Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

DB Nigel Tribune commits

Stormin said:
According to Rivals, he runs a 4.5 40 yd. and has a 34 inch vertical. Acceptable athleticism IMO. And I remember Mike Clemons who was a DB back in the days of Earle Bruce who was as slow as a tortoise but was a 3 year starter. Clem was great at playing proper position and probably played faster in pads than without pads. Some guys are just players.

Nigel Tribune - Yahoo! Sports
Click to expand...

Edit: sorry, misunderstood you're post.

Yea but it ain't 1970 anymore. In this day and age of the big 12 we need big strong athletic pass rushers (David Irving!) And good sized guys with some serious speed and athleticisim to cover wide receivers and tight ends
 
Last edited:
mattyice said:
So we shouldnt expect or desire kids that have 3, 4 or 5 stars? And cannot in any fashion even ask the question of why we are not getting them?

Please find the post that bashes CPR.....ill wait. Also find the one that bashes the staff recruiting kids.....ill wait longer.

NOBODY was bashing them.....the "negative" posters some of you keep crying about were either A) Just having some fun and joking about how we are going after non football players next ,etc or B) legitimately asking why we are not getting some of those guys......which....is a valid concern....expressed by many on here. It wasnt bashing...it was asking a question......or....is that not allowed here?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just taking it as, it's been explained before and it's being explained again, yet the questions still come up. I don't think anyone here doesn't desire those recruits, I guess to me, it seems as crazy that people are still asking why, as it is to you that it seems you can't ask the question. It just seems blatently obvious to me. If this is still happening in year 7 of CPRs tenure, then I would understand the question more.

I think it's probably similar frustration on both sides. No one is happy that we aren't getting top ranked recruits, but each is picking a side to be on and let our frustration out on this board. Too bad this has to happen when we should be welcoming a new Cyclone into the fold.
 
Blows my mind people don't realize rankings change between now and national signing day.

Also how could you expect four and five star players to want to go to a team that can't win more than six games? We are going to have to start winning at least 8 or 9 games a year before high end recruits show much interest.

CPR has done great things from our perspective, but being barely bowl eligible isn't what the great recruits are looking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikem
Clark said:
Just to be clear, we're talking about the Leonard Johnson that wasn't drafted right?

He also ran a better time at his pro day.

Sometimes players just don't have good technique for the 40 which costs them some time. I guess I should clarify my previous post. If a player can't run faster than 4.73 at any time, he's not making it as a major college cornerback. That doesn't mean that just because a guy runs a 4.73 forty one time that he can't be successful.

Anyway, I never believed that time accurately reflected his speed. It couldn't have.
Click to expand...

LJ not being drafted is beside the point as we are talking about a college CB, not an NFL CB. I agree with the rest, but that is exactly what I have been saying - take the listed 40 time with a huge grain of salt. They now have Tribune listed at 4.5 on Rivals profile - do you think he suddenly got faster? Does that make anyone here feel better about his speed? Because in reality all they did was change a number listed in an online database - which is why its pointless to worry about those numbers in the first place.
 
From the my-best-friend's-sister's-boyfriend's-brother's-girlfriend files...

I work with a guy who graduated from Raines after playing football there. He follows the team rather closely, as his son plays HS football in the area. Per him, at the Nat'l Underclassmen Combine portion held at Raines, all the 40 times were slow due to the poor condition of the field. They did not run on a track. His opinion was that Nigel's time on a good field would have been 4.6 or better.

He went on to add that Nigel has good game speed, and he can just flat-out ball.

For what it's worth....
 
CyCloned said:
the 4.7 40 has to be wrong. I know a lot of guys that size that ran a 4.7 or better in the CR metro area high schools, that were no where near fast enough to play d-1 DB.
Click to expand...

What if its right? What if they ran on the field? What if there was a headwind? What if it was really hot or really cold? What if the timer wasn't very quick on his stopwatch?

What if the 4.7 is the LEAST important thing to ever be fixated on?
 
