The Tyreek Hill Thread

[CharlieKelly]

Which number is greater, WR1's who are above 6' and 200lbs or WR1's who are below 6' and 200lbs.
Because that's all I've ever said, the odds are against Hill becoming a WR1. Can he? Maybe. Will he? Maybe.
Do the statistics say it's a probability? No.

I hate this argument so much...probably just because I see it too often.

Which number is greater: right handed medical doctors or left handed medical doctors?
Well...being that only about 10% of medical doctors are left handed...if you are left handed and in medical school you are wasting your time. 90% of the time you need to be right handed, right?

My point here is, sure there are more top end "big" WRs than there are top end "small" WRs...but that doesn't mean they are more probable to succeed...at all. First, you HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BASELINE POPULATION IS. Are there more big WRs entering the league each year than small WRs? If the overall population of WRs is that of bigger size (hint- it is), then you should expect that on the elite, successful, useful, and unsuccessful levels, "big" WRs are likely to have a larger population than "small".

You can pretty much perform the same surgeries with your right hand or your left hand. But are you are better at beating press coverage if you are bigger (as bigger is also stronger, generally). Can you win 50-50 jump balls more often if your smaller? Can you run a quick slant and use your body to shield a defender to make the 1st down?

So my point is, you aren't comparing apples to apples. Use a comparison that makes sense like, everyone has eyes. But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

Lmfao I don't even know what's going on here anymore. This is so silly.

Tyreek Hill has bad eyes folks. You heard it here first.

[StableOfRBs]

I hate this argument so much...probably just because I see it too often.

Which number is greater: right handed medical doctors or left handed medical doctors?
Well...being that only about 10% of medical doctors are left handed...if you are left handed and in medical school you are wasting your time. 90% of the time you need to be right handed, right?

My point here is, sure there are more top end "big" WRs than there are top end "small" WRs...but that doesn't mean they are more probable to succeed...at all. First, you HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BASELINE POPULATION IS. Are there more big WRs entering the league each year than small WRs? If the overall population of WRs is that of bigger size (hint- it is), then you should expect that on the elite, successful, useful, and unsuccessful levels, "big" WRs are likely to have a larger population than "small".

You can pretty much perform the same surgeries with your right hand or your left hand. But are you are better at beating press coverage if you are bigger (as bigger is also stronger, generally). Can you win 50-50 jump balls more often if your smaller? Can you run a quick slant and use your body to shield a defender to make the 1st down?

So my point is, you aren't comparing apples to apples. Use a comparison that makes sense like, everyone has eyes. But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

Lmfao I don't even know what's going on here anymore. This is so silly.

Tyreek Hill has bad eyes folks. You heard it here first.

To be fair if that was true it would be more relevant than if he was left-handed.

[thebeast]

Word around KC is Reid is pissed at the front office over this; poor cap management. Make no mistake Maclin was the #1 wr in KC.

That would line up with my theory. It was a bad cap situation and losing Maclin was just an easier pill to swallow than what else they had to choose from. That doesn't mean they think Hill (or anyone else) will step up and be awesome.

Maclin wasn't even the #1 Wr when he was on the team last year. I own both Maclin and Tyreek and I'm much more excited by Tyreek.

[CharlieKelly]

You guys are idiots trying to say size difference is irrelevant for WR. Especially in the Fantasy World. But whatever, go over pay for Hill.
And keep trying to find the next Antonio Brown. I'll keep taking the Devante Parker's and have a better shot at the next Julio.

Hey big guy, no one said size was irrelevant, it's just not as huge of a factor as you think it is. Advanced metrics like reception perception specifically exist primarily to separate the good players from the bad. Without that we're only left with "HE'S 6'3, 220 SO HE'S GONNA B GUD AND THAT GUY IS SMALL SO HE GONNA B BAD!", sort of like you

It's also how we end up with league winners like TY Hilton and Doug Baldwin while you mistakenly blow your load for guys like...well like Devante Parker

[DinoDynasty]

You guys are idiots trying to say size difference is irrelevant for WR. Especially in the Fantasy World. But whatever, go over pay for Hill.
And keep trying to find the next Antonio Brown. I'll keep taking the Devante Parker's and have a better shot at the next Julio.

