Left Guard

[Sami84]

4 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

A relative one that's arbitrarily based on his own relative thoughts of how grades should be based. Did you even look up what it all means or just pull that off Twitter?

 

 

im PRESUMING it's based on combine scores ( and measurements) 

 

?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Sami84

[BmoreBird22]

Just now, Sami84 said:

im PRESUMING it's based on combine scores.

 

?

He arbitrarily decided how every single number of the combine should be rated and then took the average of how the athlete did relative to his positional groupings.

He said he requires SIX splits, but he would only have 5 for Ronnie Stanley (10 yard, 20 yard, 40 yard, 20 shuttle, and three cone), which he said is UNACCEPTABLE because then speed is getting weighted as around 60% of the grade and that's not fair to an offensive lineman. 

What's even more is that he doesn't even make them relative for each position. For example, offensive lineman will probably never run 40 yards in any given play, or even 20, so why is it 20% of their grade with important drills, like the bench (10%) or the jumps (10% each) are rated lower for them. Not to mention he only takes height and weight, not things like wingspan or hand size, which are very important for offensive lineman and receivers/quarterbacks respectively. 

Basically, he made a scale that is weighted equally for all positions, as if it's equal for them all, then made relative assumptions about how important each was and made an arbitrary grade that no one but him uses.

Tell me again why we should even consider his work?

[Sami84]

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

He arbitrarily decided how every single number of the combine should be rated and then took the average of how the athlete did relative to his positional groupings.

He said he requires SIX splits, but he would only have 5 for Ronnie Stanley (10 yard, 20 yard, 40 yard, 20 shuttle, and three cone), which he said is UNACCEPTABLE because then speed is getting weighted as around 60% of the grade and that's not fair to an offensive lineman. 

What's even more is that he doesn't even make them relative for each position. For example, offensive lineman will probably never run 40 yards in any given play, or even 20, so why is it 20% of their grade with important drills, like the bench (10%) or the jumps (10% each) are rated lower for them. Not to mention he only takes height and weight, not things like wingspan or hand size, which are very important for offensive lineman and receivers/quarterbacks respectively. 

Basically, he made a scale that is weighted equally for all positions, as if it's equal for them all, then made relative assumptions about how important each was and made an arbitrary grade that no one but him uses.

Tell me again why we should even consider his work?

 

8

hey whatever the case I'll take michael roos  most underrated tackle in the NFL for a good 4 years in the mid/late 00's

Edited June 24, 2016 by Sami84

[BmoreBird22]

4 minutes ago, Sami84 said:

hey whatever the case I'll take michael roos  most underrated tackle in the NFL for a good 4 years in the mid/late 00's

And just furthermore, he makes this admission that the bench press is useless for receivers/quarterbacks, but includes it anyway. Why give someone a free 10 points or pull a players grade down because of a useless drill? That definitely makes sense.

I'd take Michael Roos, too, but let's be real here- you're just trying to be negative for the sake of being negative.

Edited June 24, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[Sami84]

10 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

And just furthermore, he makes this admission that the bench press is useless for receivers/quarterbacks, but includes it anyway. Why give someone a free 10 points or pull a players grade down because of a useless drill? That definitely makes sense.

I'd take Michael Roos, too, but let's be real here- you're just trying to be negative for the sake of being negative.

 

not really. I'm interested in analytics on lots of fronts..

 

i actually think based on my eye test that stanley is a potential pro bowl calibre player. Anyhow, lets see..he's going to need to grow up fast..

[berad]

Maybe the first (and last time) I've heard "RAS" used as a determining factor for anything.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, Sami84 said:

Just 1

 

Michael roos. So basically only two players. thats a bad omen IMHO. 

How many 1st round tackles with a score above the 5.00 average have been to the pro bowl over the same time.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

And just furthermore, he makes this admission that the bench press is useless for receivers/quarterbacks, but includes it anyway. Why give someone a free 10 points or pull a players grade down because of a useless drill? That definitely makes sense.

I'd take Michael Roos, too, but let's be real here- you're just trying to be negative for the sake of being negative.

In fairness, whether or not the formula seems to make sense on the surface - if there ends up being a predictive correlation then there may be some merit to it.

