1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thoughts on the Tech vs Ole Miss game

Discussion in 'NFL Draft Forum' started by BuckeyeKing, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. BuckeyeKing

    BuckeyeKing Wolves DYNASTY!!!!

    25,411
    5,743
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    Oher is the best Tackle in college football and should be the first Tackle taken in the draft.

    Peria Jerry is a monster and should be on the Dolphins draft board.

    Brandon Williams is going to be a special player when he comes out.
     
  2. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    17,215
    16,603
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    Kid is a stud. The thing that grabbed me was against Alabama Gregg Hardy goes down, and he actually played better after getting extra attention. Not a bad thing to have in your resume.
     
  3. BuckeyeKing

    BuckeyeKing Wolves DYNASTY!!!!

    25,411
    5,743
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    There was one instance where Oher pushed Williams towards the inside and recovered just in time to pick up the blitz with 1 arm giving Snead enough time to throw the ball.

    The guy has great feet and can surprisingly move that massive frame quickly. Who ever drafts him will be set at LT for the next decade.
     
  4. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Oher had an amazing game and I wouldn't hesitate to draft this kid #1 overall if I was the Lions. Of course, if I was the Lions I probably couldn't tell talent from shoe grease, so there's that. Oher is hands down a better pro prospect than Jake Long was - if you are fine with his learning disability that is. I was more than a bit disappointed with Greg Hardy who I thought was pretty much a non-factor all game and might've hurt his draftstock significantly. As an aside, although he wasn't a hundred percent obviously, Crabtree has a lot of work to do in the NFL. I think I haven't seen him run one good pro route yet.
     
  5. BuckeyeKing

    BuckeyeKing Wolves DYNASTY!!!!

    25,411
    5,743
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    Agree about Oher 100%

    Thats not a knock on Jake Long its just Oher is the whole package like a Orlando Pace.
     
  6. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    I don't see how they wouldn't go QB #1- has to be Stafford or Bradford. Sanchez from USC showed me something in that bowl game, BTW. I haven't seen enough of him, but in terms of arm/release, size, mobility, etc. he seems to have a lot to work with. The Lions should be able to pick up a quality T at the top of rd 2.

    Not a lot of love for Stafford on this board, but I think that his tool box is full and he could be special. Loved the touch that he showed in the bowl game.
     
  7. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    I don't see how they could possibly expect to put a rookie QB behind this mess of an offensive line and not end up with the second coming of Joey Harrington. Wait a minute. They're the Lions. I do see it.
     
  8. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    If I'm the Lions and I'm comfortable with Oher's off the field issues, then either him or Sam Bradford is pretty much my pick. Oher one side, Cherilus the other, Johnson out wide, Smith at TB. Come back later in the first with that Dallas pick and get someone on the defensive line or a Duke Robinson, first pick of round 2 work the lines again, perhaps a Ziggy Hood and do just what we did; build inside out.
     
    PENNSYLVANIADOLPHAN and Vendigo like this.
  9. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    That would be exactly my strategy as well. Grab one or two interior linemen later on as well and worry about QB after you've put together a situation in which a young QB can actually succeed. The problem with going QB at #1 is that you're pretty much forced to play him very early and playing a young QB early behind a 52 sacks line is a recipe for desaster. I genuinely wonder how many Harringtons, Carrs or Smiths we'll have to watch before the last NFL FO realizes that building the other way round almost never works.
     
  10. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,523
    158,447
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    If what you've said in the past about Oher's off field troubles is really the case, I just could not entrust him with that much money as the #1 overall. I would take the player that graded lower but was a safer overall pick by virtue of personality and work ethic.

    All that could change when/if we finally see a rookie wage scale.
     
  11. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008

    They can do the right thing, draft a new QB/cornerstone of the franchise, take a T at the top of the 2nd and sit the QB for a year if they have to, play Stanton.

    If they could land Britton at #33- not bad.
     
  12. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Well, I think it really depends on the kind of off field issues you're facing. It's not like Oher has a reputation for being a bad kid or not working hard enough; the guy was virtually living on the street and didn't play football until the 9th grade, so making it through college and emerging as a dominant left tackle actually indicates a rather good work ethic and steadfastness. The issue with Oher is not so much that you can't entrust him with that much money, it's rather if his learning disability will prevent him from making the translation well. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem drafting him #1 overall because he's just so technically sound that I don't buy you can't teach the kid. If he couldn't pick stuff up well, he wouldn't be the kind of tackle he is. But ultimately, yeah, all this stuff might make teams pass on him.
     
