text:
Home Movie NewsBox Office Avatar Box Office: Where Exactly on the All-Time Chart?
Box OfficeAdventure MoviesFantasy Movies
Avatar Box Office: Where Exactly on the All-Time Chart?
Michelle Hutton 13 years ago
Avatar with Sam Worthington as a Na'vi. Curiously, all three titles at the top of the all-time domestic box office chart are 20th Century Fox productions: Avatar, Titanic (a Fox-Paramount co-venture), and Star Wars.
Avatar is on its way to surpassing Titanic at the domestic box office – as long as inflation is set aside.
Initially heralded as one of the year's biggest international blockbusters, James Cameron's environmentally conscious futuristic adventure has recently passed another worldwide box office milestone.
But what is truly the most successful movie ever made?
1. Avatar box office: About to surpass Titanic in the domestic market – but not in ticket sales
1.1. $2 billion milestone worldwide
1.2. Avatar box office update
1.3. Awards + cast
2. Avatar & the inflation factor
2.1. The 3D/IMAX premium factor
2.2. Annual 'average' ticket prices' pitfalls
3. Avatar ahead of The Dark Knight – or is it?
3.1. Gone with the Wind still no. 1
3.2. Six more top titles
4. "Avatar Box Office: All-Time Chart" notes
4.1. Updated country figures (including rereleases)
5. "Avatar Box Office" endnotes
Avatar box office: About to surpass Titanic in the domestic market – but not in ticket sales
Feb. 1 update: According to studio figures found at boxofficemojo.com, this past weekend, Jan. 29–31, the domestic gross of James Cameron's Avatar – a box office record-setter in several "categories" – was at the higher end of expectations: $31.3 million from 3,074 locations, which represents a small 14 percent drop from a week ago.
Average per theater after seven consecutive weekends at the top of the U.S. and Canada box office chart: $9,759, or about what most well-performing releases average on their first weekend out.
After 45 days, the domestic total of this mega-budget ($220 million or whereabouts) 20th Century Fox release stands at $595.8 million. If one doesn't account for inflation (see further below), that means in the next couple of days Cameron's futuristic fantasy adventure will surpass the domestic box office success of his romantic melodrama/disaster movie Titanic.
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, and veteran Gloria Stuart (The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man), Titanic – the no. 1 domestic box office leader for 15 straight weekends back in late 1997/early 1998 – earned $600.8 million.
$2 billion milestone worldwide
Also this past weekend, Avatar passed the $2 billion mark at the global box office; its worldwide cume currently stands at $2.039 billion, of which more than 70 percent came from overseas.
Avatar's top international markets are the following (updated final figures for the original release): China ($202.6 million), France* ($174.4 million), Japan ($170.6 million), Germany ($156.6 million), the United Kingdom/Ireland ($147.6 million), Russia/CIS ($116.1 million), South Korea ($108.3 million), Spain ($107.3 million), Australia ($103.9 million), Italy ($93.7 million), Brazil ($57.8 million), Mexico ($43.8 million), Poland ($30.9 million), India ($28 million), Taiwan ($27.6 million), The Netherlands ($26.9 million), and Denmark ($25 million).[1]
When Does Avatar 2 Come Out? + Follow-Up Sequels' Release Dates
Horror Movies Top Box Office + Daniel Radcliffe Is Back
Clash of the Titans Box Office: Sam Worthington 3D Fantasy Underwhelms
Bear in mind that China and Russia became more open to American movies only in the past few years (i.e., post-Titanic). Also worth noting, about 80 percent of Avatar's domestic take and more than two-thirds of its international revenues (up to early February 2010) were generated at 3D/IMAX screenings, which charge premium ticket prices.
And let's not forget that the U.S. dollar's current weakness helps to "inflate" earnings coming from abroad. (The dollar situation was the very opposite when Titanic scored $1.84 billion worldwide.)
So, be careful when making Avatar vs. Titanic comparisons.
* Includes Monaco, and, weirdly, the former French colonies of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.
Avatar box office update
Update: In the U.S. and Canada, Avatar surpassed Titanic on Tuesday, Feb. 2, when its box office cume reached $601.1 million.
Avatar ultimately ended its initial domestic run with $749.8 million, in addition to $1.993 billion internationally, for a worldwide grand total of nearly $2.744 billion.
Following both domestic and international rereleases (including a dismal domestic relaunch in late summer 2010), Avatar has reached $760.5 million domestically and $2.087 billion internationally, for a worldwide grand total of $2.847 billion.
Gone with the Wind remains the top movie on the inflation-adjusted domestic box office chart.
Awards + cast
Despite accusations of racism and paganism, anti-Americanism, and pro-smokingism, Avatar has received nominations from the French Academy, the British Academy, the American Cinema Editors, the American Society of Cinematographers, the Writers Guild, the Art Directors Guild, and the Costume Designers Guild.
About a week ago, Avatar lost the Producers Guild Award to Kathryn Bigelow's low-budget Iraq War drama The Hurt Locker. And this past weekend, Cameron lost the Directors Guild Award to former wife Bigelow, the first woman to ever win the DGA prize for a narrative feature.
Written and directed by Cameron, the Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Director Golden Globe winner stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi, CCH Pounder, Wes Studi, Dileep Rao, Joel David Moore, Matt Gerald, and three-time Academy Award nominee Sigourney Weaver.
Avatar with Sam Worthington and Stephen Lang. On Jan. 16, Avatar surpassed George Lucas' 1977 sci-fi adventure Star Wars at the domestic box office: $478.1 million vs. $460.9 million.
Avatar & the inflation factor
Jan. 29 update: As I've said before, the picture – or rather, the All Time Domestic Box Office Chart – looks quite different when inflation is taken into consideration, even while still ignoring 3D/IMAX surcharges for a movie like Avatar.
On the regular all-time domestic chart, Avatar is, for the time being, trailing a single title: Titanic. But on its inflation-adjusted all-time chart, Box Office Mojo estimates that Avatar is now at no. 26 (eight slots higher than it was ten days ago). James Cameron's fantasy adventure is a notch above the 1965 James Bond flick Thunderball, starring Sean Connery, and below the 1978 John Travolta/Olivia Newton-John musical Grease.
Avatar is expected to gross somewhere between $25–$30 million this weekend. If so, that means it'll be no. 21 on Monday, ahead of Grease, Disney's The Lion King, Disney and Julie Andrews' Mary Poppins, Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks' Disneyesque Forrest Gump, and Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, which has nothing to do with Walt Disney in any way whatsoever.
The 3D/IMAX premium factor
Now, if 3D/IMAX premium surcharges were factored in, Avatar would be way further down the inflation-adjusted domestic chart – which is supposed to better reflect the number of tickets each movie has sold. After all, 3D/IMAX surcharges represent a significant chunk of Avatar's domestic gross: Somewhere between 23–33 percent.
Some quick math: Tickets for Avatar have ranged from $9–$17 or whereabouts, or between 30–40 percent above those for 2D movies. Add to the equation the fact that 80 percent of Avatar's domestic gross has come from 3D and/or IMAX screenings and we get the 23–33 percent range mentioned in the previous paragraph.
So, even if you choose the lower end of the scale and deduct 25 percent from Avatar's total earnings, James Cameron's box office sensation would have taken in around $423 million domestically (representing the actual number of tickets sold when compared to 2D movies), placing it at …
… no. 65, ahead of Disney's 2003 animated Finding Nemo and behind Burt Reynolds' 1978 action-flick-for-hicks Smokey and the Bandit.
If you choose the topmost end of the scale, or 33 percent, Avatar's 2D-equivalent revenues would have been around $376 million, which would place it at …
… no. 92, ironically, right behind another 3D movie, Vincent Price's House of Wax (1953), and right ahead of Alfred Hitchcock's thriller Rear Window, which starred James Stewart and Grace Kelly back in 1954.
Annual 'average' ticket prices' pitfalls
As always, bear in mind that these are approximations based on "average" ticket prices (recently inflated by an increase in 3D/IMAX screenings) provided by the National Association of Theater Owners.
A truly accurate calculation of a film's popularity at the box office – as in, its number of tickets sold – would be based on where a movie made most of its money, e.g., at top-dollar New York houses, at thousands of cheap small-town theaters, or at premium-charging 3D/IMAX theaters.
It's also worth remembering that population increases, changes in audience demographics, changes in film production (studios cranked out far more product – hence, more competition – before the advent of television), changes in film distribution (movies didn't open at 300 – let alone 3,000 – locations until the mid-1970s), and the growth of entertainment alternatives (home video, cable television, pay-per-view options) should all be taken into consideration when comparing the box office success of movies from different eras. And that some of the movies found on Box Office Mojo's inflation-adjusted chart had one or more rereleases throughout the decades.
The effect of piracy on a movie's box office performance remains debatable. It all depends on the type of movie (would you rather watch Avatar on your computer screen or at a 3D movie house?), the quality of the pirated material (high-definition copies vs. crummy reproductions), and where the copying is taking place (Beverly Hills and Tokyo or Lagos and Karachi, where most people who would buy 50-cent copies of Hollywood flicks wouldn't be able to afford going to the movies, anyhow).
Avatar: Screenwriter-director James Cameron with actress Sigourney Weaver.
Avatar ahead of The Dark Knight – or is it?
Jan. 25: On Saturday, Jan. 23, James Cameron's Avatar overtook Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight at the domestic box office: $542.5 million vs. $533.7 million.
Impressive?
Sure. Even so, Avatar still has quite some ways to go before it matches the number of tickets The Dark Knight sold in the U.S. and Canada last year.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, at least 65 percent of Avatar's overseas box office and almost 80 percent of its domestic take have been generated at pricier 3D venues – some even pricier in the IMAX format. For comparison's sake: The 2D The Dark Knight earned a mere 6.5 percent of its worldwide revenues from IMAX screenings.
That's why when it comes to the actual number of tickets sold, Avatar still lags behind a whole bunch of other movies both domestically and internationally.
Gone with the Wind still no. 1
The Reporter adds that Avatar is now the highest-grossing film (if you ignore inflation) of all time in Chile, China, Spain, Russia, and Hong Kong (actually part of China, but never mind). It's also the biggest Hollywood hit ever in India.