I mean I may not think foot size has anything to do with QB play, but if over history only QBs with a shoe size above 12 have won SBs there actually might be merit to it. Of course it also could be coincidence.... but the more data used the better and if the correlation remains it gains more and more merit imo. 

Now, I dont understand why he chose a completely arbitrary year to stop at when going back (maybe bc before that the correlation stops and he doesnt want to look like an idiot if every great OT taken before 2001 scored below his 5.00; but i dont know that for sure), and pro bowl is a terrible standard to use for determining the success/failure of a player considering how many alternates get used, players in the SB dont play, and its largely based on popularity.

I do like PFF grading. If there was some sort of correlation between his scale and PFF grades... i might buy it a little more.

Id rather just see a list of names with their score on his scale and make a judgement for myself whether it holds any weight in terms of player success. 

[BmoreBird22]

10 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

In fairness, whether or not the formula seems to make sense on the surface - if there ends up being a predictive correlation then there may be some merit to it.

I mean I may not think foot size has anything to do with QB play, but if over history only QBs with a shoe size above 12 have won SBs there actually might be merit to it. Of course it also could be coincidence.... but the more data used the better and if the correlation remains it gains more and more merit imo. 

Now, I dont understand why he chose a completely arbitrary year to stop at when going back (maybe bc before that the correlation stops and he doesnt want to look like an idiot if every great OT taken before 2001 scored below his 5.00; but i dont know that for sure), and pro bowl is a terrible standard to use for determining the success/failure of a player considering how many alternates get used, players in the SB dont play, and its largely based on popularity.

I do like PFF grading. If there was some sort of correlation between his scale and PFF grades... i might buy it a little more.

Id rather just see a list of names with their score on his scale and make a judgement for myself whether it holds any weight in terms of player success. 

And that's the thing for me- he lists the Pro-Bowl, but fails to mention if he includes alternatives, the original selections, any exempt due to the SB, etc. He also fails to make mention of OROY, DROY, OPOY, DPOY, All-Pro, etc. 

I'd be interested to read more of his work, but in the case of Stanley, he shouldn't have even done it as he requires a minimum of six stats to use and he only had a maximum of 5, two of which are pretty dumb to use for an OL in the first place. 

However, I'd also be interested to see what percentile makes the Pro-Bowl at the highest frequency, since this method doesn't account for workout warriors. He's also admitted it's a complete crapshoot with several positions.

Furthermore, for a lot of those combine numbers, they're flawed. For example, Braxton Miller clocked in as a 4.5, but scouts had him at a 4.3 because the 40 starts on first movement, not the first step.

Edited June 24, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

And that's the thing for me- he lists the Pro-Bowl, but fails to mention if he includes alternatives, the original selections, any exempt due to the SB, etc. He also fails to make mention of OROY, DROY, OPOY, DPOY, All-Pro, etc. 

I'd be interested to read more of his work, but in the case of Stanley, he shouldn't have even done it as he requires a minimum of six stats to use and he only had a maximum of 5, two of which are pretty dumb to use for an OL in the first place. 

However, I'd also be interested to see what percentile makes the Pro-Bowl at the highest frequency, since this method doesn't account for workout warriors. He's also admitted it's a complete crapshoot with several positions.

Furthermore, for a lot of those combine numbers, they're flawed. For example, Braxton Miller clocked in as a 4.5, but scouts had him at a 4.3 because the 40 starts on first movement, not the first step.

Yea, theres a lot not to like and at the very least question in this method.

And since he clearly worked the analysis retro-actively, I wonder whether he fit the criteria to work based on his assumptions, or if he truly set the criteria and it happened to be somewhat predictive historically. My guess is the former.

[BmoreBird22]

19 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Yea, theres a lot not to like and at the very least question in this method.

And since he clearly worked the analysis retro-actively, I wonder whether he fit the criteria to work based on his assumptions, or if he truly set the criteria and it happened to be somewhat predictive historically. My guess is the former.

I really don't know, honestly, but it's unfair. I was reading and he's adjusted the methods a lot because at one point, Calvin Johnson was the best athlete by like 0.7, which makes sense because he was a freak athlete, but then he adjusted his methods and now he was only 0.02 ahead.

He keeps saying the math is too complex and no one would understand the methods, but he pretty clearly lays it out in a table how he measures; the rest is just simple statistics.