You own Tyler Lockett and DGB.

[Goirish374]

But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

nope.

a great number of doctors have vision worse than 20/20, requiring correction. there is no evidence of a quality of care difference between physicians who require vision correction and physicians who don't. in fact, due to extensive study and (more common since 2005) extensive screen exposure, the vision of physicians as a whole is getting worse earlier than ever before. there is absolutely no corresponding decrease in the quality of care they provide.

the incidence of corrected vision in surgeons is no better or worse than the general physician population, unlike other fields where there is an absolute causative relationship between vision worse than 20/20 and ability (Naval aviation prior to 2010 for example).

further, a great number of surgical subscpecialties are performed in such a way that stereoscopic acuity is rendered irrelevant (vascular surgery under loupes, laparoscopic surgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic and neuro surgery performed under microscopy). that's whole fields of the most vision intense surgery where differences in visual acuity between providers are rendered moot.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

nope.

a great number of doctors have vision worse than 20/20, requiring correction. there is no evidence of a quality of care difference between physicians who require vision correction and physicians who don't. in fact, due to extensive study and (more common since 2005) extensive screen exposure, the vision of physicians as a whole is getting worse earlier than ever before. there is absolutely no corresponding decrease in the quality of care they provide.

the incidence of corrected vision in surgeons is no better or worse than the general physician population, unlike other fields where there is an absolute causative relationship between vision worse than 20/20 and ability (Naval aviation prior to 2010 for example).

further, a great number of surgical subscpecialties are performed in such a way that stereoscopic acuity is rendered irrelevant (vascular surgery under loupes, laparoscopic surgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic and neuro surgery performed under microscopy). that's whole fields of the most vision intense surgery where differences in visual acuity between providers are rendered moot.

How did we get here? lol

[CharlieKelly]

But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

nope.

a great number of doctors have vision worse than 20/20, requiring correction. there is no evidence of a quality of care difference between physicians who require vision correction and physicians who don't. in fact, due to extensive study and (more common since 2005) extensive screen exposure, the vision of physicians as a whole is getting worse earlier than ever before. there is absolutely no corresponding decrease in the quality of care they provide.

the incidence of corrected vision in surgeons is no better or worse than the general physician population, unlike other fields where there is an absolute causative relationship between vision worse than 20/20 and ability (Naval aviation prior to 2010 for example).

further, a great number of surgical subscpecialties are performed in such a way that stereoscopic acuity is rendered irrelevant (vascular surgery under loupes, laparoscopic surgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic and neuro surgery performed under microscopy). that's whole fields of the most vision intense surgery where differences in visual acuity between providers are rendered moot.

Where...where am I again?

[StableOfRBs]

But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

nope.

a great number of doctors have vision worse than 20/20, requiring correction. there is no evidence of a quality of care difference between physicians who require vision correction and physicians who don't. in fact, due to extensive study and (more common since 2005) extensive screen exposure, the vision of physicians as a whole is getting worse earlier than ever before. there is absolutely no corresponding decrease in the quality of care they provide.

the incidence of corrected vision in surgeons is no better or worse than the general physician population, unlike other fields where there is an absolute causative relationship between vision worse than 20/20 and ability (Naval aviation prior to 2010 for example).

further, a great number of surgical subscpecialties are performed in such a way that stereoscopic acuity is rendered irrelevant (vascular surgery under loupes, laparoscopic surgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic and neuro surgery performed under microscopy). that's whole fields of the most vision intense surgery where differences in visual acuity between providers are rendered moot.