And yet the Reporter asserts that the actual no. 1 box office hit the world over remains a 70-year-old movie, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/David O. Selznick's (mostly) Victor Fleming-directed Gone with the Wind, which, following its late 1939 debut (no mega-wide releases in those days), is supposed to have grossed $400 million worldwide, the equivalent of $6 billion today.
Now, although there's no doubt that the multiple Oscar-winning Civil War romantic drama was a much bigger sensation upon its release than Avatar is or ever will be, the Reporter's Gone with the Wind figures – if accurate – surely include latter-day rereleases as well.
Unsurprisingly, Gone with the Wind also tops the inflation-adjusted all-time domestic box office chart: $1.485 billion (including rereleases). In the extensive cast: Best Actress Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, Leslie Howard, Best Supporting Actress Hattie McDaniel, Thomas Mitchell, Ona Munson, Barbara O'Neil, Evelyn Keyes, Ann Rutherford, and Butterfly McQueen.
Six more top titles
The other top six films on the inflation-adjusted domestic box office chart are:
George Lucas' Star Wars (1977) with $1.31 billion.
Cast: Mark Hamill. Carrie Fisher. Harrison Ford. Alec Guinness.
Robert Wise's The Sound of Music (1965) with $1.05 billion.
Cast: Julie Andrews. Christopher Plummer. Eleanor Parker.
Steven Spielberg's E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) with $1.04 billion.
Cast: Henry Thomas. Dee Wallace. Drew Barrymore.
Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments (1956) with $962 million.
Cast: Charlton Heston. Yul Brynner. Anne Baxter. Yvonne De Carlo. Edward G. Robinson. John Derek. Debra Paget.
James Cameron's Titanic (1997) with $943 million.
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio. Kate Winslet. Gloria Stuart.
"Avatar Box Office: All-Time Chart" notes
Updated country figures (including rereleases)
[1] Including rereleases, Avatar's country figures change some:
China ($261.8 million), France ($175.6 million), Japan ($172 million), Germany ($162.3 million), the United Kingdom/Ireland ($150.9 million), Russia/CIS ($117.2 million), Spain ($110 million), South Korea ($109.9 million), Australia ($104.6 million), Italy ($93.7 million), Brazil ($58.3 million), Mexico ($44.7 million), Poland ($31.5 million), India ($30.9 million), Taiwan ($27.9 million), The Netherlands ($26.9 million), and Denmark ($25.3 million).
"Avatar Box Office" endnotes
Unless otherwise noted, "Avatar Box Office: Where Exactly on the All-Time Chart?" box office information via Box Office Mojo. Budget info – which should be taken with a grain of salt – via BOM and/or other sources (e.g., the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Screen Daily, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline.com, etc.).
Comments about Avatar and other titles being hits/profitable or flops/money-losers at the box office (see paragraph below) are based on the available data about their production budget, additional marketing and distribution expenses (as a general rule of thumb, around 50 percent of the production cost), and worldwide gross (as a general rule of thumb when it comes to the Hollywood studios, around 50–55 percent of the domestic gross and 40 percent of the international gross goes to the distributing/producing companies).
Bear in mind that data regarding rebates, domestic/international sales/pre-sales, and other credits and/or contractual details that help to alleviate/split production costs and apportion revenues are oftentimes unavailable, and that reported international grosses may be incomplete (i.e., not every territory is fully – or even partially – accounted for).
Also bear in mind that ancillary revenues (domestic/global television rights, home video sales, streaming, merchandising, etc.) can represent anywhere between 40–70 percent of a movie's total take. However, these revenues and their apportionment are only infrequently made public.
Lastly, although a more accurate reflection of a film's popularity (i.e., its number of tickets sold), inflation-adjusted estimates should be taken with extreme caution. For instance, they're based on average domestic ticket prices (via the National Association of Theater Owners, unless otherwise noted) whereas numerous major releases scored a large chunk of their box office take at top-priced venues.
Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver, James Cameron, and Sam Worthington Avatar images: Mark Fellman | Weta | 20th Century Fox.
"Avatar Box Office: Where Exactly on the All-Time Chart?" last updated in October 2022.
Avatar (2009)Batman MoviesGone with the Wind (1939)James CameronSam WorthingtonSigourney WeaverStar Wars MoviesStephen LangTitanic (1997)Zoe Saldana
Science-Hating Creationists vs. IMAX Theaters' Nature Documentaries
'Star Wars' Designer Ralph McQuarrie
Chris Evans Shirtless: 'Captain America: The First Avenger' + Operatic Batman
Chris Pine + Zachary Quinto + Eric Bana: Star Trek Photo Shoot + Premiere Images
Star Wars: The Force Awakens NOT to Become All-Time Worldwide Blockbuster?
Don't Breathe (2016) Movie Review: Fede Alvarez & Stephen Lang Deliver Smart Thrills
Joe_6285 -
It's an great achievement for James Cameron as he is made his mark that he is still king of the world even after 12 years after his return.Thanks for the update let's see how much it make by the end of it's run
zoey -
Ya. And if my aunt had balls. she'd be my uncle.
Avatar is just over three months old. Let's wait and see….let's give it seventy plus years, the same as Gone With the Wind.
I agree with the blahblahblah statement above.
mh -
>>>>>>>>>>>Ya. And if my aunt had balls. she'd be my uncle.
Actually, she might turn out to be your cousin.
>>>>>>>>>>Avatar is just over three months old. Let's wait and see….let's give it seventy plus years, the same as Gone With the Wind.
In other words, it's ok for "Avatar" to be on the all-time box-office chart as long as it's at the very top. If it isn't — and it's not even close when it comes to the number of tickets sold — then it's no longer ok. That makes sense.
Minor detail: In all its releases and rereleases put together, GWTW didn't get even close to playing at as many screens as "Avatar" on its initial run. Keep that in mind as well.
Also, "Gone with the Wind" found most of its audience on its initial run and two rereleases. "Avatar" will have its first rerelease later this year. Let's see how well it does.
gerry -
Your aunt may turn-out to be your cousin and your uncle.
forget dollar value and length of time. you forgot population. gwtw and avatar are in different categories to begin with. Avatar is a Disney movie for adults. Tree worshipping? give me a break!
mfan -
I've wondered about Box Office Mojo's "average" movie ticket price, and decided it must include second run theaters. Perhaps it even reflect the estimated number of tickets sold at matinees. No need to get snarky.
Jay -
Another lame attempt to make Avatar look less successful than it is. The author failed to mention that on that same Box Office Mojo page the author quote for unadjusted inflation it says:
"Most pre-1980 pictures achieved their totals through multiple releases, especially Disney animated features which made much of their totals in the past few decades belying their original release dates in terms of adjustment. For example, Snow White has made $118,328,683 of its unadjusted $184,925,486 total since 1983."
That means if your movie is re-released 5 or 10 years later, the amount of money earned per ticket is more (b/c of inflation), plus the movie gets credited additional dollars to it's total with inflation calculated on top of that.
In fact, the only post 80's movies on that list above Avatar are 1) The Empire Strikes back (which is only $10M ahead of Avatar and will be caught, plus that was re-released in the 90s with extra scenes), 2) ET, & 3) Titanic (will be re-released in 2012).
So in summary, to prove that Avatar is less successful, the author has needed to: 1) rely on data that is adjusted for inflation in it's release year when almost all the movies ahead were re-released years later, 2) discount Avatar's 3D surcharge which is valid considering it is adding value the other movies aren't, 3) claim that downloads which weren't available for any other film ahead of Avatar on the list had no impact which it most certainly would have, particularly for people afraid of 3D hurting their eyes, 4) the market has changed and today there are more big budget movies knocking Avatar out of cinemas such as Alice, 5) today people also have to content with television, pay TV and DVDs which is an option but I suppose the author would discount this as not applying to Avatar, 6) excluded the fact that it hasn't even been released for 100 days yet so this article is a bit pre-mature, 7) exclude the fact that it has earned more than twice that of any film in history worldwide.
In 7-10 days this article will be redundant anyway as Avatar is on track to take Ben Hur despite all the dodgy inflation accounting. Plus, like all the great movies on that list Avatar is set for re-release later this year with additional scenes. It may very well be re-released again decades later too when movie prices are $37 each and have it's total figure adjusted from amounts of $7.61. That would really stuff the argument up (when it's finally competing on the same field). What will Avatar haters use as evidence for how unsuccessful it is then?
>>>>>>>>Another lame attempt to make Avatar look less successful than it is.
Lame is right. But more like another lame attempt to make "Avatar" look more successful than it actually is.
Re: rereleases. That's mentioned in the piece. If you didn't read it before commenting, that's not my responsibility.
>>>>>>>>>>That means if your movie is re-released 5 or 10 years later, the amount of money earned per ticket is more (b/c of inflation), plus the movie gets credited additional dollars to it's total with inflation calculated on top of that.
Yes, but you're wrong anyhow. Box Office Mojo calculates the inflation-adjusted ticket costs for the year of the rerelease. Now, *that* you omitted from your tirade.
So, if "Snow White" made $100 million in 1970, that amount will be added to the film's inflation-adjusted total as **1970** $100 million. That should be obvious. Else, "Snow White" would have made a couple of trillion dollars on that chart.
>>>>>>>>In fact, the only post 80's movies on that list above Avatar are 1) The Empire Strikes back … 2) ET, & 3) Titanic (will be re-released in 2012).
That's because more people went to the movies in the past. Four billion movie tickets were sold a year in the 1940s. (news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19770330&id=10YgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=850EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6763,5117412)
Today they're lucky if they sell 1.4 billion even though the population of the United States is more than twice what it was then.
>>>>>>>>>So in summary, to prove that Avatar is less successful, the author has needed to…
The author has needed to do only one thing. Come up with best possible approximation for the number of tickets the movie has sold (in current dollar terms). That's what the inflation-adjusted chart is all about. That's it.
>>>>>3) claim that downloads which weren't available for any other film ahead of Avatar on the list had no impact which it most certainly would have, particularly for people afraid of 3D hurting their eyes,
C'mon, you must be able to come up with better arguments than this.
>>>>>>>>>4) the market has changed and today there are more big budget movies knocking Avatar out of cinemas such as Alice,
Clearly, you don't understand the way the market worked 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years ago if you believe big studio movies are something new. Take a look at the movies released in 1939 or 1940 or 1950 or 1960 or 1970 and you'll find lots and lots of big, big movies that were very successful. (And some that weren't.)