SpokaneCY said:
What if its right? What if they ran on the field? What if there was a headwind? What if it was really hot or really cold? What if the timer wasn't very quick on his stopwatch?

What if the 4.7 is the LEAST important thing to ever be fixated on?
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but a stated 40 time is a very important thing to be fixated on with a corner. There is probably no more important measurable when dealing with a cornerback, other than perhaps size.
 
No, the 40 time isn't important. It probably isn't accurate either. If he was trying out for our track team I could see the importance, not for football.
 
RustShack said:
No, the 40 time isn't important. It probably isn't accurate either. If he was trying out for our track team I could see the importance, not for football.
Click to expand...

Is speed important? Is the 40 time as good of indicator of speed as we have? What other measurable is more important in a CB? If you're advocating for putting someone with average speed out wide to cover the other team's fastest players...its a novel thought but I'm listening.

If you are a 6'2" CB with long arms and good cover skills I can see how speed maybe wouldn't be the most important thing. But if you're going to play corner at 5'8" to 5'10" and often times give up 5-7 inches on the opposing player, you better have the speed to stay in good position.
 
Clonefan32 said:
I see what you are saying, but a stated 40 time is a very important thing to be fixated on with a corner. There is probably no more important measurable when dealing with a cornerback, other than perhaps size.
Click to expand...

3-cone or 20 yd shuttle (quickness/change of direction tests) are more important and it's not even close. It doesn't matter if a corner runs a 3.9 40 if he can't switch directions and get out of his back pedal.
 
Straight line speed does almost nothing for a corner unless he's covering Randy Moss running go routes the entire day.
 
No need to worry about this 40 time.. they updated the rivals database time to 4.5 seconds. That means he just shaved 0.23 seconds off his 40 time in the last day, right? He is just gettin faster all the time.

That is why its pointless to get worked up over a time in an online database.
 
acgclone said:
.

I guess he just raised my expectations a little and I was hopeful that he could start to get some better kids in.

QUOTE]

How are you assessing the "better kids" expectations? Honestly - based solely on Rivals stars? Someone had a great post earlier that this kid is transferring from a HS program that has never produced D1 talent to a HS KNOWN for producing HS talent. Think Rivals experts would spend ANY time scouting a school that produces ZERO talent? Think our coaches have contacts with all of these HS coaches? Maybe have an eye for talent?

Unless and until the NCAA awards us points on games based on how highly rated our players are on Rivals, I will defer to the experts and let these kids prove their worth over the course of their careers.
Click to expand...
 
Shakes said:
. . . I work with a guy who graduated from Raines after playing football there. He follows the team rather closely, as his son plays HS football in the area. Per him, at the Nat'l Underclassmen Combine portion held at Raines, all the 40 times were slow due to the poor condition of the field. They did not run on a track. His opinion was that Nigel's time on a good field would have been 4.6 or better.

He went on to add that Nigel has good game speed, and he can just flat-out ball.

For what it's worth....
Click to expand...

For me, that's worth a lot. Thanks for the info. The info you turned up matches Yahoo's info pretty well:

  • Ht:5'11"
  • Wt:175 lbs
  • 40:4.5 secs
  • Vertical:34 inches
We've all heard CPR, on various occassions, say that he and his staff don't look at stars, they make their own evaluations. Period. The staff will live or die by their ability to accurately rate the players they offer. Either they'll do a good job of evaluating, or they won't.

Have any of us watched video of the kid? Have any of us spoken repeatedly with the kid, his coaches, others in the know? Do any of us have any way to measure his heart, or the way he plays the game? How many of us really believe Nigel runs a 4.73 / 40 on a good raceway?
 
The 40 time for a CB is important. However, it's only important if we know that the time listed is valid and not run under unusual circumstances (good or bad)
 
  • Like
Reactions: nhclone
RustShack said:
No, the 40 time isn't important. It probably isn't accurate either. If he was trying out for our track team I could see the importance, not for football.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was running barefooted with a forty pound knapsack on his back tp be clocked at 4.73.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom