016, 12:45 PM)ochocincos Wrote: There's educated guessing all the time in science. It's called a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a question.  Going back to the germ theory, a hypothesis might be, "Are infectious diseases caused by germs?"

A theory would be; infectious diseases are caused by germs.  Why is the germ theory a theory and not a hypothesis?  Because the overwhelming mountain of evidence collected over hundreds of years by millions of researchers which has been reproduced by other researchers indicates that infectious diseases are, in fact, caused by germs such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc.

But, you know what?  Our minds are open to other possibilities.  Just show us your data and let's see if we can reproduce your results.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2016, 11:37 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Right. With the theory of evolution, we came from apes...or fish...or something. 

Many scientists have changed their minds about the big bang theory: http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

Sure, the theories are based on some facts, but there is a lot of guesswork and assuming involved. Similar to drafting.

Evolution.  Big Bang.  Starting to notice a pattern.  Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.  Plenty of scientists believe in a God.  Like Darwin, for instance.  Although it was complicated.  He was a complicated man.  Aren't we all?

[GreenCornBengal]

(05-09-2016, 01:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A hypothesis is a question.  Going back to the germ theory, a hypothesis might be, "Are infectious diseases caused by germs?"

A theory would be; infectious diseases are caused by germs.  Why is the germ theory a theory and not a hypothesis?  Because the overwhelming mountain of evidence collected over hundreds of years by millions of researchers which has been reproduced by other researchers indicates that infectious diseases are, in fact, caused by germs such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc.

But, you know what?  Our minds are open to other possibilities.  Just show us your data and let's see if we can reproduce your results.

Defintion of hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

So no a hypthoesis is not just a question, but instead an educated guess, as the other poster originally said.

Going back to the germ theory, a hypothesis might be, "I believe that infectious diseases are caused by these things called germs."

After a hypothesis is tested many times, theories are made. Many tests show that there is a correlation between contact with germs and infectious diseases. However, no test prove that it is a fact, or show that germs cause infectious disease. Instead, a theory is made based on the correlational data suggesting that germs and infectious disease are related. It is not fact, but more a generally accepted truth.

[wolfkaosaun]

So.......about that Tyler Boyd guy....

[GreenCornBengal]

(05-09-2016, 03:18 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: So.......about that Tyler Boyd guy....  

I hypothesize he will be a pretty darn good receiver for us.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-09-2016, 03:18 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: So.......about that Tyler Boyd guy....

I hypothesize he caused the big bang

[Shake n Blake]

(05-09-2016, 03:18 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: So.......about that Tyler Boyd guy....  

I was upset when we didn't land one of the "big four" WRs, but Boyd was a nice consolation prize.

People are suggesting he'll fill the Sanu role, but I hope the coaches don't pigeonhole him like that. 

Even though I like LaFell, if Boyd looks better in camp, I hope he gets a crack at the starting gig.