>>>>>>>>>5) today people also have to content with television, pay TV and DVDs which is an option but I suppose the author would discount this as not applying to Avatar
You should read the article before commenting.
Jim D -
James Cameron has another blockbuster on his hands and still the Oscars rufuses to give him any credit. He has proven he can make movies that the public loves. His peers should give him the credit he deserves.
Captain Rick -
I still love that adjusted for inflation "Gone With The Wind" totally blows all the other films out of the water.
Ricky Bu -
This movie could have done even better if more theatres had invested in the 3D technology, which was the original plan. But because of the financial crists, a lot got cold feet, resulting far fewer theatres with the required equipment than Cameron had hoped for. Since about 80% of the tecket money comes from the 3D theatres, imagine what would have happened if the transition had went more smoothly.
Anyway, because of Avatar's success, they will speed up the process. Which says something about its influence.
The movie will probably end up as number 15 on the list. You have to go back to 1997 and Titanic to find a movie that did it better. And before that, to 1983 and The Return of the Jedi. If excluding the movies with more than one release, you even need to go back to 1975 and Jaws to find the second oldest on the list. And 1965 before that.
So what movie is going to beat Avatar? I have no idea, but it can take a while, and it is going to be some very impressive stuff.
Now when people have seen what performance capture, CGI and 3D can do, it will no longer be anything new, and these kind of movies will probably not grap quite as much as attention in the future as they do now. Just as color and sound no longer makes people amazed like they once did.
The next step will probably be 3D without glasses. And after that, holographic movies, which will be the final major leap in the visual evolution of movies.
As for sound, imagine sound canons that are able to shoot "sond rays" to the area on the screen where a sound is supposed to come from, like a character's mouth, and the sound is then reflected from the screen and carried to the audience. That way, the direction of the movies would be far more realistic.
Tony Robertson -
I have seen several articles about the whole inflation thing but see how ify it gets when you have to guess length of release, cable and dvd eating into time at the box office. Growth of population. It just really becomes a guessing game with all the what ifs. I just don't see how you can compare movies from 40's years ago and further back. Really if you think about it when the talk about the top pop songs they really don't go back further than the rock era and a lot of times not back further than 1970. There is that obvious break at 1955 when the rock era began.
Reason, people just are not interested in something that far back for the most part. Even if you put say Gone With the Wind at the top what would that accomplish. Probably not much. Would people start demanding a return to that style of movie, I doubt it. Even the sequel to it Scarlett did only so so. You didn't see a mad rush of people to see it like when more recent sequels were made like Phantom Menace. I just don't see the advantage to dig up old movies. Those who do care know which ones they are, all the rest of the population will continue to ignore them.
Orangino -
Fact: I would pay 17.50$ to go see Avatar many times over.
Fact: I would NEVER pay that much to watch Gone With The Wind.
Fact: Avatar is the highest grossing movie of ALL time.
Leave it at that, money matters more than numbers of butts in a seat.
peanuts -
Avatar's worldwide box office gross has been due to a "perfect storm" of events; a weak dollar, inflated ticket prices and lack of competition. If it had opened last summer, it would have had to contend with a new big release weekend after weekend. Also Avatar has only sold two thirds of the tickets that Titanic sold. Fewer people (relatively speaking) are paying more to see it. In other words, Avatar's box office is giving the misleading impression that it is the most popular film of all time, when the reality is quite different.
Len S. -
Taking inflation into account would certainly explain the fact that according to the charts 9 out of the top 10 worldwide money making films date from the year 2000 or later. Out of the top 10, only Titanic from 1997 (#2) on the list was made earlier than the year 2000. However, that being said, with the exception of Titanic, Avatar has taken in more than double the amount of any of the other films on the top 10 worldwide list. Therefore even taking into account "inflated" prices, Avatar's box office performance has been remarkable. Avatar even has a chance to earn more internationally than the #2 (Titanic) and #3 (Lord of The Rings ROTK) films combined. Most impressive !
Federico -
I think it would be worth noticing that ALL the existing charts are DOMESTIC (i.e. north american), while Avatar is primarly an INTERNATIONAL success, over 70% of its gross comes from foreign contruies.
Although it is difficoult to make comparison adjusted by inflaction based on worlwide sellings, if you simply compare the percentage of domestic/worldwide sellings of all the movies in the 20 top seller adjusted by inflaction chart, you will find that Avatar has rougly tied Star Wars and that the only movies still haed of it are Titanic and GwtW.
To tie these two Avatar will need to make rougly 3 bilions $, which is not at all impossible IMHO
Dennis -
Money is money - no matter when collected! The success of Avatar is amazing $2.3 Billion and counting in 57 days! This record will not be broken anytime soon.
TM -
"Though imperfect, inflation-adjusted charts are the best way to calculate how many tickets a movie has sold. *That* is the only true measure of a film's popularity **at the box office**."
You probably don't realize, but what you are doing is just as misleading as comparing unadjusted box office in that you assuming one ticket sold today is just as meaningful as one ticket sold 10, 20, 30 years ago. A ticket sold today is actually much more meaningful simply because there are so many other entertainment options out there. It is *harder* to get that sale today than it was in the past.
If you really want to do a fair comparison, you need to account for the decrease in popularity of movies overall. For example, calculate Avatar ticket sales as a percentage of total ticket sales for the year and do the same for other movies you want to compare.
>>>>>>>>>If you really want to do a fair comparison, you need to account for the decrease in popularity of movies overall. For example, calculate Avatar ticket sales as a percentage of total ticket sales for the year and do the same for other movies you want to compare.
I'd disagree that movies are less popular than they used to be. Moviegoing may be less popular, but that's different. People still watch lots of movies at home. And I *do* mention that in my article.
As for the "percentage of ticket sales" comparison, that's an interesting idea though I'm afraid it would probably be "misleading" as well. Studios released many more "big" movies in the past than they do today.
As a result, ticket-sale percentages of major movies released in 1930 or 1940 or 1950 or even 1960 would probably be smaller than today. Release patterns were also different. Movies didn't open in 500 theaters — let alone 3,500. So, the time period (for tallying tickets sold) would have to be different as films opened very slowly.
Rich -
Your numbers are off. Box office mojo calculated out the 3d/IMAX ticket prices about a week ago and estimated up to that point it had sold about 60 million tickets. Using the $7.35 average, Avatar would have made atleast $440 million if everyone did not pay the extra charge for 3d/IMAX tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your numbers are off. Box office mojo calculated out the 3d/IMAX ticket prices about a week ago and estimated up to that point it had sold about 60 million tickets. Using the $7.35 average, Avatar would have made atleast $440 million if everyone did not pay the extra charge for 3d/IMAX tickets.
No, the numbers aren't "off." At least no more "off" than anyone else's. Try handing out $10 at the box office in just about every theater in any major urban center and see if you'll be able to buy a ticket for "Avatar."
Box Office Mojo's Brandon Grey used a $10 average for the 3D screenings. He does explain that's just an approximation based on his observations of ticket prices nationwide. I'd have used something closer to $12 based on my own observations, especially considering that the "average" ticket price — as published by the National Association of Theater Owners — is way too low to being with. "Avatar's" 2D screenings don't cost $7.61 on average, you can bet on that. But as Grey explains in his piece, it's better to have an approximation than no idea whatsoever of how many tickets a movie has sold.
Here's the Box Office Mojo piece:
boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2667
armand -
Well, sure the number of tickets sold show how many people go to see the movie. But… times have changed. Nowadays there are a lot more home entertainment options and people generally do not go to the cinema that often as back in the day…
JonDoe -
I think its quite obvious by now that this website has some sort of bone to pick with Avatar. Why is Alt Film Guide so obsessed with the incredibly inane adjusted box office numbers? Avatar is surviving and making money in its own time, just as Titanic and Star Wars did. Who knows if they would've made as much money today as they did back then…certainly Gone With the Wind would flop, as it would be considered "boring" and "art house".
Nelson James -
Perspective is a good thing. You have to take it into account to get as close to accurate a picture as possible. For instance the cost of production of a film has to come into play when one discusses profitability. $100 mil sounds like a lot of moola, but RoI will certainly have to be adjusted if the film cost $70 mill to make as opposed to say $300,000.
All in all there seems to be a lot of people that really want this movie to break all records. Why I don't know, it's just another movie, although a very glitzy one I must admit. When it comes to the subjective, it makes no sense to debate quality or anything else. Just nod, or shake your head and kick the dust off your sandals.
This website is obsessed with the incredibly useless "adjusted for inflation" box office numbers. Fox doesn't care, because they're not getting paid in 1939 or 1998 dollars anyways. Here's something that every writer seems to ignore when it comes to this story:
Higher prices=lower demand
…and yet, Avatar continues to soar in a recession. Even when you factor in that there are so many entertainment options in this decade, as well as being the most pirated film ever.
Tony -
So why is it that out of the top 25 highest grossing movies off all time (domestic), 18 of them came from the last decade (2000s)? In fact, FIVE of them are from the past 2 years.
No matter what you say Avatar will be regarded as the greatest movie of our time, GWTW was seen only in America no body else would have even cared about seeing it, AVATAR has no barriers as to language, religion, Age or country ie is why it is the greatest movie ever made.
Keith -
It is going to be interesting to see how Avatar is going to do in the next few weeks. Titanic actually picked up some steam between weeks 6 and 9.
I finally got around to seeing Avatar on Thursday and while I was expecting to be blown away—it was well beyond that. I'm stunned at how good this movie is. Some are complaining about the hype but I think it should be hyped way more than it is. Everyone in the world should see it at least once
james -
lets see how much avatar ends up getting…
joe -
Well I agree that you can and perhaps should compare older boxoffice totals with today's films, I disagree about using things like ticket sales and 3D pricing to take a kick at the current films.
We have know way of ever knowing how much of a difference the 3D is making in ticket sales. If the film had been released as only 2D then maybe it would have been just as popular. We can't know for sure. Also, the statement that 3D tickets "which can double (or more) the cost of an "average" movie ticket price" is total crap. I can't believe that any theater is charging double for a ticket to Avatar in 3D. Here in Canada, at least, it only costs $3.00 more for seeing the film in Imax 3D then a regular ticket.