I'm with you in that I think he made this up, recognized flaws and deficiencies, but purposely ignored them because it would ruin his four years of work.

I think I said this before, but I think it is very telling that he never weighted the formulas to be unique by position grouping, even if it's not split like DE, 1T, 3T, etc, but just QB, DL, OL, etc. How is it fair to weight all these positions equally?

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

6 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I really don't know, honestly, but it's unfair. I was reading and he's adjusted the methods a lot because at one point, Calvin Johnson was the best athlete by like 0.7, which makes sense because he was a freak athlete, but then he adjusted his methods and now he was only 0.02 ahead.

He keeps saying the math is too complex and no one would understand the methods, but he pretty clearly lays it out in a table how he measures; the rest is just simple statistics.

I'm with you in that I think he made this up, recognized flaws and deficiencies, but purposely ignored them because it would ruin his four years of work.

I think I said this before, but I think it is very telling that he never weighted the formulas to be unique by position grouping, even if it's not split like DE, 1T, 3T, etc, but just QB, DL, OL, etc. How is it fair to weight all these positions equally?

Well I guess he's only rating their athleticism... in that a higher score means you're more athletic, but not necessarily that the higher score has a direct correlation to being a better player. 

Then again I haven't read anything about it so I don't know exactly what he's trying to evaluate. 

It could be he's calculating athleticism on its own and then looking for trends in whether or not there's a range of athleticism or a base line athletic ability needed to succeed at a certain position. 

Basically the same things that make a WR a great overall athlete make a lineman a great overall athlete as well. The positions may emphasize different areas of that athleticism when playing the position, but I think we'd all agree that a tackle who runs a 4.7 40, has a 36 inch vertical, 10 ft broad, etc... Is a better pure athlete than a guy who benched 40 reps but was quite a bit slower.

The second guy might be a better tackle bc he's got the strength coupled with at least requisite athletic ability, but certainly the other guy is the better athlete.

So, in that sense - for purely measuring overall athleticism it may be useful, but clearly is useLESS as a tool to determine which athletic abilities are more/less crucial for a certain position. 

His formula is basically saying that speed, acceleration, quickness and explosion are more important in overall athleticism than maybe brute strength, regardless of position.

So again it could potentially be useful to analyze and see if there's some baseline for athletic ability that's needed to succeed at a given position, and seeing how that may differ from position to position. 

And even seeing where there isn't a correlation on this scale could be useful, in that it would tell you this overall athleticism measure isn't important there, where you could tinker with how you weigh the different data to see if it then does become more predictable. 

 

So i guess it all depends on what you're trying to determine. if all its saying is at X position it seems there's some base line level of athleticism required to succeed, while additional athleticism above that isn't necessarily predictive of better play.... Then there could be some value or truth in that. 

But for more validity you definitely need more data. Using numbers from a one day, one time event like the combine where there's so much pressure and trying to say that's an accurate representation of a guys true athleticism is ridiculous. If you had repeated results in each discipline for every player.... And did this for every player (not arbitrarily cutting it off at a certain year....) and uniform data for every player (not just inputting 5 criteria for one guy when the study requires 6 from everyone else) then it could have some validity. 

So for just a casual look I guess it's fine. But trying to use it as statistical analysis to predict a players future like Sami is trying to do shows a lack of understanding as to what this really is, or its usefulness. 

[BmoreBird22]

@BOLDnPurPnBlacK To be honest, I don't even think he's looking at a baseline minimum; I think he's trying to prove that a higher RAS score equates to a better player overall, but this fails to take into account workout warriors. Vernon Gholston and some other guy scored (I don't remember who since I'd never heard of him) scored like a 9.8 and 10.0 respectively, but both obviously busted as far as draft expectations were concerned. 

I'd really be curious to see what the formula is that he's calculating it with because he's adjusted it to make a 0.68 difference with Calvin Johnson, which is an entire six point difference in one area, which I view as pretty significant. I don't think he's concerned with minimum thresholds; I think he's literally just calculating it to see if a more athletic player is a better player, which would make the assumption that if you're a good athlete, you can be taught to be a good player, which isn't necessarily true.

Again, though, for someone who put in four years of work to not make differentiations on the significance of each drill for each positional group (seriously, how often are OL/DL gonna run 20 and 40 yards...?), and then make the admission that certain drills don't matter for certain positions, but include them anyway is stupid.

