Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Alabama LB Reuben Foster fails drug test at Combine
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jlash


Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 2084
Location: NJ
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd still take him at 14.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheVillain112


Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 21740
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CalhounLambeau wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
Calvert's assertion that Foster was a Day 3 prospect.

Calvert is all over the place. He called him possibly a 3rd round prospect. Possibly a 4th round prospect. Possibly undrafted. The only thing he left out was the possibility of Reuben Foster dying before the draft.


On that we agree. See? It can happen here! Smile

Seriously let's move on (I leave you the final word if you'd like). PM me if you really want to continue (I'm civil, not going for a flame war, it really is OK to just disagree). Or not. Either way let's end this publicly on a positive note and let the others chime in. I know when I'm the outsider it's no fun to watch 2 guys hijack a convo with nothing new to add (after the initial to and fro that's usually the case, we've both made our points).

I'm not done with you punk.


Cool it with the name calling. You've been around long enough to know better...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BroncosFan2010


Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 3866
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Cool it with the name calling. You've been around long enough to know better...


I think it was pretty clearly done tongue-in-cheek.

Jesus it just took me like 7 attempts to spell tongue correctly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CalhounLambeau


Joined: 05 May 2011
Posts: 11607
Location: WI
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheVillain112 wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:

I'm not done with you punk.


Cool it with the name calling. You've been around long enough to know better...

I was kidding. Broncofan and I are forum pals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chrissooner49er


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 5084
Location: Tulsa, OK
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would not be okay with Foster at #2...he is not Patrick Willis. Likely never will be as good as him--character or performance in game.
_________________
fa·nat·ic (f-ntk) A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Draftday1:Garrett/Thomas/Barnett trade:McCaffrey,Cunningham,Watt,Davis 2-Awuzie,Engram,Kupp,Mixon,Westbrook 3-Switzer,Godwin,Perine,JordanEvans,Anzalone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3580
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All good guys. Let's move on....

Chrissooner49er wrote:
I would not be okay with Foster at #2...he is not Patrick Willis. Likely never will be as good as him--character or performance in game.


I agree with your point on Willis, and it's iffy at #2 for a lot of reasons even before yesteday happened - but you are setting the bar a little high, you know that, right?

Willis played 8 seasons, but only 7 of them healthy (last one missed 10 games) - 6 1st team All-Pro, and the 7th still Pro Bowl caliber.

Awards like those can be very misleading, but the metrics are just off-the-charts historic - https://www.profootballfocus.com/five-years-of-pff-grades-top-10-linebackers/

Willis' 139.4 rating for his first 5 years, and always the #1 or #2 PFF ILB/MLB, is just insane. We are spoiled in that we are seeing Luke Kuechly challenge that run, but it's not a feat that should be expected, even from overall top 10 talents.

I wouldn't expect Foster to be that good, it's doubtful anyone will match the level that Kuechly & Willis brought (and are bringing) for a long, long time. But if he can be Navarro Bowman, or Thomas Davis, what then?

Now, I understand that the 2 spot is problematic value-wise even before yesterday, and it's well in the rearview mirror today, and normally you don't reserve a top 10 spot for ILB unless they can be a league-leader ceiling type guy (and I think he's that good, as did many others before yesterday's news), but Willis & Kuechly are literally generational, once-in-a-generation 10-level HoF talents. Saying Foster is not going to be as good as Willis or even Kuechly isn't an insult. It's pretty much the scenario for any LB. It's how much lower he is than that mega-elite, 1st ballot HoF-level-of-play-if-healthy-long-enough stratosphere.

The 2 spot is a goner after this event, don't get me wrong, there's going to be a fall - just the standard needed to get to where you are pointing is ultra-high (and I get that's why ILB's rarely go that early).
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1510
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kinda surprised these guys still get popped for dilute samples
drinking lots of water to dilute the urine is a popular method, but you need to understand how the pee test is done in order to beat it with the dilution method

Testing labs use an internal standard to set a baseline on the pee sample since each person is different and has different levels of hydration. The way they correct for this is by measuring the creatine levels and then adjusting the test results accordingly.
Creatine levels fall into a fairly constant range across a population and its both an endogenous molecule (your body makes it) and one that is metabolized when you eat red meat, tuna, salmon. Athletes burn more creatine than the general population due to exertion, so they need to make sure they add to their self-made levels

So if you are going to dilute to beat the pee test, you have to simultaneously increase your creatine levels by eating beef and other foods that contain creatine.
Using creatine supplements is a crap shoot, eating creatine-rich foods in the run- up to the test is often the better bet

You also need to ingest fat so your body will preferentially burn the fat you ate instead of metabolizing your fat storage and releasing the stored THC into your bloodstream.
As far as PED's, their metabolism is also a factor... steroids are fat-soluble too but have a shorter half-life than the weed metabolites. Either way, you want your body burning the fat you just ate and not the fat you stored

For all the time and money agents and players spend in prepping for the combine, this part is still missed way too often.


TL/DR: Eat cheeseburgers ( fat + creatine), drink lots and lots of water and pass the pee tests.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 4798
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony Pauline supposedly was privy to the top 32 of two different teams, and neither had Foster in there FWIW.

I mean, it's lying season but I thought that was interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Calvert28


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 21561
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
Wow, not sure why Broncofan is getting attacked for clearly interpreting the comment as it was stated and intended. It's not like Broncofan was trying to take anything out of context. Yes, Calvert28, you said that if anything else happens, Foster could be pushed to late Day 3, but you also said (also quoted by you just not bolded) that he's currently a 4th Round guy. And what Broncofan is saying is that even calling Foster a 4th Round guy right now is to be a severe exaggeration.