So if you want to get technical you would have to figure out how many tickets were sold in 3D screenings and then take $3.00 off the boxoffice total for each ticket sold and use that number. But even then that is faulty statistics.
It's just easier to say Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, and the naysayers will just have to live with it.
>>>>>>>"which can double (or more) the cost of an "average" movie ticket price" is total crap.
Joe, nope. That's not "total crap." Average ticket prices for 2010 (estimates) are $7.35. For example, if you try to go see Avatar in 3D in Los Angeles, chances are you'll have to pay $15 or $17 to get in.
That is more than double the "average" ticket price used to calculate tickets sold in any given year.
>>>>>>>(BTW – Most studios care a lot more about dollars earned than tickets sold. If they could make a movie that people would pay $100 a ticket for they would be glad to sell a few less tickets in return. It's actually more financially profitable to make more money with fewer screenings.)
If they could make a movie that ONE person would go see and pay $2 billion for the ticket, they would do it. Who could blame them?
But that would be ONE ticket sold. A record-breaking box-office hit. ONE ticket sold.
>>>>>>Joe, nope. That's not "total crap." Average ticket prices for 2010 (estimates) are $7.35. For example, if you try to go see "Avatar" in 3D in Los Angeles, chances are you'll have to pay $15 or $17 to get in.
That is more than double the "average" ticket price used to calculate tickets sold in any given year.<<<< You are comparing apples and oranges. Sure $7.35 might be the average movie cost in Lyons, Kansas but what does Avatar cost to see there? $15 or $17 might be the cost to see it in 3D in LA but what is a normal movie ticket at that same theater? You are comparing the nation wide average (including all the small towns and small theaters that charge a lot less for shows) to the 3D price in a major city. That's not very accurate. A quick look at the AMC theater guide for LA tells us that a regular film (Book of Eli) costs $10.00, Avatar in 3D costs $14.00 that's a lot different then your $7.35 to $15.00 or $17.00 "average". In fact, just to keep this going… I just did a check in Leawood, Kansas. Regular ticket prices are $7.00, what does Avatar in 3D at the same theater? $9.00.
>>>>>>A quick look at the AMC theater guide for LA tells us that a regular film (Book of Eli) costs $10.00, Avatar in 3D costs $14.00 that's a lot different then your $7.35 to $15.00 or $17.00 "average".
The $7.35 figure is not **my** average.
That's the estimated (for early 2010) nationwide average provided by Box Office Mojo, based on what's provided by film exhibitors all over the US. That's what is normally used to calculate the number of tickets a movie has sold.
And you can be sure that most of Avatar's money isn't coming from small-town Kansas or Idaho but from major centers like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, etc., where ticket prices, whether $14 or $15.50 at the Landmark Westwood or $16.50 at the IMAX AMC Century City, are more than double the nationwide "average."
As for the $10/$14 discrepancy you mention – well, it's only $4. No! That's a *huge* 40 percent price increase.
As for $7 to $9 in small-town Kansas, that's a hefty 28.5 percent increase. Not much when we're discussing dollars and cents. A whole lot when we're discussing hundreds of millions of dollars.
For every $100 million a movie makes at regular screenings, you'll have to add anywhere between $28.5–$40 million to get the equivalent box office receipts of a movie screened on 3D/IMAX.
Melissa -
Intriguing! I often wondered if they adjusted for the extra cost of "gold class" tickets; same screen, but with larger and comfier seats, and a menu to order from (at extra cost, again). Apparently not.
An Australian Cardinal was worried that Avatar being so greatly-watched meant a return to paganism. It prompted the following observation in an article (although they include reshowings):
The films that made the most money in Australia:
1 Avatar (2009) $69 million
2 Titanic (1997) $58m
3 Shrek 2 (2004) $50.5m
4 The Return of the King (2003) $49.5m
5 Crocodile Dundee (1986) $48m
6 Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $47.5m
7 The Dark Knight (2008) $46m
8 The Two Towers (2002) $46m.
The films that sold the most tickets in Australia:
1 The Sound of Music (1965 and later reshowings)
2 Crocodile Dundee (1986)
3 Star Wars (1977 and 97)
4 Gone With The Wind (1939 and reshowings)
5 Titanic (1997)
6 E.T (1982)
7 Dr Zhivago (1966)
8 Grease (1978 and reshowings).
(Full article: blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare/archives/2010/01/the_tribal_mind_49.html)
buy r4i -
Avatar wasn't the only film to ring in the new year with serious box-office bounty, either. Sherlock Holmes sleuthed out an elementary $38.4 million for second place, a 41 percent drop for $140 million total.
Kimberly -
I think we shouldn't forget that while, yes, the tickets cost more (especially 3D and IMAX), people are more than willing to pay for them.
What difference does it make? Avatar is the top grossing movie of all time now and still counting after only 37 days of release! It took Titanic it's entire run to reach 1.82 Billion. It's not fair to try and take the celebration of out Avatar's success! Make no mistake when the dust settles this movie could make 2.5 Billion plus! Those other movies were great for their time and enjoyed their highest grossing box office title - now let Avatar wear the crown! After all the odds are that someday Avatar will fall to the number 2 spot! OBTW money is money no matter what decade it's acquired!!!
Bobby West -
I wish I could read one article where the Avatar gross is mentioned without it being compared to some inflated gross. Gone with the Wind made 198 million US in 1939. Would that be more money today? Yes it would. That does not change the fact that it still only made 198 million dollars. You could argue more ticket sales, but honestly back in 1939 there were no such things as DVDs or television reruns. If you did not witness the movie while it was in theaters, you would have never seen it again. EVER. I am certain that in today's times, had we no technology to steal movies or wait a few months and rent them on DVD, that movie ticket sales would be MUCH higher than they are today.
Avatar has made 1.843 billion dollars in today's times. That is still 1.843 billion dollars no matter which way you look at it. 100 years from now when ticket prices are $500 a ticket and movies are making 10 billion dollars on average, people are still going to say "Well you know, if you count for inflation, the 1939 Gone with the Wind would have made 3 Trillion dollars."
Point being-none of this really matters. I don't think James Cameron is kicking himself for not having released this film in 2030 and making some 2 or 3 billion more than in 2010.
Were similar tactics to inflation used in comparing olympic athletes from now to those of 50 years ago it looks even more ridiculous. It is similar to saying, "if this swimmer from 50 years ago had used the same stream-lined suits that the swimmers of today wear, his time would have been 20 seconds faster than the fastest swimmer today." You just cannot compare some things.
Jacen -
GWTW did not make $198 mil in 1939; that sum represents the total grossed from many re-releases over the subsequent decades. One figure I've seen shows GWTW grossing only $32 mil during its first year of release (which is still a staggering amount when you consider how cheap movie prices were back then and that the Great Depression was not quite over yet). What I wish is that someone would research and tally the number of tickets sold for each of all the major films for the past several decades; that would give us a much more accurate portrait of what the biggest films have been (always acknowledging, of course, that older films will have their numbers inflated due to the benefit of multiple reissues; but at least the fluctuation and inflation of prices would no longer be a distraction).
TL -
Gone With the Wind did NOT make 198,000,000 in 1939. That would have collapsed the economy. If it has truly made that much over its run it has been the accumulation of many rereleases. Most at much higher prices than it cost in 1939. (BTW - GWTW also charged a premium during its initial release due to the cost and spectacle and anticipation involved. I don't see anyone trying to discount the movie's boxoffice success because of that.)
So 70 years of release compared to 38 days for Avatar. They're not pulling Avatar from the theaters yet. If it runs long enough maybe this little movie can finally impress some of the naysayers who keep trying to find ways to crunch numbers to diminish the movie's success.
(BTW - Most studios care a lot more about dollars earned than tickets sold. If they could make a movie that people would pay $100 a ticket for they would be glad to sell a few less tickets in return. It's actually more financially profitable to make more money with fewer screenings.)
There's a reason all the studios are scrambling to find ways to cash in on the 3D/IMAX bandwagon now that Avatar has proven the outrageous possibilities. They get the numbers game. Now let's see if they can duplicate the content quality. My guess is that Avatar will sit comfortably at the top of the charts - at least until Cameron comes up with something new to unseat it.
Then all these folks being paid to write articles that try to spin negative angles about the relative success of the movie will probably be getting paid to kiss Avatar's butt in print. I bet they will gladly oblige.
sungyubun -
I don't know what's the fuss? AVATAR is the top grossing film since the dawn of human history - period.
Who cares about adjustments for inflation, extra $$$ for 3D ticket sales etc. etc.
AVATAR is the film for the 21st Century, I don't care about "Gone With The Winds", I wasn't even born yet..
We must give credit when and where credit is due. As far as i am concerned, James Cameron pulled it off! AVATAR is the new champion!
3 cheers to James Cameron!!!
Maxwell -
once you make a film that grosses over a billion dolloars, and then i'll listen to your opinion.
Inflation or no inflation, a billion dollars is still more money than I could ever have.
eric -
well actually box office mojo also has the chart for adjusted for inflation.. there you can see the chart by number of tickets sold.. it said something like dark knight (74 million) and avatar (72 million) as of saturday.. so this weekend it will pass dark night in tickets sold..
Nick -
If Gone With The Wind were released today instead of 1939, it wouldn't be the top box office of all time. Big, but not that big. Released in a day with no TV -not to mention no DVD, TiVo, Cable, on demand, etc.- it continued to be rereleased every few years - 1942, 1949 and so on. Actually was released last year in Poland. Today's movies have a quick run and then they are moved to DVD. It is harder to get people to go see a movie again in a few years when they have it sitting on the shelf in their den, on their ipod, on their phone, and anywhere elese you can think of. The only movie in modern times that has drawn that kind of repeat business over years is Star Wars and it wasn't really the same movie. The rerelease was a major budget, major differences, new version. It should count as two movies.
>>>>>If Gone With The Wind were released today instead of 1939, it wouldn't be the top box office of all time. Big, but not that big. … it continued to be rereleased every few years – 1942, 1949 and so on. Actually was released last year in Poland. Today's movies have a quick run and then they are moved to DVD.
True, today's movies generally have a quick run. GWTW was around for a long time. In fact, I don't believe it was rereleased in 1942. It was probably still playing back then.
