The CardBoard
Thomas Booker at the combine. - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thomas Booker at the combine. (/thread-23024.html)


Thomas Booker at the combine. - JJJ - 03-05-2022

Thomas Booker at the combine.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1500296836472459264?s=21[/tweet]

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - CardinalSagehen - 03-05-2022

There are more participants to come in all the events. Currently, among DT's, Booker is running: 
- 1st among 7 in the 20 Yd Shuttle, well ahead of the field
- Tied for 1st among 5 in the 3 Cone Drill
- 4th among 12 in the Broad Jump
- 5th among 13 in the 40 Yd Dash (4.94 seconds and 301 pounds)

Bench press is presumably tomorrow for him.

Live results here: https://www.nfl.com/combine/tracker/live-results/40-yards-dash/dt/all-colleges/

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Giants - 03-05-2022

(03-05-2022, 09:31 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:  There are more participants to come in all the events. Currently, among DT's, Booking is running: 
- 1st among 7 in the 20 Yd Shuttle, well ahead of the field
- Tied for 1st among 5 in the 3 Cone Drill
- 4th among 12 in the Broad Jump
- 5th among 13 in the 40 Yd Dash (4.94 seconds and 301 pounds)

Bench press is presumably tomorrow for him.

Live results here: https://www.nfl.com/combine/tracker/live-results/40-yards-dash/dt/all-colleges/

Jordan Davis - a 4.78 40 at 348 lbs.  That is an amazing feat……

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Phogge - 03-06-2022

Booker isn’t in Jordan Davis’ universe.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - SamuelMcF - 03-06-2022

(03-06-2022, 10:06 AM)Phogge Wrote:  Booker isn’t in Jordan Davis’ universe.

NOBODY is in Jordan Davis' universe.

Booker will be drafted. Those are great numbers for a non-Avenger.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - CardinalSagehen - 03-06-2022

(03-06-2022, 10:57 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(03-06-2022, 10:06 AM)Phogge Wrote:  Booker isn’t in Jordan Davis’ universe.

NOBODY is in Jordan Davis' universe.

Booker will be drafted. Those are great numbers for a non-Avenger.

Here's one analysis that supports your point.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MathBomb/status/1500461294390063115?s=20&t=-5Ltyyi0hTlmLf6z5GYUxw[/tweet]

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Phogge - 03-06-2022

If Booker makes a roster and eventually is rated higher than average then it’s another nail in the Stanford coaches coffin.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - cardcrimson - 03-06-2022

(03-06-2022, 11:56 AM)Phogge Wrote:  If Booker makes a roster and eventually is rated higher than average then it’s another nail in the Stanford coaches coffin.

Pfft. There aren't any nails. There aren't any coffins, either. No need, our coaches' existences are everliving. . . .

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Phogge - 03-06-2022

Brings up the old Bob Hope line about Democrats.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Red80 - 03-06-2022

(03-06-2022, 11:56 AM)Phogge Wrote:  If Booker makes a roster and eventually is rated higher than average then it’s another nail in the Stanford coaches coffin.

Booker was double-teamed  a lot last season, providing opportunities for guys like DWP and Ryan Johnson to make plays, which they almost never did.  Those two guys were awful.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - cardcrimson - 03-06-2022

(03-06-2022, 12:32 PM)Phogge Wrote:  Brings up the old Bob Hope line about Democrats.

I hope that doesn't get you banned. . . .

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - SamuelMcF - 03-06-2022

(03-06-2022, 12:34 PM)Red80 Wrote:  
(03-06-2022, 11:56 AM)Phogge Wrote:  If Booker makes a roster and eventually is rated higher than average then it’s another nail in the Stanford coaches coffin.

Booker was double-teamed  a lot last season, providing opportunities for guys like DWP and Ryan Johnson to make plays, which they almost never did.  Those two guys were awful.

Not "a lot." Try "basically every play."

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Phogge - 03-06-2022

Hopefully he can do better in the NFL than Solomon Thomas. Big if.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - rastaman85 - 03-07-2022

(03-06-2022, 02:45 PM)Phogge Wrote:  Hopefully he can do better in the NFL than Solomon Thomas. Big if.

Let's hope and pray that Booker doesn't have to deal with the personal issues that Thomas has faced.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - gailtate - 03-08-2022

(03-06-2022, 12:34 PM)Red80 Wrote:  
(03-06-2022, 11:56 AM)Phogge Wrote:  If Booker makes a roster and eventually is rated higher than average then it’s another nail in the Stanford coaches coffin.

Booker was double-teamed  a lot last season, providing opportunities for guys like DWP and Ryan Johnson to make plays, which they almost never did.  Those two guys were awful.

