What We've Learned: Devin McCourty

[Patjew]

...here we go.....cueing the ayotollah in 3...2...1

Wait... I don't get it. Please explain, young Frank.

 

[BelichickFan]

So the consensus is that, indeed, McCourty does have fluid hips?

That is the consensus (google "Devin McCoutey hips") but even the initial report that questioned them wasn't an overly negative thing (I remember seeing it), it was just a minor comment that he had slight tightness in transition. I guess Deus Irae expects the absolute perfect player with no weaknesses, however small, to be available at the end of the first round.

Homerism is one thing but anti homerism gets really, really old.

 

[Ring 6]

That is the consensus (google "Devin McCoutey hips") but even the initial report that questioned them wasn't an overly negative thing (I remember seeing it), it was just a minor comment that he had slight tightness in transition. I guess Deus Irae expects the absolute perfect player with no weaknesses, however small, to be available at the end of the first round.

Homerism is one thing but anti homerism gets really, really old.

Its one thing to expect a perfect player its something else entirely to expect a player with perfect rating from every Gomer you can find on the internet.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

That is the consensus (google "Devin McCoutey hips") but even the initial report that questioned them wasn't an overly negative thing (I remember seeing it), it was just a minor comment that he had slight tightness in transition. I guess Deus Irae expects the absolute perfect player with no weaknesses, however small, to be available at the end of the first round.

Homerism is one thing but anti homerism gets really, really old.

I know I've formed opinions about new players from a single article. I suspect just about everyone does. New info can change that opinion. Heck, I'd bet a dolla that Deus has since changed his opion on McCourty's hips at this point.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's fine to list a perceived deficiency, but the lack of anything positive to say is what threw me off. What about the fact that he's supposed to be a solid tackler (for a corner anyway), or that he should add value to one or more special teams units.

You might say we don't KNOW those things are going to play out, but we don't KNOW his hips will be a problem either. It's all speculation, so at least list the good with the bad. Otherwise you're not being objective.

If you read what was being posted in the thread prior to that, you'll find that PFK was already putting the kid ahead of Butler. I was responding to that. He's got McCourty beating out Butler by the end of the year and Butler moved to the slot, yet he's jumping on me about being too quick with my comment.

The double standard for the homers still lives.....

 

[Sicilian]

If you read what was being posted in the thread prior to that, you'll find that PFK was already putting the kid ahead of Butler. I was responding to that. He's got McCourty beating out Butler by the end of the year and Butler moved to the slot, yet he's jumping on me about being too quick with my comment.

The double standard for the homers still lives.....

I don't feel that fighting an unrealistically optimistic opinion by only highlighting the negative is the right way to respond to that. It IS possible to exist in the middle, but you chose to only say what was wrong with the kid. Which, as has been shown, isn't quite the slam dunk you portrayed it to be.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't feel that fighting an unrealistically optimistic opinion by only highlighting the negative is the right way to respond to that. It IS possible to exist in the middle, but you chose to only say what was wrong with the kid. Which, as has been shown, isn't quite the slam dunk you portrayed it to be.

I don't think PFK's opinion is unrealistically optimistic. I think it's premature. His optimism may be 100% correct, and McCourty may be starting by year's end. He also could be Wheatley Part II. We just don't know yet. With PFK blowing sunshine and building up the kid in a "we've learned" thread, I responded with what I've read and seen. That's what this board is for. However, since my post wasn't shining McCourty's shoes, the usual suspects jumped all over it.

My post could have read "We've learned that McCourty is a native of the planet Krypton, and he's frequently been seen flying the skies in a caped outfit saving lives, but we still don't know if he'll make it in the NFL." and many of the same people would still be griping.

 

[Ring 6]

If you read what was being posted in the thread prior to that, you'll find that PFK was already putting the kid ahead of Butler. I was responding to that. He's got McCourty beating out Butler by the end of the year and Butler moved to the slot, yet he's jumping on me about being too quick with my comment.

The double standard for the homers still lives.....

Double standards only apply to similar comments.
Patfanken predicted what he expected of the player.
You responded with criticism of the player (and as you well know the way you wrote your post was intended as infering criticism of the pick) by stating WE KNOW he has a flaw that there are more reports saying it is a strength than the 1 that say it is a flaw.

If Patsfanken said that WE KNOW that McCourty has pro-bowl ability, he would have been criticized. If you said you doubt that McCourty has the skills to surpass Butler as a rookie, you wouldn't be criticized.