One thing, however, that is *very* important to remember is that movies didn't open in 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 screens (to reach the widest possible audience *right away*) in those days.
A movie like GWTW opened in one or two theaters. And stayed at those two theaters — earning million$$ — for months, sometimes a year. Or longer. Slowly it'd open in other major theaters across the country. And only later would it reach small-town theaters.
Had GWTW opened in 3,000 theaters back in 1939, it'd probably have made a billion or more then and there.
George -
It would be nice to see comparisons of both tickets sold in addition to box office takes, when news outlets report on the success (or failure) of a film in these kinds of terms. I think that would put the numbers into a better perspective.
That being said, I don't view the extra costs associated with 3D/IMAX showings as an unfair advantage for any films that are available in this format. I think the fact that movie-goers are willing to pay extra for 3D/IMAX says something about the public's perceived quality of a film. I don't look at it any differently than a higher-end consumer product "outselling" a lower-end one. A lower quality, less expensive product can sell more units than a higher quality, more expensive unit, yet the more expensive unit could still have higher sales. At the end of the day, if I were in the business of selling products, I'd opt for the latter.
bigfatshady -
I am surprised you forgot the obligatory, "Yeah, But adjusted for inflation it is only 34th of all time" in regards to Avatar's awesome box office results!
Movie Fan -
One other factor that makes much older movie attendance difficult to compare is that in the olden days movies had longer runs, in part because there were fewer releases and because they could not be seen cheaply and in high quality in the home in short order. Perhaps this means that rentals/DVD purchases should count (and each rental/purchase should likely count as multiple views.)
>>>>>>One other factor that makes much older movie attendance difficult to compare is that in the olden days movies had longer runs, in part because there were fewer releases
I'm not sure which "olden days" you're referring to, but before TV there were many, but many many many more film releases then there are today.
>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps this means that rentals/DVD purchases should count (and each rental/purchase should likely count as multiple views.)
If so, so should television viewings — which might make Gone with the Wind the most-watched film ever.
Its first television showing, for example, was a major event watched by tens of millions of people. I doubt it that Avatar's initial TV showing will attract that much attention, as long before Avatar shows up on TV, it'll have been made available on DVD, pay-per-view, etc. etc.
staash -
You can't realistically compare a film on an inflation adjusted basis alone. There are too many other factors involved. For instance there were few or any pirated films back then. Also, back in the old days there were not as many other entertainment vehicles like gaming, broadcast sports, and the internet.
34th of all time isnt to bad for only being in release for 33 days! This represents basically how may tickets have been sold..I wonder where Star Wars would be on the All Time Inflation Adjusted chart after only its 33 rd day of release..Oh but wait! Star Wars not only was in the theaters for over a year but its has been re-released 4 or 5 times over the last 30 years!! Lets wait and see where Avatar ends up on the Inflation chart(tickets sold) when the movie finally ends in run in the movie houses..probally 6 or 7 months from now…not unheard of remember Batman Begins? It was out for over 7 months at the theaters..and that was just last year.
Timothy Stinson -
Can anyone on this blog please explain the importance of using the term "Inflation-Adjusted" when discussing the box office figures for this movie?
Second, how often has this metric been applied to measure the success of other movies?
My personal observation is that those who insist that the term "Inflation-Adjusted" is used when discussing box office figures for this movie, tend to be those who predicted that it would be a collasal failure prior to its release.
avatarized -
many factor that determine the succeed of a film..ticket price is just one of them..remember that older film were playing in theater for months even years, so they could sell much more tickets than avatar (one month releases)..plus the quality of the visual effects n camera 3D who deserves the higher ticket price than film from 1980's and 1990's..so it'd be a weak reason to say that avatar is 'only" place the 34th ranking.
if the older film (that sell much more tickets than avatar) is remaking now, even with 3D, i'm sure they won't make it like avatar..
Michael Sellers -
Hi Michelle,
Me again. I notice that every time you report on Avatar's Box Office, you caveat it by saying "not adjusted for inflation or higher 3D ticket prices". I have a thought about the 3D ticket prices and I ask you to consider it. You are treating it as if Cameron's decision to "go for it" with 3D was a "done deal" — that he would automatically get benefit from it. I disagree. It was a gamble. He was rolling the dice and saying he would do it in 3D, and then he would deliver an experience that would JUSTIFY the higher price. Audiences could have said — no way — there's a recession — I won't pay the extra $3 for 3D — and Cameron could have had the disaster many were predicting. But he delivered an experience that the audience has judged worthy of the 3D surcharge. I do not think you can discount his accomplishment for the 3D surcharge. For the general increase in ticket prices since Titanic — yes. It should be adjusted for that. But not for 3D ticket prices. That could have been his Waterloo had he not delivered an extraordinary experience.
@ Michael,
It's our editorial policy to add "not accounting for inflation" or some such whenever making box office comparisons among films released many years or decades apart, or whenever saying that "such and such movie broke box-office records."
AVATAR is different in that it's also making most of its money at 3D/IMAX venues that charge premiums. So, it's also the Alt Film Guide's editorial policy that we should tell our readers about that fact to keep things in context.
We've "chatted" before, but many people are newcomers. This post may be their first Alt Film Guide visit. That's why I'm supposed to repeat "3D/IMAX/inflation" each time I post about AVATAR's all-time box office records.
Amazing this movie is BAD ok the special effects are great but come on! The story sucks the problem is the movies they make these days focus too much on special effects not enough on making a good movie. One of the greatest movies I saw was The usual suspects I could name a lot of better movies Think of Mad Max, Blade Runner they dont make them like they used to!
Avatar has also passed Pirates: Dead Man's Chest, moving into the number 3 all time slot globally at 1.1B behing Titanic and Return of the King. It's only trailing Return of the King by $22m so that will fall shortly, and it will be Titanic and Avatar 1-2. But Titanic will have a big lead — close to 700M.


Seabulk provided a complete design, build and finance solution for the upgrading of the Beauport Flats terminal at the Port of Quebec in Quebec City.
The original terminal used gantry cranes to unload vessels, a stacker to stockpile material, front end loaders to reclaim material and a shiploader to fill outgoing vessels. The equipment was approximately 20 years old. The original design of the equipment was 2 500 tonnes / hour of iron ore and 1 000 tonnes / hour of coke on a 1 220 mm wide conveyor.
The owner did not want to build new civil works for the shiploader and stacker reclaimer so the new equipment was designed to meet the original design loads. Also, the owner wanted to minimise downtime of the terminal. The removal of the old equipment and installation of the new equipment was done during the ports winter slow down when ice limits vessels ability to reach the berths.
Seabulk's upgraded deign was for a peak capacity of 4 200 tonnes / hour of iron ore and 2 100 tonnes / hour of coke on a 1 500 mm wide conveyor. The rated capacity of the system was 3 500 tonnes / hour of iron ore and 1 200 tonnes / hour of coke. The stacker was replaced by a larger bucket wheel stacker reclaimer to reduce front end loader reclaim to final clean up. The new shiploader was also much larger with the ability to load cape size ocean going vessels as well as Great Lake going vessels.
The shiploader and stacker reclaimer were built in China. They were delivered fully assembled on a heavy lift vessel. The equipment was offloaded directly onto their tracks.
The conveyor system was fabricated in southern Quebec and delivered to site by truck.


text:
Monday draft notes: QB talk, Ebron, Gilbert, top-15
November 18th, 2013 | Written by Rob Staton
Talking quarterbacks
This is how I see the 2014 quarterback class — no truly elite or obvious number one talent, lots of guys who could potentially start in the NFL.
The media has latched onto Marcus Mariota and Teddy Bridgewater. I'm not sure that's a great idea.
Last year they similarly attached themselves to Geno Smith, Tyler Wilson and Ryan Nassib. Matt Barkley, in fairness, had fierce critics from the start. But the other three were highly regarded at various points during the 2012 college season.
Funnily enough, Barkley's biggest critics (eg people like Greg Cosell) rallied behind players like Nassib or Wilson. Nobody came out of the 2013 quarterback class looking good.
That doesn't mean Mariota and Bridgewater are going to sink quite as badly. But it goes to show what hype can do at this time of the year.
Mariota is a thoroughly modern day signal caller who moves around, can run the read-option and improvise. In many ways he looks like Colin Kaepernick. Yet Kaepernick has struggled this year in part because he's unable to sit tight and go through his progressions. It's the kind of thing Mariota isn't asked to do at Oregon — he usually (from what I've seen) has a couple of reads at best and frequently has a run-pass option.
It's argued the 49ers shouldn't try to force Kaepernick to be something he's not — but there's a reason why they aren't telling him to become a running quarterback. Sooner rather than later, he'd take a beating too many.
That'd be exactly the same for Mariota, especially as a potential top-10 pick. He too would probably have to become a little more traditional, even within the most creative offense.
Heck — even Chip Kelly has reverted to a conventional quarterback. And it's working. You need some balance.
Mariota hasn't got Kaepernick's arm strength either. So while there's definitely a lot of upside, there's also a lot of unknown.
Bridgewater is much more orthodox. He's at his best sitting in the pocket working within a pretty rigid structure. He distributes the ball nicely (although not always perfectly) and has the physical skills to drive the ball downfield when needed.
But unlike Mariota, he's unlikely to avoid a heavy blitz with his legs, get out of the pocket with eyes locked downfield and make a fantastic, improvised play. His upside might always be limited — peaking at 'pretty good' instead of 'outstanding'.
The great thing about Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III and with hindsight — Russell Wilson — was their ability to combine the unorthodox with the traditional. All three players are athletic, have the big arm and make plays when things break down. And yet all three have shown at various times they can also be fairly conventional too when given time in the pocket.
I can see a situation where a team like Jacksonville, or Houston, or whoever, sits down at the end of the season and discusses Mariota and Bridgewater. And the conclusion they come to is they don't know what to do with one and the other hasn't got a big enough ceiling.
And then they see a guy like Jadeveon Clowney sitting there — or one of those many offensive tackles — and they decide to pass.
Because at the end of the day, the difference between Mariota/Bridgewater and Johnny Manziel/Derek Carr is minimal. Extremely minimal.
In fact you could make a case that Manziel and Carr are superior. Seriously.
Manziel makes more mistakes than Mariota, but he can also be a pure magician. That Alabama game earlier this year was the definitive Manziel performance. He kept his team alive to the very last second. He made plays that only he could make. And he had a couple of rancid and costly turnovers.