One of them couldn't get out of this own way. Embarrassing. As bad as anything seen during the wilderness years, '02-'06. On second thought, we're in wilderness years right now...

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - Renaissance Man - 03-08-2022

Booker added a lot of weight for last season, and I thought that worked against him.  He looks like his earlier self in those pictures.  I wonder if there are any accurate weights for two years ago, last year, and right now.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - SamuelMcF - 03-08-2022

(03-08-2022, 09:01 AM)Renaissance Man Wrote:  Booker added a lot of weight for last season, and I thought that worked against him.  He looks like his earlier self in those pictures.  I wonder if there is any accurate weights for two years ago, last year, and right now.

Our horrific DL "depth" forced the need to bulk up that much. Remember the pathetic safety situation a couple years ago? That's been happening at DL now, and will continue to for the next 1-2 years because apparently just 1 per class for 3 straight classes was enough. Morons.

2019: 281 (playing 3-4 DE with big Mike Williams in the middle - I think that should be his position in the NFL too)
2020: 310
2021: 309
Combine: 301

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - TrumpCard - 03-08-2022

(03-08-2022, 12:05 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  Our horrific DL "depth" forced the need to bulk up that much. Remember the pathetic safety situation a couple years ago? That's been happening at DL now, and will continue to for the next 1-2 years because apparently just 1 per class for 3 straight classes was enough. Morons.

My only nit here is that we can't very well simultaneously say: (1) load up on recruits because no one stays longer than 4 years anymore and you can't count on good players staying beyond 3 years anymore; and (2) the DL is going to suck in 2023 because all the DLs are too young, even though the 2021 and 2022 classes each had 3 DLs (plus a strong group of OLB pass rushers, one or more of whom might grow into a DL).  But I agree that the DL numbers have been way too thin for a while.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - SamuelMcF - 03-08-2022

(03-08-2022, 01:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  
(03-08-2022, 12:05 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  Our horrific DL "depth" forced the need to bulk up that much. Remember the pathetic safety situation a couple years ago? That's been happening at DL now, and will continue to for the next 1-2 years because apparently just 1 per class for 3 straight classes was enough. Morons.

My only nit here is that we can't very well simultaneously say: (1) load up on recruits because no one stays longer than 4 years anymore and you can't count on good players staying beyond 3 years anymore; and (2) the DL is going to suck in 2023 because all the DLs are too young, even though the 2021 and 2022 classes each had 3 DLs (plus a strong group of OLB pass rushers, one or more of whom might grow into a DL).  But I agree that the DL numbers have been way too thin for a while.
For the record, I classify DL as different from the new "Edge" position. We're talking about the big middle 2 guys. Aaron Armitage and the three pass rushers will not be DLs.

(1) and (2) are completely unrelated to each other. You should ABSOLUTELY load up on recruits at a position where ideally 5-6 rotate in a given game; 3 in 3 years makes zero sense. And the DL SHOULD suck in 2023 (let alone 2022...) because they are all still too young, except for Tobin Phillips, at a position where old man strength is important.

Re (1), my hope and belief is we are signing 2 DL in the 2023 class as well. The pipeline should - from a numbers perspective - look much healthier moving forward. From a ratings/stars perspective, TBD but leaning towards yikes.

RE: Thomas Booker at the combine. - old spanish trail - 03-08-2022

(03-08-2022, 01:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(03-08-2022, 01:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  
(03-08-2022, 12:05 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  Our horrific DL "depth" forced the need to bulk up that much. Remember the pathetic safety situation a couple years ago? That's been happening at DL now, and will continue to for the next 1-2 years because apparently just 1 per class for 3 straight classes was enough. Morons.

My only nit here is that we can't very well simultaneously say: (1) load up on recruits because no one stays longer than 4 years anymore and you can't count on good players staying beyond 3 years anymore; and (2) the DL is going to suck in 2023 because all the DLs are too young, even though the 2021 and 2022 classes each had 3 DLs (plus a strong group of OLB pass rushers, one or more of whom might grow into a DL).  But I agree that the DL numbers have been way too thin for a while.
For the record, I classify DL as different from the new "Edge" position. We're talking about the big middle 2 guys. Aaron Armitage and the three pass rushers will not be DLs.

(1) and (2) are completely unrelated to each other. You should ABSOLUTELY load up on recruits at a position where ideally 5-6 rotate in a given game; 3 in 3 years makes zero sense. And the DL SHOULD suck in 2023 (let alone 2022...) because they are all still too young, except for Tobin Phillips, at a position where old man strength is important.

Re (1), my hope and belief is we are signing 2 DL in the 2023 class as well. The pipeline should - from a numbers perspective - look much healthier moving forward. From a ratings/stars perspective, TBD but leaning towards yikes.

Oh-oh!