Unfortunately, you can't see anything except through glasses that absolve your mistakes as homerism.

 

[TruthSeeker]

My post could have read "We've learned that McCourty is a native of the planet Krypton, and he's frequently been seen flying the skies in a caped outfit saving lives, but we still don't know if he'll make it in the NFL." and many of the same people would still be griping.

What I've heard is a request for balance in your posts. Perhaps you heard something different. Perhaps you think you posts are typically balanced which could be why you get so many responses from those who think differently.

 

[Sicilian]

I don't think PFK's opinion is unrealistically optimistic. I think it's premature. His optimism may be 100% correct, and McCourty may be starting by year's end. He also could be Wheatley Part II. We just don't know yet. With PFK blowing sunshine and building up the kid in a "we've learned" thread, I responded with what I've read and seen. That's what this board is for. However, since my post wasn't shining McCourty's shoes, the usual suspects jumped all over it.

My post could have read "We've learned that McCourty is a native of the planet Krypton, and he's frequently been seen flying the skies in a caped outfit saving lives, but we still don't know if he'll make it in the NFL." and many of the same people would still be griping.

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that (assuming we're replacing the superman reference with a real strength). It shows both sides and it's balanced.

Essentially what you've implied by stating (para.) "We know where he was drafted and this is a weakness he'll need to improve" is the following: It is possible for a perceived strength to fail in the NFL, thus we can't list it as something we know, yet it is impossible for a perceived weakness to be corrected at the NFL level, thus the weakness can be stated as fact and the strength cannot.

I disagree with that double standard.

 

[Deus Irae]

Double standards only apply to similar comments.
Patfanken predicted what he expected of the player.
You responded with criticism of the player (and as you well know the way you wrote your post was intended as infering criticism of the pick) by stating WE KNOW he has a flaw that there are more reports saying it is a strength than the 1 that say it is a flaw.

If Patsfanken said that WE KNOW that McCourty has pro-bowl ability, he would have been criticized. If you said you doubt that McCourty has the skills to surpass Butler as a rookie, you wouldn't be criticized.

Unfortunately, you can't see anything except through glasses that absolve your mistakes as homerism.

I don't seek to absolve mistakes, Andy. I seek to learn from them. You and I come from a different perspective on football, that's all.

You like to go just about 100% in the bag for your favorite NFL team, don't really maintain objectivity if it's going to mean that your team, or a player on it, comes off looking bad, and think that anyone who has even the slightest disagreement with the front office must be in the wrong. That's the unabashed homer in you, and it makes you happy.

I like to root for my team on game day while maintaining rationality and objectivity as the general rule, don't feel the need to jump to my team's defense every single time a post is less than 100% glowing about it and I have no problem pointing out what I perceive to be mistakes made by my team.

These differences will probably never go away, and our most similar trait is a willingness to keep at our positions no matter what others are saying, until we are convinced that we are wrong or are wasting out time.

As for what PFK said, again, I was responding to it. You don't like the response. Duly noted, and all, but I'm comfortable with what I posted.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that (assuming we're replacing the superman reference with a real strength). It shows both sides and it's balanced.

Essentially what you've implied by stating (para.) "We know where he was drafted and this is a weakness he'll need to improve" is the following: It is possible for a perceived strength to fail in the NFL, thus we can't list it as something we know, yet it is impossible for a perceived weakness to be corrected at the NFL level, thus the weakness can be stated as fact and the strength cannot.

I disagree with that double standard.

I stated things very clearly and left it with no need for implication or inference. Hell, I didn't even note some of the other concerns about the kid (lack of top end speed, struggles with bigger receivers), because I was just trying to strike a cautionary note rather than bash the kid. What you, and others, read in to a post as clear as the one I made is a product of your own biases.

There was no double standard. The double standard is that homers don't need such 'balance', yet those who find something even mildly critical are supposed to supply that 'balance'. I disagree with that double standard.

 

[JackBauer]

...I was just trying to strike a cautionary note rather than bash the kid.

This seems to be couched in stronger terms than would you'd expect from someone sounding a "cautionary note":

Well, to date, we've learned that he's a cornerback taken in the first round even though he can't shift his hips well in transition and will be a target for deep passes as a result.