If I'm a coach willing to dabble with the unorthodox — I'd be so much more excited about the Manziel challenge than the Mariota version.
It really would be a privilege to take on Manziel — try to limit the negatives and bring out the unmatched creativity.
Of course character comes into it and teams will see soap opera headlines with one guy and quiet modesty with the other. But then you watch the Alabama game again…
Carr is much less hyped than Bridgewater, but why? Having watched both players, I think there's a cigarette paper between the two on most of the key skills — accuracy, arm strength, mobility. I actually think Carr is better at going through his progressions. He's also a much more engaging character, who will blow teams away during interviews.
The failure of his brother David in the NFL might linger in a few minds — but the younger Carr isn't launching an expansion franchise. Well, not if he avoids Jacksonville (sorry, Gus…).
It's still way too early to decipher where these prospects will fall on draft day, but I maintain a Clowney/Carr combo (if possible) is more appealing at this stage than Mariota and whoever else you can get at the top of round two.
In terms of the other quarterbacks — A.J. McCarron has a shot to make it but might only ever be another Andy Dalton at best. Zach Mettenberger's play has really regressed in the last few weeks and it's hard to see him being anything more than a mid-to-late rounder. And Tajh Boyd is another who's falling — he just misses on accuracy a little too often.
Tight end trending upwards
I'm starting to really like Eric Ebron.
But then there's a little voice somewhere offering words of caution.
Too often we get a tight end who flashes a few big plays. We assume that any player in the 250lbs+ bracket who can move is a fantastic athlete destined for greatness.
And it never really happens.
Then a guy like Jimmy Graham or Jordan Cameron comes along in the mid or late rounds. No real background or hype. Just freaks of nature. And they play as well as any tight end in the league (or in Graham's case, as well as any receiver period).
The Cincinnati Bengals have been bitten by the curse a couple of times recently.
Jermaine Gresham looked like a superstar in the making in 2010. Big (6-5), strong, fast (4.66). He'd been really dynamic in college with Sam Bradford at Oklahoma.
In the NFL he's been average.
He has only two career plays of 40+ yards and he's averaging just over four touchdowns per season.
That's not what was expected of the former #21 overall pick.
This year they went shopping in the same market and selected Tyler Eifert with yet another #21 overall pick.
Same speed (4.66), slightly less size (250 vs 265lbs) but pretty much the same height (6-6 vs 6-5). Eifert was the only tight end from the 2013 class who looked like a top athlete.
It's unfair to judge a player during his rookie season, but so far Eifert has one touchdown and just 377 yards.
Not great to be fair.
What we perceive as unique athletes with amazing physical skills might actually just be pretty ordinary tight ends. There's been some speculative and unconfirmed talk that the Seahawks liked Michael Egnew in 2012 — a tight end drafted in round three by Miami.
He ran a 4.62 at 6-5 and 255lbs. Looks interesting, right?
He has 39 total career yards in two seasons. He has zero touchdowns.
So while watching Eric Ebron sprint through the Pitt defense for 58 yards on Saturday, I start to imagine what a difference maker he could be at the next level. I start to wonder if he can match the high standards of a Graham or Gronkowski.
And then I think back to the numerous TE flops. The countless average pro's. I look at the stat charts and see that only the following names are listed among the forty most productive receivers in the NFL: Jimmy Graham (#9), Antonio Gates (#20), Jordan Cameron (#25), Julius Thomas (#32), Tony Gonzalez (#36) and Vernon Davis (#38).
Six players. One hall of famer. Five genuine freaks of nature.
If I'm spending a first round pick or even an early second rounder on a tight end, they better have the potential to join that list.
So for now it's a case of sitting and waiting to see just how well Ebron (and Jace Amaro, Austin Seferian-Jenkins) perform at the combine. Are they truly going to offer something unique?
Or will they just be another overblown, over-hyped big man who can run a bit.
A view on a cornerback I just haven't seen
More than one person has asked for a comment on Oklahoma State cornerback Justin Gilbert. Unfortunately, I've had no access to any of their games this year.
That kind of makes it hard to form an opinion.
Judging cornerbacks without all-22 tape is notoriously difficult anyway. It's why I don't rely on the otherwise fantastic Draft Breakdown videos. They currently have five Gilbert videos available. But what can you learn when the corner is nearly always off-screen?
Very few corners play up at the line like Jimmy Smith did at Colorado. He was very easy to judge — physical, tall, fast. He was nearly always on the screen. For others it's much harder.
So in this instance I'll bow to the views of Tony Pauline, who had this to say about Gilbert on his blog today:
Gilbert is a player we've been high on for a while and a cornerback we graded as a second round pick before the season began. Sized well, he possesses next level ball skills and instincts. Gilbert shuts down opponents in man coverage but also affords potential in zone. During the Cowboys route over Texas the senior picked off two passes, one which he brought back 43 yards for a score. It was the second time this season he returned an interception for a score. Gilbert also adds the ability to impact games as a return specialist to his resume. The senior has all the makings to be a second day pick next May and eventually start in the NFL.
Top-15 prospects
This is based on what I've seen so far with a slight Seahawks bias. As with Gilbert, I can't comment on players I've not had a chance to study properly. I've not included quarterbacks in the list.
This isn't in any strict order either, although it's fair to say the top three (Clowney, Robinson and Kouandjio) are my top three players viewed so far.
I would've included Dominique Easley (DT, Florida) but two serious knee injuries have almost certainly impacted his stock.
#1 Jadeveon Clowney (DE, South Carolina)
#2 Greg Robinson (T, Auburn)
#3 Cyrus Kouandjio (T, Alabama)
#4 Jake Matthews (T, Texas A&M)
#5 Sammy Watkins (WR, Clemson)
#6 Re'Shede Hageman (DE, Minnesota)
#7 Marqise Lee (WR, USC)
#8 Antonio Richardson (T, Tennessee)
#9 Odell Beckham Jr (WR, LSU)
#10 Zack Martin (T, Notre Dame)
#11 Cedric Ogbuehi (T, Texas A&M)
#12 Taylor Lewan (T, Michigan)
#13 Vic Beasley (DE, Clemson)
#14 Mike Evans (WR, Texas A&M)
#15 Eric Ebron (TE, North Carolina)
41 Responses to "Monday draft notes: QB talk, Ebron, Gilbert, top-15"
Nolan says:
The player I really want is Mike Evans, the problem with the Hawks and getting a reciver or even a tight end is how much of an impact can they have? Tate, Baldwin, Harvin, and Kearse are here and hopefully stay here next year. Where would the rookie see playing time, where would his targets come from. TE is another spot, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving up Zach Miller for a rookie who is more known for catching passes then blocking. We have Luke Willson to develope into our joke TE and we barley have enough targets for him and miller. I also think Oline is another area were we have a ton of depth even if we lose mquestin and breno to FA I like Pierre Bailey and Bowie not to mention however Cable selects in the bottom rung of next years draft. So that Leads me to Defensive Line we might have to give up one of our LEO's and one of our Run Stuffers so I think we need to add depth there and I would think best availble DL would be were I would be looking.
Of course you can't force the draft and Drafting for need is not always the best idea so best thing is always BPA particularly when you don't have many holes like the Hawks. This might be another year where the draft class dosent contribute much.
Rob,
Bleacher Report just put up their first mock and they have us taking Shawn Oakman, DE, Baylor. I think you may have posted something on him earlier. Or I might be confusing you with Jared's Gems on Field Gulls. Nonetheless he's 6'9″ at DE (incredible length). Have you much to say on this fellow?
I've not seen any of Oakman but I'll check him out. But yeah… Bleacher Report. Presumably it was a slideshow chock full of laughs.
EDIT — This is the link to the mock. It was on SB Nation rather than Bleacher Report. Which means no slideshow.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/11/18/5114778/2014-nfl-mock-draft-johnny-manziel-teddy-bridgewater
Whoops. For some reason I mix those two up sometimes.
Ukhawk says:
Great analysis on the TEs. Can honestly say I was initially high on picking one near the bottom of R1 but you are changing my mind (as I believe maybe changed yours?). Interesting how of the 6 top TEs named, exactly half are R1, 2 R4 and one was a FA! So agreed TE isn't the call on a high pick if u can't find a true difference maker. Like Nolan's points above too
But one question, with perceived depth at various positions such as TE (see Nolan + resign McCoy), OL (see Nolan),CB (Maxwell, Lane, Simon),DE,LB,RB,even WR and potential turnover of (mostly) non-essential players to get others locked-up, does the team draft for need/depth or does it continue to gamble on high ceiling players?
I'd argue for the latter. The offense appears to be being molded into the antithesis of what the defense tries to stop. A tough, physical that can pound out a ball control style BUT coupled with a big play, multifaceted counterpunching ability. And just like the defense was built, it seems like the offense would now like to add either game breaking speed ( a la Michael or Harvin) or unique big play ability (Evans or Ebron?) as the last pieces of the puzzle. Comments please
I think this is going to be one of the toughest drafts to project because essentially we have to wait and see who this team can keep and who they have to lose. I could easily see the DL becoming a big time need. I could see replacing Breno as being the defining need. Or maybe they find a way once again to shock us all… keep virtually everyone and then it's all about an impact player.
Assuming the top OT's leave the board early, the best value late in R1 could be WR/TE.
Walter football has us taking offensive linemen the first two rounds. It is hard to project our needs!
CHawk Talker Eric says:
I have a suspicion SEA will lose either Tate or Baldwin – Baldwin would be easier to keep because he costs less, and his (R)FA market is smaller, than Tate's – but I think JSPC work harder to retain Tate, so Baldwin becomes the roster casualty unless he's willing to sign for less.
I don't know that Breno has much of a FA market either; I suppose it depends on his performance the rest of the season. But even with solid play, I just don't see him generating a lot of interest in FA at his current salary. I think he resigns with SEA on a deal similar to his current 2-year contract, just for less money.
DL looks to be the position where SEA faces its most difficult decisions moving forward. As Rob pointed out recently, Avril is having a fantastic season, but his net cap hit (actual cap hit less dead money) of $7 million is tough to handle at the same time as Clem's $9.7 million. Clem is back to form, but what about his longevity at this point in his career? And then there's Bennett, Bryant (who becomes VERY expensive vs the cap over the next 3 seasons), Mebane and McDaniel.
