Could Devin McCourty lose his starting job?

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Borg agrees the 3rd person reference is an act of megalamania. Borg out.

You agree with him.

Who knew.

 

[BradyManny]

I'd say that his ability to evaluate play is basically the same as everyone else. There's nobody evaluating play that stands out. There are many people here who's reports on training camp play have proven to be at least as accurate as any local reporters.

Sure - there are some posters at that level, and some over on patriotsplanet as well. But I think higher of Bedard's weekly grades than you do, I thought those separated him from the pack last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure - there are some posters at that level, and some over on patriotsplanet as well. But I think higher of Bedard's weekly grades than you do, I thought those separated him from the pack last year.

That's obvious. I just think you're giving him far too much credit. I went to one day of camp this offseason, and that's all it took for me to see that Gallery was looking old and having to gear up for his snaps. How did Bedard miss that when he had so many more days to observe? I'm certainly not as experienced in that sort of analysis as others here, so I wouldn't put myself among those posters that you're calling "at that level".

I'm not saying that it's inexcusable to have missed it. I'm saying that if he's as good as you seem to be crediting him for, there's no way he'd not have seen it.

 

[BradyManny]

That's obvious. I just think you're giving him far too much credit. I went to one day of camp this offseason, and that's all it took for me to see that Gallery was looking old and having to gear up for his snaps. How did Bedard miss that when he had so many more days to observe? I'm certainly not as experienced in that sort of analysis as others here, so I wouldn't put myself among those posters that you're calling "at that level".

I'm not saying that it's inexcusable to have missed it. I'm saying that if he's as good as you seem to be crediting him for, there's no way he'd not have seen it.

Fair enough.

And we probably also have to throw out the caveat that the media guys truly have the worst seat in the house at camp. For huge chunks of practice, they couldn't be any farther from the action. You'll see them herded into a tent a couple hundred yards from anything relevant staring through binoculars. The fans have a better vantage point for an awful lot of the practice work, IMO.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, I admit it's an assumption.

Then why is it in the discussion?

If he says McCourty is struggling in camp, then I believe him that he is struggling. His ability to evaluate play is among the best of the local guys.

He didn't even say that. He said he has been average and had a few bad plays. Curran disagrees.

Is he going to be right about Moore surpassing him? Probably not. Do I care? Not really.

Well that is the whole point here. You were defending his analysis. His analysis is I am reporting how McCourty played, and I think he may lose his job.
If you don't care whether that is right what are you discussing?

In the case of Mayock, he isn't in the business of prognostication. He evaluates players based on the tape he watches. Whether or not that player turns into a good pro is not his responsibility, nor can his analysis be tied to it.

Wait. You say he is good at evaluating players, but whether he is right or wrong in those evaluations is irrelevant?
What would make him good? Using pretty words to be wrong?

There's too many variables involved. You can't hold a draftnik responsible for what an athlete does in a given system, coached by certain coaches, surrounded by 52 other players. We hardly even hold the coaches responsible for it. I

And again that isnt the discussion. In this discussion, moving the discussion from a reporter taking what he sees and projecting the results to a draft analysis, the standard is clear. Everyone is wrong sometimes is a silly conclusion. Is he wrong more than most? If so, he is a poor evaluator. Your argument is if everyone misses at least 20% of the time, missing 90% still makes you a good evaluator because everyone else missed some.
My point all along is that when Bedard has tried to tellus what he thinks the meaning of what he sees at practice is, his track record is weak.

Is Bill Belichick an idiot because Shawn Crable turned out to be incapable of doing anything at a pro level? Was Bill a fool for thinking Chad Jackson would be an elite NFL WR? Was Bill stupid for thinking Darius Butler projected as a #1 corner? No, no, no. He made an evaluation based on what he had seen. In each of these specific cases, the player themselves played a large role in making sure that Belichick's prediction of success for each did not come to pass. It doesn't mean Bill's evaluation was worthless.

It made it poor in those cases. But it is correct more often than others, which is not the case with Bedard regarding the issues we are discussing.
You are trying to say the student that got a 40 on a test is no worse than the student who got a 90 because of the 10% of the questions the better student missed.
Surely you see the folly in that argument.


In

the case of Bedard, I don't know if his speculation will be right - and I never even weighed in on this thread, merely came in here to defend him since his track record of providing football analysis has been good.

As I said from the beginning, his track record of providing football information (reporting) has been good. His analysis (or conclusion drawn from what he reports) has not.
You keep addressing B by repeating A.

Whether that gives him predictive prowess, I don't know, or care. All these predictions mean little. It's part of their job description, but I guess I don't take it that part too seriously.

Then you agree that he reported about a player, and the title of this thread, and his assessment of what will result is useless? That was my point all along.

