I’m sure there were people on both sides that liked and disliked Akers... but his haters were definitely skewed towards film grinders... I mean, what the hell were analytics people complaining about? True freshman breakout, focal point of the offense, #1 highschool recruit, size/speed specimen, 3 down skillsets, 2nd round draft capital, and prototypical size...AussieMate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:41 pmThis is very interesting because generally the arguments I remember reading were from film grinders saying "did you watch his games" to people complaining about his production. So it may not have been either side arguing fully against him but the middle ground of people who box score watch, the "film grinders" were saying that his o-line was terrible and thats why his box score looked bad which is a defence not a knock. The raw argument I thought was legitimate but wasn't seen as a knock on him more that he had higher potential then shown if you were willing to wait half a season for him to adjust etc.
I know people on here love the whole analytics vs film grinder debate and enjoy vilifying either side as much as they can but this just seems like people picking one or two statements by individuals and equating them to the whole forum.
I do vaguely remember the ypc argument, but I doubt anyone that tried to argue such a low sample size dataset was an impactful and predictive metric were actually data driven drafters