Back to the 2014 draft class, I like WR as the R1 pick. There are 4 WRs who I really like, each for different reasons, and I'd be thrilled for SEA to get any of them. In my order of preference:
1. Sammy Watkins
2. Marqise Lee
tied for 3rd:
BTW, Lee becomes my favorite if he continues to play like he did vs Stanford.
I don't think Sammy Watkins is going to be anywhere close to where we'll be drafting. Marquise Lee could very well be in our range though.
Mike Evans is too big and physical to make it out of the high 20s and Odell Beckham Jr.'s stock is going to blast off during the combine. Seahawks might be better off waiting on this position or at least trading down to get a guy.
Jeff M. says:
I continue to say it's extremely unlikely this front office spends two firsts and a third on wideouts in back-to-back drafts, unless John Schneider has suddenly been replaced by Matt Millen.
Consider that the Green Bay model Schneider learned from has called for drafting lots of WRs, but on the second day of the draft, not the first (last 1st round WR was Javon Walker). And once they grabbed Jennings, Jones, Nelson in consecutive years, the next 5 drafts featured only one WR above the 7th (Cobb).
That's more or less the point in the development curve we're at with Harvin/Tate/Baldwin/Kearse. If there's a guy they like in the mid rounds they'll go get him but don't expect a major investment on top of what we've already spent.
That's true. We also have a crowded group at WR, so adding a WR at that position early is risky because then you face the prospect of having six WRs or cutting someone you'd ideally keep. Just like this year when we had to cut Chris Harper because we had four quality WRs and Stephen Williams was awesome in preseason. Not to mention Percy Harvin was coming back later in the year, so no matter what something was going to have to give at the receiver position. We might be in a similar position next year with Baldwin, Harvin, Kearse and hopefully Tate, along with Bryan Walters, Phil Bates and other prospects/additions.
Personally I'm lukewarm on the QB group. On the other hand, this tackle class is really something. While the top of the list isn't necessary better than the top tackles in prior years, the depth is as good as I've seen since I've followed the draft in depth (08). Even if we pick #32, I'm pretty sure one of the 1st round quality tackles will filter down to our pick. If I had to guess, we'll probably choose WR or Tackle. If there is a great defensive tackle, this would be the year to pick him, but I don't see anyone worthy of that.
Sam Jaffe says:
Of the tight ends that you mentioned, most of them are wide receivers in a bigger body. Look at where Graham, Thomas, Cameron and Davis line up and the routes they run and you'll see what looks like a wide reciever (the only difference being their weight). Yes, they will line up in-line sometimes and block, but that is as important to their influence on a game as Peyton Manning's ability to run for a first down. So when looking at Evans, Ebron, Amaro and SJ, consider them all the same player. Evans is clearly the best, followed by Amaro. Ebron and SJ have the potential to be very good but have legitimate questions surrounding them.
When talking about the need for a tall WR/TE hybrid player, there are two things that he can do for the Seattle offense: open up the seam in the middle of the field and be a visible target for RW in the red zone. All of the above players have the potential to serve in both of those roles.
I'd disagree a little there Sam. While it's true guys like Graham and Cameron are essentially glorified wideouts, the way they line up and the suggestion of a run or pass it's what makes them dangerous. You want these guys lined up against linebackers, that's when the dominating mismatch occurs. Evans is a pure outside receiver — a jump ball specialist. Ebron works mostly over the middle, ditto ASJ. Amaro does a bit of both.
And strictly within Seattle's offense, the tight end does have a lot of blocking responsibility. We see that with Miller.
But they could do with another red zone threat and perhaps another jump ball specialist on some of the deeper routes. And that's where we have to look at all those guys to see if they're up to the task.
Stuart says:
Before PC/JS I used to think like the mainstream too, you can only get your studs in the first round. At this point I would be just fine trading back and getting more picks for PC/JS. More than any draft in our history, 2014 will be BPA.
cover-2 says:
IMO Ebron reminds me of Rams TE Jared Cook. Similar size, speed, and athletic ability. Cook has been unfortunate with bad QB's when he was with the Titans and now with the Rams. Cook ran a 4.5 40-yard with a 41 inch vertical at the combine. Go to youtube and look at Cook's highlights while at South Carolina and highlights when he was with the Titans. While I like Luke Wilson to fill the Joker TE, I do think Ebron could be a stud with Russell Wilson throwing to him.
KyleT says:
I don't know why but I'm annoyed whenever I see someone post that we will ignore our own roster and go BPA. Seems like a lazy way to characterize what we might do. Not to mention PC/JS have given us every incidactor that they do not just go BPA! They grade prospective players against the existing roster and factor in strategic factors like cap, etc.
You can rationalize all of last years picks by this mentality and probably next years too.
kevin mullen says:
Probably right Kyle, they really don't hide their draft target in terms of the current roster. Pete has been refreshingly open in terms of what areas of the roster they intend to focus. In my opinion, I see our defense once again getting a jolt of draft capital due to the higher priced players (and deservingly so) that JS will extend on that side of the ball.
We're about to have one of the most expensive secondary in the league.
I wouldn't get too annoyed Kyle. After all, what was Christine Michael if he wasn't BPA?
That to me was the very definition of BPA. Nothing like a need, on face value there appears to be little grade comparison or future cap saving (just re-signed Lynch, Turbin cheap).
So I think they're prepared to work both ways. And sometimes there will be a guy on the board — like Michael — that they just want enough to go BPA.
See I think there is something between BPA and need that they operate in. Michael is a perfect example. I don't think he was BPA as much as he graded the highest compared to the existing roster (no 3rd RB and extremely high ceiling compared to Turbin). He also was a special talent and Lynch is potentially hitting the beginning of the decline period in his late twenties.
CD says:
Agree Kyle,
I think Michael was picked to replace ML in 2-3 years. That's what the 2013 draft was to me, not what are our holes today, but what will they be in 2-3 years when we have to pay certian guys.
Hill and Williams for Bane and Big Red, Micheal for ML, Harper for Rice, Simon for BB.
While those guys were drafted in 2013, might as well also call them the class of 2014 along with our other draft picks next April/May (didn't the date move?).
Exactly! That's exactly how I'm thinking about it. The key to understanding what we do in this draft is projecting what we do in FA and what our challenges will be in 2015.
I don't think we can ever truly work out this front office. But as I mentioned before, their first pick in 2013 was not based on anything other than Michael being too much value in that range. Lynch is signed up long term and a franchise player, Turbin is cheap. They took him because they really liked him.
They were thinking ahead in case Lynch got injured. I would not want to depend soley on Turbin. Also we need a change of pace back and Michaels is speedier. Though somehow every RB ends up running like Lynch during the games.
el80ne says:
I don't know about that. They seemed to always regard Michaels as a long term project because of how raw he was/is. If Lynch got injured there's no doubt they would be relying solely on Turbin (and maybe hand off to a fullback once in awhile to change it up) because Michaels is too much of a liability when it comes to blocking, even now with more than half a season to learn how under his belt.
If they saw a player at any other position that they felt was great value because they graded them much higher they could have just as easily picked that player with you saying that they were "thinking ahead".
Gage says:
Jacksonville likely is going to be pretty bad next year regardless if they take a QB or not, so if i'm them and get the #1pick i'd def go Clowney and tough it out one more year then go for Jameis Winston next year.
They need to keep stock piling talent. They have very little chance of turning things around next year. Chasing a QB is not the way to go. Clowney's best football is ahead of him – you make that pick IMO.
Random thought but if I were the Jaguars I would see about getting Tarvaris Jackson on a two-year deal similar to the one we signed him for in 2011. Jackson seems to have developed into a capable veteran quarterback and could be just what the Jaguars need for now. It might not be the most ideal situation, but T-Jack has always wanted to start and the Jaguars need someone who can hit moving targets and manage a game. Also the Jaguars don't have a bad WR corps, especially if you factor in a suspension-free Justin Blackmon.
I think T-Jack will go with Bevell when/if he takes a HC job at the end of this year. Spent time with him in Minny and Seattle so he knows ths system. Bevell will over pay a bit for that knowledge and it will give TJ his best chance at being a #1 starter again, at least for a year or two.
I think T-Jack has had his day in the sun as a starter. Can't see him getting a gig anywhere.
Completely agree. I think T-Jack demonstrated in 2011 that he's not a starting QB. Not once was he able to put together a 4th quarter comeback or game winning drive and choked on every single opportunity presented to him (I believe the number was 6) to do so. It's hard to understand how anyone could suggest that he's developed into a "capable veteran QB" when that would require him to show he can capably play the position. Playing well in garbage time doesn't even begin to demonstrate he's capable of performing when the pressure is on.
At this point, I've pretty well convinced myself Johnny Manziel will go in round 1. He doesn't check enough boxes to warrant a 1st ground for me, but I think someone is going to take a shot on him barring another off the field issue. He reads the field much better than I've ever given him credit for, and he has a knack for making plays. I think he's a solid 2nd round prospect that goes in round 1.
Mariota is a wildcard for me. I'm not sold on his transition to the pros. I think he gets a little gun shy too easy and wants to get on the move too early- ala Christian Ponder- and as Rob said, he's one of these prospects new on the scene that hardly anyone knows really anything about, but the hype says he's a high 1st round pick. We'll find out.
I love the Jadaveon Clowney bashing. It reeks of knee-jerk, 'see I told you he isn't that good' commentary. I love it. He's the best player in the draft, bar none. Everyone who has played SC tailored their offenses early in games to stay away from Clowney in the pass game. The number of sacks don't concern me- stats are largely an overblown and faulty indicator of future success (see anyone from OU not named AP). Immense size and speed and a legit once in a generation talent.
After watching Mariota for the many games these past two years, I think he has the total package. He may not have the arm strength of Kaepernick., but he is far more accurate than Kaepernick, and has the same speed and escapability.
I really disagree that a coach or a GM might roll the dice with Manziel over Mariota. While they both can run and perform under pressure with passing ability, that is where the similarities end. if I am a GM or coach who values his job then I am taking the stable and safe Mariota. He conducts himself with integrity and discipline, and shows a professionalism that Manziel has never been able to demonstrate. Manziel is just another Ryan Leaf, and a smart GM would not touch him until the second or even third round.