I'm gonna try to find more articles, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical.

"Having a higher RAS Grade tends to correlate to NFL success, but it isn’t a requirement.  The odds are just higher."

He makes this admission from an article a year ago, but when I was reading an article from prior to this draft, he was downing players for not having a high RAS as if they wouldn't do well. He really seems to be way too high on his own work.

Edited June 25, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[ravensdan]

So I haven't looked in to this guys RAS system but to discount analytics entirely is a huge mistake. There is some great advanced work going on and it's pretty well proven to be a viable tool and very predictive of performance. And if this guys took is accurate other than two guys them that is way more accurate than any other method. My point is discounting analytics entirely is a mistake. And teams aren't. 

[BmoreBird22]

30 minutes ago, ravensdan said:

So I haven't looked in to this guys RAS system but to discount analytics entirely is a huge mistake. There is some great advanced work going on and it's pretty well proven to be a viable tool and very predictive of performance. And if this guys took is accurate other than two guys them that is way more accurate than any other method. My point is discounting analytics entirely is a mistake. And teams aren't. 

The issue is that this is entirely his work and his work only. I have never seen it posted anywhere but the Detroit Lions page on SuperBowlNation.com and he's the only one that references this statistic. If you Google Relative Athletic Score, it's like six links with only his work. I have never heard a major sportswriter or NFL team actually reference this when deciding on what players they want.

And I'm discounting it because he makes a lot of admissions of fault and error in his methods, but fails to actually fix them. He supposedly worked on this for three to four years, so there should be no excuse to not weight things accordingly and make changes. He apparently significantly altered his formula, but admitted in 2016 that he has yet to weight it according to position. That's going to lead one to believe that he's altering it to more or less fit the data as he wants it, especially when he refuses to release the formula because "it's too complex". 

I'm not saying he didn't put in a lot of work, but statistics is one of those maths where you can totally fit the data to work the way you want it to. It can be manipulated and skewed to fit what you want to find, which is why in any academia, there is a huge peer review process before any work gets published. For this, he's not letting people peer review or make critique, which is likely why myself and others are just now hearing about it, even though he made this in 2015.

And apparently he's compiled this huge list dating back to 2001, but I don't think anyone has seen that list.

[Cawtious]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 11:19 AM, 757RavensFan said:

Obviously the coaches see it differently since Zuttah is getting all of the reps at center during OTAs and mini-camp. 

Zuttah is coming back from an injury.  They are giving him his chance to compete.  There is a lot of evaluation that will be done before Zuttah is named the starter when it matters, during the regular season.

  It's obvious to me that they are going to give Jensen a chance to supplant him.  Jensen spent most of his time in football as a Center.  It wasn't until college that he played Tight Tackle, and guard in the NFL.  He was taking snaps as a center his rookie year prior to his foot injury. 

[757RavensFan]

1 minute ago, Cawtious said:

Zuttah is coming back from an injury.  They are giving him his chance to compete.  There is a lot of evaluation that will be done before Zuttah is named the starter when it matters, during the regular season.

  It's obvious to me that they are going to give Jensen a chance to supplant him.  Jensen spent most of his time in football as a Center.  It wasn't until college that he played Tight Tackle, and guard in the NFL.  He was taking snaps as a center his rookie year prior to his foot injury. 

This is news to me. I dont  recall one reference of the Ravens given Jensen reps at center.  Could be wrong though.  

[757RavensFan]

I'm really interested in seeing what Alex Lewis can do at LG.  They say he's massive like KO.  But time will tell if he's as aggressive and strong like KO.  If they mature and develop into starters, we could have a real good young O line for a few years.  We need to start looking for a suitable replacement for Yanda.  I would be surprised if he's with us after the 2018 season. 

Edited July 2, 2016 by 757RavensFan

[rmw10]

14 minutes ago, Cawtious said:

Zuttah is coming back from an injury.  They are giving him his chance to compete.  There is a lot of evaluation that will be done before Zuttah is named the starter when it matters, during the regular season.

  It's obvious to me that they are going to give Jensen a chance to supplant him.  Jensen spent most of his time in football as a Center.  It wasn't until college that he played Tight Tackle, and guard in the NFL.  He was taking snaps as a center his rookie year prior to his foot injury. 