 

[Ring 6]

One good thing about you is that you have zero problem doubling down on obtuse.

Very instructive for other members.

Can Mayock be good and wrong often? Does someone suck as a hitter because the batting average is .350? They don't hit .650 afterall.

Bedard is in realm for his opinions. It should be noted. However, other respected opinions are at odds with it. They should be noted.

What's happening here is one opinion gets elevated because certain marginal elements are hearing what they think they know and want to hear.

Bedard isn't the problem. People listening to one opinion (that's at odds with other opinions) and defaulting it as fact is the problem.

Week One will roll around and the opponent will complete a few passes down 4 TD's and the pointy hat wearer types will be out in force...most likely siting Bedard's camp reports as evidence.

Speaking of obtuse.
Are you seriously telling me that your position is that since all draft analysts are wrong some times that the frequency of being wrong is irrelevant?

 

[Deus Irae]

Fair enough.

And we probably also have to throw out the caveat that the media guys truly have the worst seat in the house at camp. For huge chunks of practice, they couldn't be any farther from the action. You'll see them herded into a tent a couple hundred yards from anything relevant staring through binoculars. The fans have a better vantage point for an awful lot of the practice work, IMO.

Sure, and you should go with those you feel comfortable with, just as I should do the same. I don't know that there's really any way for this to be definitive for either of us, after all, short of charting every opinion laid out by the local media and the non-media camp observers. Since we have a different impression of Bedard's accuracy level, there's a gap there that can't be bridged until one, or both, of us has the impression changed.

It's sort of like our 3-4 LB discussion. Even if one of us is definitely right, there's really no way to know it for sure, because there will always be a "but what if...?" available to be asked.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's WAY too soon to speculate on him losing his starting job. However, his worst problem in 2011 was his inability, or unwillingness, to turn his head around in press coverage. It was almost as if he was afraid to do so because he throught he'd lose his man. Nobody should ever put 100% of their beliefs around one report from a media member, however any report that he still isn't turning his head around has to garner your attention, as the team is apparently moving more and more away from the zone.

 

[Rob0729]

It's WAY too soon to speculate on him losing his starting job. However, his worst problem in 2011 was his inability, or unwillingness, to turn his head around in press coverage. It was almost as if he was afraid to do so because he throught he'd lose his man. Nobody should ever put 100% of their beliefs around one report from a media member, however any report that he still isn't turning his head around has to garner your attention, as the team is apparently moving more and more away from the zone.

IDK, the only comment about press coverage specifically I have seen has been positive by Tom Curran. Many of the other comments about his struggling could be in press coverage, but I haven't seen any media member mention it specifically.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, if McCourty is struggling as some reports say (although others have said otherwise), one thing that might happen before McCourty loses his starting job is Dowling either moving to LCB or shadow the #1 WR like a Revis does. Dowling has gotten a lot of positive press this training camp and could end up being the Pats' best CB.

One thing we can take away from the coverage of McCourty is that a lot of the media members see very different things when watching training camp. Bedard has him struggling and Curran has him being awesome in press coverage. Both can't be right, but both can be a little right and a little wrong.

 

[Avenger]

BTW, if McCourty is struggling as some reports say (although others have said otherwise), one thing that might happen before McCourty loses his starting job is Dowling either moving to LCB or shadow the #1 WR like a Revis does. Dowling has gotten a lot of positive press this training camp and could end up being the Pats' best CB.

One thing we can take away from the coverage of McCourty is that a lot of the media members see very different things when watching training camp. Bedard has him struggling and Curran has him being awesome in press coverage. Both can't be right, but both can be a little right and a little wrong.

Last year I said Dowling will be our best CB, McCourty should improve by not playing against the #1 WR, so that is a bonus.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Here is what Reiss wrote about McCourty and the Safety position in one of his more recent blog entries:

One of the big offseason storylines was whether Devin McCourty would line up at safety or cornerback. He's been exclusively at cornerback in training camp, and assuming there are no injuries, he looks primed to stay there. This reinforces the thought that McCourty's time at safety in 2011 was more a result of a personnel shortage than a real desire to move him there. "When you play in New England, you have to be ready for anything," McCourty explained.

New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Speaking of obtuse.
Are you seriously telling me that your position is that since all draft analysts are wrong some times that the frequency of being wrong is irrelevant?

The people will always believe the big lie before they will believe the little lie"- Joseph Goebbels.

Why is this true?

Don't worry you are not being that obtuse.

The Patriots have several media sources.

If all agree on a certain point-...say...Brady's wife is hot....it's reasonable to assume Brady has a hot wife without seeing Brady's wife.

If respected Patriot women evaluator Bill Smith says Brady's wife is not that hot, you just don't assume he's correct but should still consider what he opines.