One more thing about Manziel vs. Mariota.
Mariota has been playing injured most of the year with a heavy brace on his left knee. He has lost his running abilty but when he gets healed in the off season he will be back to running 4..4 speed. Playing hurt with limited mobility shows his competitiveness.
They both have talent, but the difference is Mariota only started playing football late in high school and he has worked hard to get where is in a short amount of time. Manziel seems to be relying more on his God given talent and by taking advantage of less talented defenses. He will find out that the NFL defenses will not be so easy, and I wonder if he has the discipline to study and improve himself. If he didn't have the discipline to take the Payton Manning Youth Football camp seriously by failing to show up because he was hung over, I doubt he will ever will.
Regarding the Seahawks Draft:
I am wishing the hawks draft a big receiver with the 1st rd pick, Jordan Matthews or Allen Robinson. You know SF will be looking for the same thing. It would be good if they could move up ahead of them, doubt they will.
The OL or DL should be addressed in the 2nd rd.
Quite honestly, I think we can target a bigger body WR in the mid-rounds. If we go WR in Round 1, I want it to be a potential explosive gamebreaker ie Odell Beckham, Marqise Lee.
I really like Allen Robinson and Jordan Matthews, but I don't think they are necessarily 1st round quality players.
At the end of the day, I think we'll take whoever the best player is on the DL or OL, and maybe WR but only if it is an explosive, special talent like Sammy Watkins or Odell Beckham Jr.
Kip Earlywine says:
The success of a QB is part talent, part fit, part chemistry/acclimation, and part opportunity.
I think sometimes we put way too much stock in talent, while forgetting about the other factors. The most under-rated of them being opportunity.
It took a monster training camp and preseason for Wilson to break free of being the #3 QB, behind two backup caliber players despite being drafted by a coach and GM that loved him. It took a unique set of events for Case Keenum to get his chance in Houston. It took a relentless series of injuries to Michael Vick to give Foles his chance to show that he's a different QB in the NFL than he was at Arizona.
What about the guys that never even got a chance? Ryan Nassib is stuck behind Eli Manning. Chandler Harnish is stuck behind Andrew Luck. Kirk Cousins is stuck behind RG3. Ryan Mallett is stuck behind Tom Brady.
And some guys just don't fit their teams and are doomed from the start. Any QB is going to have issues going to the Jets, but Geno Smith was a tough fit as he was known to lack mental toughness in college. Matt Barkley going to the mobility emphasized Eagles never made sense to me either. Waste of talent in both cases.
EJ Manuel actually fits the Bills and has been given opportunity. He isn't lighting the world on fire, but he's having a better rookie season than Luck did statistically (unless you buy into the joke of a stat that is QBR).
Mike Glennon is coming on strong as of late and is going to force a tough decision from Tampa.
I think the 2013 QB class had a lot of talent, but that talent was mostly wasted.
I think it's beyond debate now that 2012 is the best QB class of all time. Adding Foles and Keenum to Luck/RG3/Wilson/Tannehill/Cousins makes it an unprecedented QB class. But we can't compare every year to 2012 as if that's normal. Instead we should remember just how hard it was to find a QB in every draft before 2012.
Let's also not let 2012's instant success factor trick us into believing QBs should be great immediately. 2012 was the exception in that regard, not the norm.
I love the 2014 group, I think Boyd might be the 4th or 5th best QB, and he's a better version of last year's best (Geno Smith). There are some mid-late round guys that have potential as well, Jordan Lynch, Aaron Murray, Keith Price, to name a few.
Jim Q says:
OT-James Hurst, 6-6, 305, North Carolina
"James Hurst has been the starting left tackle for the Tar Heels since his freshman season, starting 36 games over the past three seasons."
"While his size and athleticism is impressive, scouts will love his toughness. Hurst is one of the MEANESS linemen in the country."
cbssports.com has this guy rated #78-overall, projected round 2-3. I haven't checked him out much so far but the "meaness" quote (Cable likes these types) is pretty intriguing. Anybody know anything about him?
I didn't look at him until you posted this. So I decided to go look on youtube and found the below video (UNC Vs. South Carolina). Poor James Hurst is thrown into a match-up with Jadeveon Clowney in this tape. But if college tape is ever going to show you whether a player is ready for the NFL, this is it, as Clowney is an NFL pro bowler playing college.
http://youtu.be/41ow8gODsPg
I think overall Hurst plays Clowney and the SC line really well, particularly in pass protection. There are times when Hurst gets beat by Clowney, badly. But there are other times when Hurst routinely takes care of Clowney, blocking him in a spot or pushing him around the edge of the pocket. I think this tape is going to be a tremendous asset for Hurst in the draft. I also thought he displayed good footwork and is very learned at keeping his shoulders square to the defender. But I didn't really see much of this "meanness" you're talking about. Perhaps if we were to watch a tape of UNC playing a less-dominant D-line, we would see that meanness. Based on this tape I would say he's a technically sound blocker who is also quite strong, and relatively light on his feet. An intriguing line prospect to be sure.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


We can deliver to you your Diesel Exhaust Fluid in 2, 2.5 Gallon Cases, 55 Gallon Drums, 330 Gallon Totes and in bulk.
Englefield Oil can also include Diesel Exhaust Fluid though our On-site Fleet Fueling Program.
Don't forget that we can also help with pumps and storage solutions.
Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is a urea-based solution that reduces harmful nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel engines. DEF for on/off highway use is composed of 32.5% high-purity urea and 67.5% deionized water. DEF is clear, odorless and safe to handle.
The solution is added to a separate storage tank on newer diesel-powered vehicles equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. The fluid is injected into the hot exhaust stream of the vehicle and helps break down the nitrogen oxide gases in the exhaust into nitrogen gas and water vapor, both harmless to the environment.
It is an inexpensive and efficient option for lowering NOx emissions. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is produced from the exhaust of diesel vehicles and is a major contributor to smog and other air pollution. Exposure to NOx can also lead to respiratory and heart disease. This is why in 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that all new diesel engine vehicles reduce NOx emission levels by 90%.
It is easy to use. Any diesel vehicle with SCR technology can use DEF. There are no special filters or absorbers required. A gallon of diesel exhaust fluid will generally last about 300-500 miles. And since the EPA regulations came into effect, SCR technology is quickly becoming the industry-standard on new diesel vehicles.
Have questions, contact us today to learn more or get a quote.


text:
13 Timeless Films On Swedish Netflix That Will Leave You Nostalgic For Videos
Katherine Notman - Staff Writer • March 1, 2021
Dive into the wonderful world of cinema.
With the world still battling a pandemic, one thing is for sure – we're spending much more time watching television. Netflix the streaming service of choice for many of us, and sometimes a good dig into the back catalogue can unveil some absolute timeless gems. We're betting that you had at least one of these films on video as a child and probably watched it until the plastic tape unraveled. They're timeless films that really transport you somewhere else and give you nostalgia to those heady days of videos when we all watched our favourite films over and over, and they never got boring. [Photos: posteritati/reelgood/tmdb]
1. Back To The Future (1985)
The greatest sci-fi movie of all time? Very possibly. Join Marty McFly and Doc on this journey back in time to discover truths about the past and make sure his parents get together like they're supposed to. It's a whirlwind, and it's a Robert Zemeckis masterpiece.
2. Ghostbusters (1984)
Who you gunna call when poltergeists are trying to break through a Manhattan high rise and take over New York? GHOSTBUSTERS!
3. Jumanji (1996)
When two kids move to a new house they find a board game in the creepy attic named Jumanji, and what comes out of that boardgame causes chaos for the whole neighborhood. Robin Williams performs flawlessly in this fantastic, timeless classic and even though the special effects are objectively pretty dated, they don't feel dated at all when you're watching Williams running around fighting all sorts of nonsense with the two kids.
4. Boyz N The Hood (1991)
With a star-studded cast including Ice Cube and Laurence Fishburne, Boyz N The Hood focuses in on childhood friends in South-Central Los Angeles chasing their dreams while grappling with their neighbourhood filled with violence. It's a classic!
5. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Full Metal Jacket is not for the faint-hearted. It will make you feel like you've been through the washing machine, not least because your face will be soaking wet from crying. It follows a group of American Marine recruits who are being shipped of to fight in the Vietnam War.
6. Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)
If you're looking for something lighter and sillier to watch then it has to be this. If your parents were born in the '50s or '60s then you probably had this on video somewhere. If you're British then you've probably seen it over and over again throughout childhood.
7. Jurassic Park (1993)
Jurassic Park is the classic of all classics. The plot follows a team of park employees trying to protect two children who are hiding out in the park with loads of cloned dinosaurs after a power cut. Scary stuff!
8. Dumb And Dumber (1994)
Two friends find a briefcase that a woman has 'left behind' and get wrapped up in all sorts of silly situations. It's one of those films you put on when you've had a bad day and it makes you laugh so much that you forget why you were grumpy in the first place.
9. Scarface (1983)
When ex-convict Tony Montana comes to Miami from Cuba he begins a journey that will see him ascend further and further up the ladder in the drug trade. It's gritty, at times glamourous and just downright riveting.
10. E.T. (1982)
When an extraterrestrial becomes stuck on Earth and unable to return home and a human child begins caring for him. They become fast friends and the story just keeps getting better. For 11 years E.T. was the world's highest-grossing, and it's widely considered as one of the greatest films of all time.
11. My Neighbour Totoro (1988)
Another glorious Studio Ghibli picture that simply warms the heart, no matter how many times you've seen it. My Neighbour Totoro shows Mei and Satsuki befriending the spirits around their house when their mother is in hospital, and find their way to a magical world.
12. The Matrix (1999)
A mind-bending picture that pits Neo (Keanu Reeves) against powerful computers in a world of The Matrix that threatens existence. With the help of Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), Neo confronts the evil forces in an iconic showdown with bending bullets.
13. The Green Mile (1999)
Adapted from Stephen King's novel of the same name, The Green Mile follows a death row correction officer (Tom Hanks) during the Great Depression who starts to witness supernatural events after a new inmate arrives. Get the tissues out, your eyes are going to be leaking like a broken hose all the way through this.
Read more: 10 Of The Most Captivating True Crime Shows On Swedish Netflix