Thread: Kyler Murray

Originally Posted by underrated29

When I played college hockey I was a solid 190. I played against guys that were 220 to 230. I got concussed once. Hell be fine.

DeSean Jackson is like 160lbs. Darren sproles is smaller. Phil lindsay is smaller. His weight and height dont matter.

When I was a horse jockey I weighed 107 and the mud and manure hitting me didn’t affect me.

Originally Posted by underrated29

When I played college hockey I was a solid 190. I played against guys that were 220 to 230. I got concussed once. Hell be fine.

DeSean Jackson is like 160lbs. Darren sproles is smaller. Phil lindsay is smaller. His weight and height dont matter.

It's the size of the fite in da dawg!

Originally Posted by BeefStew25

When I was a horse jockey I weighed 107 and the mud and manure hitting me didn’t affect me.

Omg

What's his hand size and 40 time

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

What's his hand size and 40 time

Last I remember is was 16 reps and a 1.98 GAA. Not great, really, but his TOVA was off the chart--I mean nano-twitch--and he remembers his mom's birthday.

Originally Posted by BeefStew25

When I was a horse jockey I weighed 107 and the mud and manure hitting me didn’t affect me.

And look at you now. The teflon man!

Let's be honest here - does 2-3" in height really matter all that much? Certainly didn't seem to affect him in college at all.

I like the kid.

Unless your willing to be objective then no size doesn't matter and every player will be the next Russell Wilson or sproles or DJax or Lindsay....these type of smaller players are guaranteed they grow on trees....its the norm right.....

Originally Posted by Elevation inc

Unless your willing to be objective then no size doesn't matter and every player will be the next Russell Wilson or sproles or DJax or Lindsay....these type of smaller players are guaranteed they grow on trees....its the norm right.....

On-field talent trumps size.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Let's be honest here - does 2-3" in height really matter all that much? Certainly didn't seem to affect him in college at all.

I like the kid.

Originally Posted by Elevation inc

Unless your willing to be objective then no size doesn't matter and every player will be the next Russell Wilson or sproles or DJax or Lindsay....these type of smaller players are guaranteed they grow on trees....its the norm right.....

The shortest OU lineman this season is 6'3". Bobby Evans and Dru Samia were both 6'5".

http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArti...CLID=211768540


All things being equal, a shorter QB can be a problem, but it seems Murray has the talent to offset being a couple inches shorter than ideal.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

On-field talent trumps size.

agreed in some ways, but the avg. small player with elite skills in college doesn't often end up being the same player in the pros because partially due to size. This isn't semantics its been proven by how few small players actually get it done at the NFL level....its a anomaly not the norm.

I like Murray and yes he had a great season, but it also was 1 year in system designed to create gaudy stats in space with 4 and 5 wide sets in a conference that doesn't play defense.....when vision is in play against NFL defenses 3-4 inches of view is a big difference and its why its not normal for 5 ft 9 guys to be playing Qb effectively in fact Wilson is the exception not the norm and now all the sudden just because we need a QB the next Russell Wilson is there for us....NFL history doesn't back that up at all....

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

The shortest OU lineman this season is 6'3". Bobby Evans and Dru Samia were both 6'5".

http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArti...CLID=211768540


All things being equal, a shorter QB can be a problem, but it seems Murray has the talent to offset being a couple inches shorter than ideal.

A shorter QB is a problem if you look at the history of the NFL....there are absolutely exceptions and Murray could be one of those but to get knocked because I have concerns about his size is dumb, when history has shown my concern to be extremely valid....Many scouts that get paid money to do this and are excellent at their job wonder about his size for a reason....This isn't a foreign concept and now all the sudden cause there are a few players in the pros That do well being small over the decades of NFL history, Murray is a lock simply cause we need a Qb....its bad logic. He has every bit a chance to do well.....but NFL history is not even close to being on his side.....There are plenty of athletes in college that dominate like Murray did but cant make it in the pros due to size, to discredit that simply cause we need a Qb right now is not smart evaluating....

Originally Posted by Elevation inc

A shorter QB is a problem if you look at the history of the NFL....there are absolutely exceptions and Murray could be one of those but to get knocked because I have concerns about his size is dumb, when history has shown my concern to be extremely valid....Many scouts that get paid money to do this and are excellent at their job wonder about his size for a reason....This isn't a foreign concept and now all the sudden cause there are a few players in the pros That do well being small over the decades of NFL history, Murray is a lock simply cause we need a Qb....its bad logic. He has every bit a chance to do well.....but NFL history is not even close to being on his side.....There are plenty of athletes in college that dominate like Murray did but cant make it in the pros due to size, to discredit that simply cause we need a Qb right now is not smart evaluating....

I'm not saying he's a lock.

I'm also not saying it's not a valid concern. All things being equal, I'd rather he was 6'3".

But I do question whether or not height is as important now as it used to be (or if it ever was really that important, see also: Doug Flutie). I have to wonder whether or not height is really important, or if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Short QB's don't have success in the NFL", so nobody drafts short QB's, and hence, there never are any successful short QBs in the NFL.

I'm kind of reminded of the scene in Moneyball when the "professional scout" didn't like a prospect because he had an ugly girlfriend, and that showed a lack of confidence. . .

Is height really a metric borne out in the data? Or is there too small a sample size of short QB's to really draw any conclusions?

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

I'm not saying he's a lock.

I'm also not saying it's not a valid concern. All things being equal, I'd rather he was 6'3".

But I do question whether or not height is as important now as it used to be (or if it ever was really that important, see also: Doug Flutie). I have to wonder whether or not height is really important, or if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Short QB's don't have success in the NFL", so nobody drafts short QB's, and hence, there never are any successful short QBs in the NFL.

I'm kind of reminded of the scene in Moneyball when the "professional scout" didn't like a prospect because he had an ugly girlfriend, and that showed a lack of confidence. . .

Is height really a metric borne out in the data? Or is there too small a sample size of short QB's to really draw any conclusions?

I'm glad I didn't post what I was going to, because you stated my thoughts so much more eloquently than I would have.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I'm glad I didn't post what I was going to, because you stated my thoughts so much more eloquently than I would have.

you could have posted what you want, I would have been fine lol