Now that we have that cleared up, there is kind of a lot mounting for Foster but I still don't feel like it's enough to drop him very far. He apparently has some questions about childhood friends, but that's more of an association than anything. He has the injury, which many guys have, and should be kept separate from character. He had the blow-up with the nurse, but from everything reported, it wasn't a big issue. He has the weight issues, but that was apparently tied to being sick. That also allegedly caused a diluted test, which counts as a failed test, but is not the same as actually testing positive for a substance. So yeah, there is a lot here, but I feel like it's a lot of yellow flags rather than any red flags, and these yellow flags aren't turning into red flags because character and injury concerns are to be kept separate and not combined together. So maybe you ding him here and there to lower him a bit, but he also released the results of the test to the public himself, and so I don't see any reason to lower him significantly unless there is more behind the scenes that we don't know.


No, Broncofan has been bouncing back and forth on what I said trying to make something stick with what I said. He misread it the first time then tried to twist what I said to make his argument seem more legit. He admitted to misreading what Vans said earlier. And he's still under this delusion that Foster even before everything happened was a Top 10 lock like like Allen or Myles. When most draft mocks had him in the Top 15 range and sure some even in the Top 10. Before the season started he was considered a mid first to Top 25 selection. Not exactly a blue chip prospect Top 10 lock like he was claiming as it was with MG. Making his latest post to me invalid to begin on top of being a reach to "win" the argument so he doesn't have to claim he overreacted every bit as much as he claimed I did.

H/e prime example of his "hyperbole" reaction to my statement was my "game tape aside" statement and then went off on a rant that made the claim that I said game tape didn't matter. This was only after he went on for like 2 pages claiming I said that he was a Day 3 prospect as of now with CL, and has been doing back tracking ever since by reediting quotes of mine to help his argument. I mean he clearly didn't get what was intended, and did infact interpret wrong. And switching up what he's arguing about, such as his last 2 posts that Top 10 prospects never fall as much as other lower rated prospects because . And he just hopped on that argument last night. He didn't even bring up that 3rd to 4th argument, that was almost entirely ignored until the 4th page by him. I mean at this point, I think he's arguing more to just not be wrong as opposed to whats actually being discussed.

The only thing I did incorrectly was not put "IMO he is a 3rd to 4th rounder at best now".
_________________
GeneralDissaray wrote:
mozwanted wrote:
I don't agree with the pick.Bad teams pick rb's with a top 5 pick.
Moz, bad teams pick in the top 5.That's the way the draft works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrOaktown_56


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 7989
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The guy is arguably a better LB prospect than Jaylon Smith. I'd sell my soul for the raiders to land him.
_________________
El ramster wrote:
bertuzzi wrote:
Goff and Gurley are the worst QB-RB combo in history lmfao


Yo buddy quit trolling yeah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crickett


Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 4854
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just remember this:

Randy Gregory was once considered to be a possible top five or even maybe top three (to Jacksonville) prospect.
He failed the idiot test.
Fell to the late second round.

Justin Houston was considered a first round talent.
Failed the idiot test.
Fell to round three.

I think this is going to cost Foster. Some team will certainly still gamble on him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he fell what we would consider to be really far.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Calvert28


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 21561
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crickett wrote:
Just remember this:

Randy Gregory was once considered to be a possible top five or even maybe top three (to Jacksonville) prospect.
He failed the idiot test.
Fell to the late second round.

Justin Houston was considered a first round talent.
Failed the idiot test.
Fell to round three.

I think this is going to cost Foster. Some team will certainly still gamble on him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he fell what we would consider to be really far.


Yea, and Justin Houston was considered by some teams worth a Top 10 pick with his combine performance.
_________________
GeneralDissaray wrote:
mozwanted wrote:
I don't agree with the pick.Bad teams pick rb's with a top 5 pick.
Moz, bad teams pick in the top 5.That's the way the draft works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheVillain112


Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 21740
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Calvert28 wrote:
Crickett wrote:
Just remember this:

Randy Gregory was once considered to be a possible top five or even maybe top three (to Jacksonville) prospect.
He failed the idiot test.
Fell to the late second round.

Justin Houston was considered a first round talent.
Failed the idiot test.
Fell to round three.

I think this is going to cost Foster. Some team will certainly still gamble on him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he fell what we would consider to be really far.


Yea, and Justin Houston was considered by some teams worth a Top 10 pick with his combine performance.


I thought for sure the Jets were going to draft Houston in the first...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MSURacerDT55


Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 7636
Location: 8 mile by way of St. Clair E.99
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't care, he's going to go to a playoff type team and flourish. If not, Im sprinting to the podium to take him at #33.
_________________
@CoachHam6455
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lark25


Joined: 01 May 2014
Posts: 397
Location: Aus
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see that Reuben Foster was ever a Patrick Willis (taken at 11) or Luke Kuechly (pick 9) level prospect, yet some were previously mocking him in the top 5. As others have said, these guys are some of the highest character and most athletic ILB of this generation.

Foster is a good tackler and hard hitter, yes.

My concerns are that his production isn't that great, not even on a similar level of Kuechly;
6' 229lbs - I've seen LBs considered fringe draftable based on this size;
Not a leader - hasn't shown good character;
drug concerns;
Did not participate in any combine or pro day testing. I don't actually know if he's very athletic.

That to me doesn't represent a first rounder, especially not anywhere near the top 10 when prospects easily a tier above were taken around that point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group