Nelson made some timely plays last season - you have to contribute that to a lot of things, physical and mentally. Running routes and being there on time for the pass. David Nelson is not a slot receiver. He was on the outside, while Kerley operated in the slot. Nelson is simply more reliable, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a plug and play receiver that can help us win. Sure Hill has more potential, but every player in the NFL has potential - there comes a time when you have to go out there and prove it. Nelson is also only 27, he has room to improve. I think he gets a lot of reps early in the season while Evans, Sanders and to an extent Hill rotate in. I hope I am wrong about Hill - but right now it's not looking good.
I'm almost 27 and I've grown a full two inches in the past two years, from 5'10" to 6'0". I don't take any supplements either. It's possible. What I don't get is why the NFL combine had him listed officially at 6'4" and he thinks he was 6'3".
Rounding? I don't know I was confused at that as well. Seems like he was 6'3"+ a little bit and they listed him at 6'4" and now he's 6'4"+ a little bit so may be listed at 6'5"? Not really sure, Seems like he was trying to make a generic statement about growing and it was turned into a metrics thing.
As of right now, 5/28/14, David Nelson is the third best receiver on the Jets. So much can change from now until the Oakland game, but if the season were to start today, I think you would have to put Decker/Nelson on the outsides with Kerley in the slot.
April 25th 1991: Hill just turned 23. This guy is still young. Jets would be nuts to get rid of him. Too much potential. I like that he grew not only in height but in mass. Hopefully his route running and pass catching has improved. If it has, look for hill to lock down #2 receiver
Nelson is not a traditional slot WR, He's more a possession #3 but I think he lined up in the slot a decent amount last season. I'm having a hard time finding that information to confirm though. The few weeks when Kerley was out they rotated a few guys into that spot and I think he played heavily then.
I think most Jets fans are willing to give him this year to prove himself. He is young, but he doesn't play special teams so basically he is occupying a roster spot as he matures.
First of all, a 23 year old is not a "man" by any stretch, not in this day and age anyway. Kids are growing up much slower nowadays, for a number of reasons. A 23 year old today is like a 15 or 16 year old was 50-60 years ago. Just look at your parents' high school photos, or your grandparents, and compare it to HS photos today, and you will see a shocking difference that's even physically apparent. 30 is the new 20, 40 is the new 30. A 23 year old today is really still an immature kid, playing video games and fooling around; I'm not at all surprised that Stephen Hill talks about how he is still growing and maturing.
I couldn't disagree more on many levels. There are 23 year olds that are plenty mature, and yes there are 23 year olds that act like teenagers sure, but that shouldn't be something we acknowledge as a new norm, as it's not a good thing and it's not something that encompasses most of that age group, just the bad apples. Physically, kids these days are way bigger and peaking younger. There are high school lineman at every school and level at 300 lbs and muscular. That was unheard of even 20 years ago. College football teams are physically way bigger, stronger and faster than the college teams of previous generations. Kids, especially those that want to play at the next level, are hitting the weight room hard in their early teen years. If Stephen Hill got caught behind this mentally and physically, it's his fault. Honestly, though I don't think it's so much as him not maturing physically and mentally as him not being good enough to hack it. So I won't make some overarching criticism of him, sometimes you just aren't good enough.
Those would be called GILFs joe, and maybe because I'm not an old goat like you, but I've yet to see a 70 year old woman that'd I'd roll in the hay with... but more for you I guess!!!
You're talking about athletes, who are eating much better than the general population, as a whole, and are being drilled by personal trainers. Sports nutrition helps to make up for the lack of nutrition in the American diet overall in the 21st century. There's an obesity epidemic today that was unheard of in the 40's and 50's, and many kids today are practically malnourished. The breakdown of the American family, broken homes, kids left alone to feed themselves, families not eating dinner together, etc....all of these things have led to slower maturation rates, both physically and mentally, today. Farms operating on diminished soil quality (overfarming), pesticides, and other production problems are also causing many foods to be less nutritious than they once were. All of these are facts that, unfortunately, have led to developmental problems for children. Not to mention school lunches that are a joke; in the past most kids ate much better than they do today; it's no wonder so many children are small, skinny, frail, and malnourished-looking. If you ever visit an elementary or Middle school today you will see what I'm talking about. Getting back to the topic of the thread, Stephen Hill may be the next example of the year 3 breakout for receivers. You know, the "magical" jump WRs often make from year 2 to 3. It's a cliche and well-known among fantasy football players, always looking for year 3 breakouts. Now, I wouldn't bet on Hill making a big jump, because he's been so injury prone, had concentration lapses, and poor hands. But you never know. Maybe he'll shock all of us and the lightbulb will come on this year...