And what makes it obvious?  Zuttah is pretty much the unquestioned starter.  There's been no indication otherwise.

Jensen has been getting reps at C on the 2nd team because he's the most qualified and you need someone to take those reps.

[Cawtious]

12 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

This is news to me. I dont  recall one reference of the Ravens given Jensen reps at center.  Could be wrong though.  

I can assure you he did in the past and he did during camp.  Brian Bower was at the camp this year (know him fairly well) and verified it to me that he was taking reps at center with the 2's.

[Cawtious]

16 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

And what makes it obvious?  Zuttah is pretty much the unquestioned starter.  There's been no indication otherwise.

Jensen has been getting reps at C on the 2nd team because he's the most qualified and you need someone to take those reps.

Er, if we were looking at who's had the most game experience at C between Urschel and Jensen......I would say that Urschel is the most qualified of the two. 

Beyond that, yes......Jensen is qualified.  We'll see how it plays out.  You've got your information and opinion and I have mine.  May the best man win at every position!

Edited July 1, 2016 by Cawtious
Spellin error

[rmw10]

1 minute ago, Cawtious said:

Er, if we were looking at who's had the most game experience at C between Urschel and Jensen......I would say that Urschel in the most qualified of the two. 

Beyond that, yes......Jensen is qualified.  We'll see how it plays out.  You've got your information and opinion and I have mine.  May the best man win at every position!

Urschel isn't the most qualified for the 2nd team because he's the starting LG on the 1st team.  Who else would be playing center on the 2nd team other than Jensen?  It's obviously him, but that doesn't mean that Zuttah isn't the unquestioned starter as it currently stands.  I'm not ruling out the possibility that Jensen plays lights out and earns a job, but there's literally no indication at this point that Zuttah's spot is in any danger,

[Cawtious]

Just now, rmw10 said:

Urschel isn't the most qualified for the 2nd team because he's the starting LG on the 1st team.  Who else would be playing center on the 2nd team other than Jensen?  It's obviously him, but that doesn't mean that Zuttah isn't the unquestioned starter as it currently stands.  I'm not ruling out the possibility that Jensen plays lights out and earns a job, but there's literally no indication at this point that Zuttah's spot is in any danger,

Who has the most experience at C as far as NFL reps go between the two?  I understand what you're saying.  Jensen is the next man up at the position with Urschel where he is now.  I don't think anything is for certain right now, and I think we agree on that.  I think Wagner, Yanda, and Stanley are set.  Center and LG will be hotly contested through camp. 

[rmw10]

17 minutes ago, Cawtious said:

Who has the most experience at C as far as NFL reps go between the two?  I understand what you're saying.  Jensen is the next man up at the position with Urschel where he is now.  I don't think anything is for certain right now, and I think we agree on that.  I think Wagner, Yanda, and Stanley are set.  Center and LG will be hotly contested through camp. 

Well, yeah, Urschel does, but he's not playing there because he's on the first team.  I'm not debating that Urschel has more reps.  I'm just illustrating why Jensen is running as the 2nd team C - and that's because he's the best option on that team and might be the primary interior backup during the season.  Regardless, Zuttah isn't in any real danger unless he completely sucks.  LG is the only real battle as it currently stands.  Don't let your Jensen fandom/Zuttah hatred get in the way of reality right now.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, 757RavensFan said:

This is news to me. I dont  recall one reference of the Ravens given Jensen reps at center.  Could be wrong though.  

Jensen so far this offseason has only gotten reps at center. But with the 2nd team offense. 

I agree that its Zuttah job to lose. If it was an equal competition he and Jensen would be splitting reps - though a lot can change through Training Camp. But we can only makes assessments based on the info given to us - and so far its been that Zuttah has gotten all the 1st team reps at center, Urschel at LG, and Jensens been the 2nd team center. Ive got to imagine that if they were truly considering at this point in time that Jensen could be the 1st team center he would have at least received some reps with the first team.

Similarly to those that say Jensen will be the starting LG. Ive got to imagine that if the coaching staff thought he was the best option there, he would have at least received some reps there. So far - he hasnt.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, Cawtious said:

Who has the most experience at C as far as NFL reps go between the two?  I understand what you're saying.  Jensen is the next man up at the position with Urschel where he is now.  I don't think anything is for certain right now, and I think we agree on that.  I think Wagner, Yanda, and Stanley are set.  Center and LG will be hotly contested through camp. 