To be fair it was a flawed comparison to begin with since poor vision is correctable and a height difference of more than an inch or so is not, unless you're expecting Tyreek to have some weird unnecessary surgery to lengthen his shin bones or to walk around with lifts in his shoes

[Valhalla]

But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

nope.

a great number of doctors have vision worse than 20/20, requiring correction. there is no evidence of a quality of care difference between physicians who require vision correction and physicians who don't. in fact, due to extensive study and (more common since 2005) extensive screen exposure, the vision of physicians as a whole is getting worse earlier than ever before. there is absolutely no corresponding decrease in the quality of care they provide.

the incidence of corrected vision in surgeons is no better or worse than the general physician population, unlike other fields where there is an absolute causative relationship between vision worse than 20/20 and ability (Naval aviation prior to 2010 for example).

further, a great number of surgical subscpecialties are performed in such a way that stereoscopic acuity is rendered irrelevant (vascular surgery under loupes, laparoscopic surgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic and neuro surgery performed under microscopy). that's whole fields of the most vision intense surgery where differences in visual acuity between providers are rendered moot.

[Valhalla]

Which number is greater, WR1's who are above 6' and 200lbs or WR1's who are below 6' and 200lbs.
Because that's all I've ever said, the odds are against Hill becoming a WR1. Can he? Maybe. Will he? Maybe.
Do the statistics say it's a probability? No.

I hate this argument so much...probably just because I see it too often.

Which number is greater: right handed medical doctors or left handed medical doctors?
Well...being that only about 10% of medical doctors are left handed...if you are left handed and in medical school you are wasting your time. 90% of the time you need to be right handed, right?

My point here is, sure there are more top end "big" WRs than there are top end "small" WRs...but that doesn't mean they are more probable to succeed...at all. First, you HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BASELINE POPULATION IS. Are there more big WRs entering the league each year than small WRs? If the overall population of WRs is that of bigger size (hint- it is), then you should expect that on the elite, successful, useful, and unsuccessful levels, "big" WRs are likely to have a larger population than "small".

You can pretty much perform the same surgeries with your right hand or your left hand. But are you are better at beating press coverage if you are bigger (as bigger is also stronger, generally). Can you win 50-50 jump balls more often if your smaller? Can you run a quick slant and use your body to shield a defender to make the 1st down?

So my point is, you aren't comparing apples to apples. Use a comparison that makes sense like, everyone has eyes. But some potential doctors can see better, giving them an advantage. Which ones have the better odds to be successful? You wouldn't sit there and tell me they all have the same chance at becoming the best doctors because they all have eyes no matter how good or bad they see. Doctor's eye quality would be more equivalent to WR height/size difference than right vs left hand.

You missed my point...
Also, you "aren't comparing apples to apples." Here's the issue. Taller WRs have an advantage at boxing guys out and winning jump balls, sure...advantage: tall guys. Taller WRs seem to have a bias of getting first and repetitive chances to succeed that smaller guys don't get...advantage: tall guys. This isn't just in the NFL, but in college and even in high school level. Bigger athletes will always be pushed by and afforded more opportunity than smaller guys.
If you agree with the above (I find it hard not to), then you must realize that, for a small guy to be finding success at an NFL level, he must be out-performing all those tall WRs he has competed against through his career in some other crucial attributes. He MUST be faster, shiftier, better at avoiding tackles, have better hands, quicker reflexes/body control, SOMETHING that makes him more productive than all those tall WRs around him. If a small guy finds high success in the NFL, that speaks volumes about some combination of attributes he is elite in, because if he weren't, some tall guy would get the benefit of bias over him. I'd actually argue that the SMALLER hyped WRs are probably safer than the TALLER ones, due to this uphill battle over bias they had to fight. They don't get some hype just for being big. They get hype DESPITE their size.

[StableOfRBs]

Guy: "You missed my point."
Other Guy: "No, you missed MY point."
Guy: "By saying I missed your point, you're showing that you've missed my point."
Other Guy: "By missing your point I reveal that I've missed my own point all along."

^Like half of this thread

[GridironGuerilla]

[Goirish374]

To be fair it was a flawed comparison to begin with since poor vision is correctable and a height difference of more than an inch or so is not, unless you're expecting Tyreek to have some weird unnecessary surgery to lengthen his shin bones or to walk around with lifts in his shoes

you're not wrong.

this is just kind of how JTLoh rolls.

[smallxl]

Bottom line is if you own Hill you are excited about the prospects of:
A- keeping him because he does have tremendous upside or
B - trading him at a nice price.
I'll leave all the arguing to everyone else!!