If more respected Patriot women evaluator Bob Jones says just the opposite a conflict of opinion arises. The initial nod should be with Bob. However, Bill may also be right.

Investigate fully for conclusion.


Many think McCourty sucks. People want to be right.

If you think you know something and you want to be right a bias is inevitable. That's why people will believe what they want to hear.

That's how one guy's opinion morphed into McCourty losing his job.

What this thread really should have been is a discussion of one guy's opinion and why he thinks it.

Bedard MAY be correct but one should know WHY he thinks it and WHY is at odds with so many other reports.

Bedard should be respected. Some opinions should be respected more. However, if the "respected" opinion is at odds with the "more respected" opinion; that doesn't just mean the "respected" opinion should be discarded.

Again, the problem isn't Bedard, it's the abject ease that so many are willing to make one opinion gospel and then extrapolate.

 

[BradyManny]

Then why is it in the discussion?

Fair enough.

He didn't even say that. He said he has been average and had a few bad plays. Curran disagrees.

Again, no argument here.

Well that is the whole point here. You were defending his analysis. His analysis is I am reporting how McCourty played, and I think he may lose his job.
If you don't care whether that is right what are you discussing?

Simply discussing his right to voice said opinion - for right or wrong, it's part of his job description. I think we can agree that the prognostication-heavy sports reporting world is a little regrettable, it's gotten over the top - but if we're listing the ills of today's society, I think we'd both agree it's not going to make the cut.

Wait. You say he is good at evaluating players, but whether he is right or wrong in those evaluations is irrelevant?
What would make him good? Using pretty words to be wrong?

You are trying to say the student that got a 40 on a test is no worse than the student who got a 90 because of the 10% of the questions the better student missed.
Surely you see the folly in that argument.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear, but that is not my argument at all. This is not a test. At least not a fair one. I'll use Mayock since it's a more clear example.

When it comes to player evaluation, a guy like Mayock can really only be graded on the accuracy of his analysis of a given college career. He can look at tape of Chad Jackson and see maybe that Jackson has good agility, gets in and out breaks well, has high-end hands, can run the whole route tree. That evaluation could be correct whether or not Jackson busts at the pro level.

Mayock will be forced - by the nature of his business - to give a projection of what that player will look like at the Pros, but he is doing so without a boatload of information, information that the GM of the team selecting him will know. What team is he going to? What players is he playing behind? Who are his coaches, what are their track records? What's the success of the team? What city will he live in? Will he get into trouble there? Will he stay focused on football? Etc., etc.

Mike Mayock is asked to make a general prediction of how Player A will fare at the NFL level - NFLN asks him to provide this projection. But he does this not knowing which of the 32 teams he will end up with, which is probably one of the bigger factors in evaluating if that player will be successful at an NFL level.

In the case of Chad Jackson, Mayock (and I don't even know what he thinks of Chad, but we know Belichick thought these things) might've been right in his assessment. But when Jackson got to a more complicated offense, got behind more experienced players, couldn't stay focused on football and couldn't stay healthy - his career completely derailed. Maybe Chad Jackson would've been a decent NFL pro if he starts out in some less competitive team with a simple NFL offense with a QB that demands little.

It's why the best barometer for how good a draftnik is how many of his top 100 players go in the top 100 - we know his pre-draft evaluations were valid and accurate then. How those 100 players fare in the NFL falls on the shoulders of the players themselves, the coaching staff and the FO that selected them. Not some draftnik who only has a portion of the information available to him at the time of evaluation.

In the case of Bedard - he is also making predictions based on far less information than the coaching staff. Bedard doesn't know what happens in team meetings, he can't know what Belichick thinks of his captain, or the up and coming youngsters in Dowling and Moore for that matter. All he has is what happens on the practice field - and that is just one piece of information.

But just because it makes his conjecture potentially faulty doesn't mean he can't make that conjecture. The Boston Globe is paying him to do it, after all.

Then you agree that he reported about a player, and the title of this thread, and his assessment of what will result is useless? That was my point all along.

Useless maybe, but not regrettable. It started all this discussion, after all. Which was his purpose. Had he not made such comments, had he been less bold as maybe Reiss would, it never would've been posted here, we never would've commented on it, and we all would've gone about our business. Maybe that's more regrettable.

 

[Ring 6]

Fair enough.




Again, no argument here.




Simply discussing his right to voice said opinion - for right or wrong, it's part of his job description. I think we can agree that the prognostication-heavy sports reporting world is a little regrettable, it's gotten over the top - but if we're listing the ills of today's society, I think we'd both agree it's not going to make the cut.