  13. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Well, I don't necessarily consider this approach the "right" thing ... I don't think I can remember a single instance (other than Atlanta who were nowhere near as bad as Detroit is right now) of this approach actually working. Nearly every team that had success with a young quarterback made a point of building the trenches first and worry about QB a year later. And nearly every team that did it the other way round ended up with a busted QB. Yeah, in a perfect world it might be possible to draft OL later and sit the young QB for a year but there is no way you can actually do that, especially not in Detroit. You draft a QB at #1, you pretty much have to play him at some point in his rookie season.
     
  14. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Well, the Falcons needed line help on top of a QB after drafting Matt Ryan and traded up to get Sam Baker, who was injured early. The Lions signed DAUNTE CULPEPPER off of the street and immediately penciled him in as the starter- 'nuff said. There's no rule that says you have to throw in a top QB as a rookie if he's in danger of getting pounded and shell shocked. Take the stud QB- you guys probably want Bradford- take the solid OL who will invariably be available at #33, and move from there. They've got to get someone who can get the ball to CJ. New regime, time to build with a stud QB.
     
  15. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,087
    2,335
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
    I read Blind side and do not have any contacts at Ole Miss or the breadth of NFL contacts like the guru's do....but...from reading B/S and various sites IMO Oher does not have work ethic challenges...but his learning challenges are significant enough to where this guy may work his butt off, be talented enough and never pan out....I agree huge risk based on personal make up......my point is Oher may fall much further than he should based on physical ability.
     
  16. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,523
    158,447
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I'm under the impression he may have exactly those problems.
     
  17. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    True but we know how this usually plays out, don't we? See Harrington, Carr, Alex Smith ... you draft a QB #1 overall, everyone's screaming for the guy by midseason at the latest; your owner probably being the loudest. I just think there's too much that can go wrong (and usually does go wrong) by picking a QB that high without having a solid line in place. Detroit is a longterm project anyway so I see absolutely no reason to rush things and quite possibly waste the one pick I can't afford to waste. Especially in a class that isn't particularly great at the QB position anyway but offers intriguing LT talent in the first round.
     
  18. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    How come? I haven't seen it on tape and I haven't read anything about it that would concern me. Learning issues? Yes. Character issues and poor work ethic? No.
     
  19. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Good points, but they don't preclude management being smart about it, grabbing their collective package and doing the right thing. If they could land Stafford/Bradford then Britton, that would be stellar. They have Riola I believe at C and they can work on getting some Guards. Then they have to worry about their D- ouch.
     
  20. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    But the "right thing" involves some serious risk ... this is a very good OT class but we all know how hard it is to find a great LT and there's no guarantee the guy you want is still on the board when you pick again (I haven't seen Britton enough yet to say a lot about him). I find it rather dangerous to go QB without a line in place and hope that a good LT falls into your lap later on. To me it's way more sensible to grab the best LT in the class and build the trenches first. As I said, you're not in a hurry. You don't need that franchise QB right away. But you do need a solid line before you should think about him. Plus, I would be very hesitant to put a young QB in a situation where my absymal defense has him playing from behind all the time. I really think Detroit needs to invest their three top picks in linemen to have any kind of foundation on which to build on. Sure, QB is the sexy pick here but I wouldn't like the prospect on missing out on a great LT and I also wouldn't like the prospect of having a defense that can't stop anyone.
     
    PENNSYLVANIADOLPHAN likes this.
  21. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Yes, they do need the franchise QB right away. Not to play right away, but to start developing right away. Britton- I'm flapping my gums based upon his status and what little I've seen- I definitely need to see more. But if he's as good as I think he is, then you have bookends with him and Cherilus, K Smith at RB and a pretty good Center. Take the stud QB, give him time. Take the LT- actually they have the Cowboy's 1st rd pick, too- they can get Britton and a darned good defensive player with that pick and #33. It's all just opinions- mine is you take the stud QB and don't look back.
     
  22. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Nah it's not true, I just made it up to get a reaction!

    Seriously though, if you didn't read the long piece I wrote on him and his off field problems in the Club, then if you can bear it, it's worth it.

    Two things to remember where the cash is concerned; he was adopted by millionaires; his adopted father has his own private jet so he's been around money for 6/7 years. I don't think that's an issue. The second is that his adoptive father and Michael have been around pro sports because his dad is a commentator for an NBA team so they've seen what money can do to you. Of all the "issues" that he has, I don't see dealing with money as being high on that list.
     
    jim1 likes this.
  23. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Couldn't be further from the truth. Great kid who works very hard and has only 5/6 years ago FOUND the capacity to learn.