This is where I cant agree. If it were going to be "hotly contested" dont you think they would have given at least some 1st team reps to Jensen or someone else at either spot? So far, from what we've been told - Urschel has received all the reps at LG and Zuttah the same at C.

Of course, training camp things could change.... and they likely will since theres more practices, more reps, and guys get fatigued and need breaks. 

We know ILB is a competition. Likewise, several players have gotten 1st team reps there (Correa and Orr). So, we see that when there is truly a competition the coaching staff split reps between the guys in the competition.

Spots that are a sure thing, like safety... Weddle and Webb have gotten all the reps. Wright ran entirely with the 1st team, no one rotated in... bc we know his spot is set. Yanda, Wagner, and Stanley got all the 1st team reps - we dont argue that theres any risk of someone taking their spot.

Theres a clear pattern. Where the coaching staff views a definite starter, they got all the reps. Where they view a spot up for grabs, reps were split in some way. I think thats a pretty clear indicator that they view Urschel and Zuttah as the unquestioned starters at both spots. Could Jensen play out of his mind and throw his name into the hat? Sure, but that will be because of something he does in the future - not that hes really viewed as being in the competition now.

[Cawtious]

2 hours ago, rmw10 said:

Well, yeah, Urschel does, but he's not playing there because he's on the first team.  I'm not debating that Urschel has more reps.  I'm just illustrating why Jensen is running as the 2nd team C - and that's because he's the best option on that team and might be the primary interior backup during the season.  Regardless, Zuttah isn't in any real danger unless he completely sucks.  LG is the only real battle as it currently stands.  Don't let your Jensen fandom/Zuttah hatred get in the way of reality right now.

So what makes me a Zuttah hater?  Guess I don't understand that comment at all.  Because I think he'll be in a battle that makes me a hater or ?

[Cawtious]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

This is where I cant agree. If it were going to be "hotly contested" dont you think they would have given at least some 1st team reps to Jensen or someone else at either spot? So far, from what we've been told - Urschel has received all the reps at LG and Zuttah the same at C.

Of course, training camp things could change.... and they likely will since theres more practices, more reps, and guys get fatigued and need breaks. 

We know ILB is a competition. Likewise, several players have gotten 1st team reps there (Correa and Orr). So, we see that when there is truly a competition the coaching staff split reps between the guys in the competition.

Spots that are a sure thing, like safety... Weddle and Webb have gotten all the reps. Wright ran entirely with the 1st team, no one rotated in... bc we know his spot is set. Yanda, Wagner, and Stanley got all the 1st team reps - we dont argue that theres any risk of someone taking their spot.

Theres a clear pattern. Where the coaching staff views a definite starter, they got all the reps. Where they view a spot up for grabs, reps were split in some way. I think thats a pretty clear indicator that they view Urschel and Zuttah as the unquestioned starters at both spots. Could Jensen play out of his mind and throw his name into the hat? Sure, but that will be because of something he does in the future - not that hes really viewed as being in the competition now.

Right.  Alex and Jensen should just resign themselves to being backups at this time.  Glad you guys have it all sewed up.

[rmw10]

2 minutes ago, Cawtious said:

So what makes me a Zuttah hater?  Guess I don't understand that comment at all.  Because I think he'll be in a battle that makes me a hater or ?

Maybe that was a little farfetched.  I can admit that.  Still, I think it's quite obvious that Zuttah is the starter unless something drastic happens to make us think otherwise.  No indication that Jensen is even a thought to beating out Zuttah right now.

[trevorsteadman]

I feel like this Jensen over Zuttah talk is like the early talks of Allen/Dixson over Forsett. While I can admit I was one advocating that to get younger at that position to cut Forsett if Allen/Dixson can fill his role we found out through the offseason so far that Forsett has taken a majority of the 1st team reps at running back. So therefore I am going into training camp thinking Forsett is going to be the #1 next season. I think the same should go for Zuttah. I actually think Zuttah is a safer pick because of his long contract with us and he isn't at the age where he declines at his position. 

Anything can happen but I think people are overhyping Jensen recently. I think he is a quality back up that can fill in as a starter, but everyone seems to think he is the next Osemele already.