Perhaps I haven't made myself clear, but that is not my argument at all. This is not a test. At least not a fair one. I'll use Mayock since it's a more clear example.

When it comes to player evaluation, a guy like Mayock can really only be graded on the accuracy of his analysis of a given college career. He can look at tape of Chad Jackson and see maybe that Jackson has good agility, gets in and out breaks well, has high-end hands, can run the whole route tree. That evaluation could be correct whether or not Jackson busts at the pro level.

Mayock will be forced - by the nature of his business - to give a projection of what that player will look like at the Pros, but he is doing so without a boatload of information, information that the GM of the team selecting him will know. What team is he going to? What players is he playing behind? Who are his coaches, what are their track records? What's the success of the team? What city will he live in? Will he get into trouble there? Will he stay focused on football? Etc., etc.

Mike Mayock is asked to make a general prediction of how Player A will fare at the NFL level - NFLN asks him to provide this projection. But he does this not knowing which of the 32 teams he will end up with, which is probably one of the bigger factors in evaluating if that player will be successful at an NFL level.

In the case of Chad Jackson, Mayock (and I don't even know what he thinks of Chad, but we know Belichick thought these things) might've been right in his assessment. But when Jackson got to a more complicated offense, got behind more experienced players, couldn't stay focused on football and couldn't stay healthy - his career completely derailed. Maybe Chad Jackson would've been a decent NFL pro if he starts out in some less competitive team with a simple NFL offense with a QB that demands little.

It's why the best barometer for how good a draftnik is how many of his top 100 players go in the top 100 - we know his pre-draft evaluations were valid and accurate then. How those 100 players fare in the NFL falls on the shoulders of the players themselves, the coaching staff and the FO that selected them. Not some draftnik who only has a portion of the information available to him at the time of evaluation.

In the case of Bedard - he is also making predictions based on far less information than the coaching staff. Bedard doesn't know what happens in team meetings, he can't know what Belichick thinks of his captain, or the up and coming youngsters in Dowling and Moore for that matter. All he has is what happens on the practice field - and that is just one piece of information.

But just because it makes his conjecture potentially faulty doesn't mean he can't make that conjecture. The Boston Globe is paying him to do it, after all.



Useless maybe, but not regrettable. It started all this discussion, after all. Which was his purpose. Had he not made such comments, had he been less bold as maybe Reiss would, it never would've been posted here, we never would've commented on it, and we all would've gone about our business. Maybe that's more regrettable.

Perhaps yopu should reread my oringal comments that you appear to have neglected in your numerous posts discussing them.

 

[Ring 6]

The people will always believe the big lie before they will believe the little lie"- Joseph Goebbels.

Why is this true?

Don't worry you are not being that obtuse.

The Patriots have several media sources.

If all agree on a certain point-...say...Brady's wife is hot....it's reasonable to assume Brady has a hot wife without seeing Brady's wife.

If respected Patriot women evaluator Bill Smith says Brady's wife is not that hot, you just don't assume he's correct but should still consider what he opines.

If more respected Patriot women evaluator Bob Jones says just the opposite a conflict of opinion arises. The initial nod should be with Bob. However, Bill may also be right.

Investigate fully for conclusion.


Many think McCourty sucks. People want to be right.

If you think you know something and you want to be right a bias is inevitable. That's why people will believe what they want to hear.

That's how one guy's opinion morphed into McCourty losing his job.

What this thread really should have been is a discussion of one guy's opinion and why he thinks it.

Bedard MAY be correct but one should know WHY he thinks it and WHY is at odds with so many other reports.

Bedard should be respected. Some opinions should be respected more. However, if the "respected" opinion is at odds with the "more respected" opinion; that doesn't just mean the "respected" opinion should be discarded.

Again, the problem isn't Bedard, it's the abject ease that so many are willing to make one opinion gospel and then extrapolate.

You also should read my original comment, because your argument has been about something entirely different.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

You also should read my original comment, because your argument has been about something entirely different.

Correct

Bedard should be respected.

Kirwan should be respected more.

If Kirwan says yes and Bedard says no, Kirwan should get the initial nod.

However, Bedard's "no" should be considered and evaluated because he deserves respect.

What you have been saying is what I have argued for. Just don't take what Bedard says at face value as gospel simply because he's telling you what you think you know.

Interesting what elements got so defensive with your rather benign points.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct

Bedard should be respected.

Kirwan should be respected more.

If Kirwan says yes and Bedard says no, Kirwan should get the initial nod.

However, Bedard's "no" should be considered and evaluated because he deserves respect.

What you have been saying is what I have argued for. Just don't take what Bedard says at face value as gospel simply because he's telling you what you think you know.

Interesting what elements got so defensive with your rather benign points.

I really am having a hard time deciphering what you are trying to say.