Especially given the likelihood that, considering the preponderance of evidence, this isn't even really valid. You probably would have been better off citing his other weaknesses.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't seek to absolve mistakes, Andy. I seek to learn from them. You and I come from a different perspective on football, that's all.

You like to go just about 100% in the bag for your favorite NFL team, don't really maintain objectivity if it's going to mean that your team, or a player on it, comes off looking bad, and think that anyone who has even the slightest disagreement with the front office must be in the wrong. That's the unabashed homer in you, and it makes you happy.

I like to root for my team on game day while maintaining rationality and objectivity as the general rule, don't feel the need to jump to my team's defense every single time a post is less than 100% glowing about it and I have no problem pointing out what I perceive to be mistakes made by my team.

These differences will probably never go away, and our most similar trait is a willingness to keep at our positions no matter what others are saying, until we are convinced that we are wrong or are wasting out time.

As for what PFK said, again, I was responding to it. You don't like the response. Duly noted, and all, but I'm comfortable with what I posted.

You crack me up.

 

[italia44]

Wait... I don't get it. Please explain, young Frank.

the ticking-bomb timetable for Deus Irae to respond to patsfanken.

"we're doomed,I tell you,doomed......my friend"

btw.....I'm actually 59 and 5/6ths yrs old.....the picture is my Dorian Gray fantasy.

 

[Kasmir]

You like to go just about 100% in the bag for your favorite NFL team ... it makes you happy.

I like to root for my team on game day...

Which, pray tell, is your team?

You're obviously quite intelligent and demonstrably quite literate, but the overall impression you make here is that urinating in our Koolaid is what makes *you* happy. It should be no surprise that on a Patriots fanatic board you'd become less than popular.

You usually do a better job of covering yourself with a fig leaf of objectivity than you did with the McCourty post. It was quite an unimpressive sight.

Day of Wrath indeed, and well earned.

Back to McCourty himself, I again refer fans here of the Patriots to the very encouraging NFLDraftScout.com report on him, which is by far the most detailed and interesting report I've seen anywhere:

Devin McCourty, Rutgers, NFL Draft - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com

And, yes, his "fluid hips" are specifically called out yet again. I'm actually now curious about the source of the alleged report to the contrary, as I haven't been able to find it. Given his superb 3-Cone (6.7 sec, 2nd best amongst corners at the Combine, and much better than Butler's 6.92 sec last year), it would surprising if he exhibited lateral stiffness...

 

[Kontradiction]

What we've learned with McCourty: His hips may or may not be fluid in a vacuum.

 

[Deus Irae]

You crack me up.

Believe me, it's mutual.

 

[Deus Irae]

Which, pray tell, is your team?

You're obviously quite intelligent and demonstrably quite literate, but the overall impression you make here is that urinating in our Koolaid is what makes *you* happy. It should be no surprise that on a Patriots fanatic board you'd become less than popular.

You usually do a better job of covering yourself with a fig leaf of objectivity than you did with the McCourty post. It was quite an unimpressive sight.

Before the 2009 season, I was generally being called a homer for defending McDaniels, Cassel, Maroney, BB in spygate, etc.... In 2009, the team went off the rails, and I called them on it. Now, people like you make the sort of snarky posts you've made here. I haven't changed significantly from one year to the next. Mostly what's changed is which side of the crowd is doing most of the whining about it.

Day of Wrath indeed, and well earned.

Since you brought it up.....

Deus is not "day", and the screen name is an homage to a pair of (deceased) writers. It's the name of a book they collaborated on.

 

[Kasmir]

Before the 2009 season, I was generally being called a homer for defending McDaniels, Cassel, Maroney, BB in spygate, etc.... In 2009, the team went off the rails, and I called them on it. Now, people like you make the sort of snarky posts you've made here. I haven't changed significantly from one year to the next. Mostly what's changed is which side of the crowd is doing most of the whining about it.

Don't recall you ever being balanced, sorry. Maybe you were boring when you were. Your McCourty post was absurdly, gratuitously negative, not nearly up to your usual standards. Haven't noticed you adducing support for it since, either. Your attacks here on Ken were uncalled for as well. And your sig is a red flag. ;-)

Since you brought it up.....

Deus is not "day", and the screen name is an homage to a pair of (deceased) writers. It's the name of a book they collaborated on.

Yeah, the ****/Zelazny novel, by two of my favorite SF authors. The name's a play on "dies irae", but "god of wrath" is a bit pretentious, don't you think?