The opposite is actually true. Kids grow up MUCH faster these days. The difference between 50 and 60 years ago is that different things were legal and parents (along with school and the law)in general were much more strict and allowed to essentially beat the shit out of their kids if they dared step out of line. Video games weren't really available to people born mid 70s or earlier so it's a terrible comparison. There was no internet, facebook, or smart phones to take pictures of everything the kids used to do and share. They did other things to pass their time and played other games and did other immature things. I highly doubt they sat around with their huge cameras that required full stands, manual flashes, and the black cover cloth, taking tons of pictures of them doing bad activities, because if their parents found out they'd be black and blue the next day; plus developing pictures was a slow and annoying process. Pictures have changed drastically since then, especially since the digital camera came out, so again it's silly to say "Oh yeah, look at the pictures from the 20s and 30s, they are totally more mature!!" We have a much different level of exposure to things that go on today, and more of it do to population increase. Picture taking in general, was only done at formal events back then and it was a much more serious event, since it was a project in itself to take and develop them. That's probably why people didn't used to smile for pictures that often back in that day. Besides I'm mid 30s and still play video games. It has nothing to do with maturity, I was born into the video game era. Most guys in their 30s today play video games, but in the 80s and 90s, most people in their 30s did not, because they didn't grow up with them. Is football not a game? Why should a video game be considered immature but playing a game on a field is not? If somebody can be drafted to die for the country at 18, they are absolutely a man, if not the draft age should be increased. People aren't growing up slowly, we just live in a more tolerant less repressed society now. Most women are sexually mature by 16, and many 11-12 year olds could pass for 18 easy. 50-60 years ago, 11 and 12 year olds were clearly 11 and 12. Really? Have you looked into the diets of most Olympic medal winners? Michael Phelps ate mostly McDonalds and pasta while training. They do not generally eat better than the general population. The people that eat the healthiest are often pretty thin, not big broad and muscular. Do you honestly believe the healthiest thing to consume is nothing but protein shakes and bars? A muscular body does not necessarily mean good health.
Either "lol" or "oh dear, Browning didn't get where I was (facetiously) coming from." If it was the latter, I was taking the "age number roll back" in Truth4U2's post below ("30 is the new 20, 40 is the new 30" etc.) and absurdly running with it. I mean, a septuagenarian (btw, you like that big word? lol) as a MILF??…..and it's all due to "climate(x) change?" No way you could've thought I was serious….oh and who you calling an ol' goat? ; ) Let me put that "age thing" into clearer context by regaling the right and proper denizens of TGG with: "The Parable of Browning Nagle and His Dad" Once upon a time, young Browning Nagle accidentally walked in on his dad getting jiggy with Browning's mom. The dad enraged, shouted: "how many times have I told you to knock first?!!" and threw a book from the night table at young Browning's head, telling him to "get out!!" Hours later, Browning's dad is walking down the hall and as he passes Browning's bedroom he hears a woman's loud moans and groans. The father opens the door only to find young Browning vigorously screwing the daylights out of his Grandmother. His father, once again enraged, roars at young Browning: "what the HELL do you think you are doing??!!!" whereupon Browning (maintaining his furious rhythm) turns his head around and definantly sneers: "oh yeah, but it's ok for you to fuck MY mother!" ~ THE END ~
If by "a more tolerant and less repressed society", you mean we have lost the self-control necessary to avoid harmful, self-destructive behavior, then I would agree. "More tolerant" means that behavior that was once viewed as criminal, because it exploited and psychologically-scarred young people, is now viewed as "personal choice." Pornography harms the viewer psychologically, and exploits poor, often addicted young women. Violent, sexually abusive acts that would have been rightly prosecuted in a more sane time, today are sometimes filmed and protected as "art" or "free choice". When you say "most women are sexually mature by 16", you mean that teens who are "sexting", sleeping around before they know what a real, committed loving relationship is, and are getting pregnant, dropping out of school, having abortions, scarring them for life, if this is what you call "sexually mature", then sadly I would have to agree. You also claim that "many 11-12 year olds could pass for 18 easy", but I doubt you have ever worked in an elementary school, and seen 5th graders who look like 2nd graders. You would be shocked at how immature most kids are nowadays. I don't know where you live, or what 11-12 year olds you are talking about....maybe you live in a rural, midwest town, where kids are being raised well by strong, religious families, and eating well, maybe that's why you think kids are more mature nowadays. Or WAY upstate NY, north of Albany or something....but if you were in the NY metro area you would be shocked at what you saw nowadays... ...as far as video games go, I'm in my late 30s and also raised with video games, so perhaps that was a poor example of what immature 20-somethings are doing. But I just had to chuckle when someone on here used the term 23 year old "man"....the 20-somethings I see nowadays look like high school freshmen. And high school freshmen look like 5th graders. But again, I'm in the NY metro area....in more rural areas, where family values are still largely intact, in strong, responsible communities, if that's where you live then I can understand your confusion with my post. .....interesting discussion, but can we get back to football?
This thread stopped being about football a long time ago, the thread name should be Changed to "Are You Sexier Than A 10th Grader?" and moved to BS.
Although there are disputes to the validity of it in reference to Hill, I had a friend in the service back in the early 90s who went from 5'10" to 6'3" in the matter of a couple of years. He didn't just grow in height, his face changed, it seemed like his shoulders got broader, and his wife got really happy, really fast. I looked at pictures we had of him when I first met them in '92, compared to my going away party when I got stationed elsewhere a few years later, and it didn't even look like the same person. It's definitely possible. Rare, but possible.