    Read the piece. You might even enjoy yourself.
     
  24. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Difference is mate that Bradford is a redshirt sophomore and Stafford is a still pretty raw junior for all his obvious talents. Matt Ryan was a senior, a 3 year starter who also threw almost 100 passes as a true freshman. Bradford is a great collegian, potential is off the scale for his pro career, BUT Ryan is Peyton Manning with strawberry blond hair in terms of his work off the field. Not saying either Matthew or Sam aren't, but there's a lot to be said about a senior doing it in the pros. Flacco was a senior. Ben Roethlisberger was a senior. All very successful rookie QB's. If they spend $75 million on Bradford and he gets ruined in year 1 the way Alex Smith has been, then what?

    I would see what you have in Stanton, make a move for someone like Billy Volek or a younger passer like Fitzpatrick at Cincy or someone like that and see where you go. I'd be watchful of situations like the one with Marc Bulger who clearly needs a new home. Derek Anderson similarly didn't become a bad QB overnight. And there's some good young QB's out there who were later rounders who are being groomed and who teams are high on; I know because one of his ex-coaches said on Sunday, but Colt Brennan has hugely impressed the Redskins, but how much future does he have behind a young pup like Jason Campbell?
     
  25. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    I saw a little of Brennan in the preseason and he did look good. I'd also be looking at Beck if I were the Lions, pick him up on the cheap. Regarding your first paragraph, again, I don't think that drafting a QB #1 mandates immediate playing time and return on investment. If he's not Matt Ryan out of the gate, that's ok. Or to put it another way, sit the dude for a year if that appears to be the right thing to do. But you get that building block and raise the franchise from the ashes. If I recall correclty you like Bradford over Stafford- wouldn't Bradford/Britton be a pretty solid 1-2 punch?
     
  26. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    To be honest, I've never bought into that line of thinking. I don't even think that the thesis "you have to have that franchise QB to be successful in this league" holds up to empirical evidence. There's so many teams that didn't draft a franchise QB in the first year (or at all) and still built quite a powerful team while there have been preciously few franchises being successful with this QB first approach. I know that it's a popular thesis in fan circles but the truth is, it's rarely successful. I see it written over and over and over again and yet I never see an actual argument. Just the thesis as if it was a no-brainer really, and frankly, it isn't. Just look back for ten or fifteen years: Nearly every team adhering to this line of thinking eventually failed. Or to quote Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
     
  27. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    The Dolphins must have embraced the insanity mode when they flopped around for years without a solid QB. Personally I think that it is a QB driven league- whether it's a 1st or 7th rd pick- get the right guy. The right guy could be Grahm Harrell in the 3rd or 4th rounds, who knows. The Chiefs- I'm very intrigued by the guy who they have playing now, Tyler Thigpen- much more difficult choice in my book for them. I'd have a hard time passing on Stafford, though.
     
  28. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    I didn't advocate to never draft a QB. I said it was at least latently insane to draft a QB in the top 5 without building the trenches first and expect a different result than Joey Harrington, David Carr, Alex Smith, Tim Couch ... to name just a few. I mean, how often does it have to go completely wrong before you say, ok, maybe it actually is a bad idea?
     
  29. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Was the Falcons drafting of Matt Ryan latently insane? Donovan McNabb? Insert other names at your own leisure. Try grasping the concept that you can draft a stud QB, not play him right away, and build an OL this year and next. Again, with any luck they could draft a Britton, Ciron Black, Loadholt, Jason Smith, Max Unger, Jamon Meredith etc. in the 1st with the Cowboys pick, Alex Mack in the 2nd, maybe Antoinne Caldwell in the 3rd, etc. Maybe Ciron Black at #33. And they did just draft Cherilus, did they not? Regardless, you have your opinion, I have mine, let's leave it at that.
     
  30. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    You mean the Donovan McNabb who got drafted after the Eagles picked up an All Pro LT the year before? I already gave you Matt Ryan. So you got one example of this approach actually working (and we can't even tell that with any certainty yet) while I got about 10 of it failing miserably. We can certainly agree to disagree, man, but I still don't buy that a one in ten chance is a sensible strategy to approach a #1 overall pick.
     
  31. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Yeah, and the Lions just drafted a T in the 1st, right?

    Dude, whatever. You are entitled to your opinion. If I get extremely bored I'll make out a list of QB's taken high when the line wasn't solid. You gave me Matt Ryan- gee, thanks. Not only is this boring, I have no interest in engaging in another internet argument for no good reason. Just let it go.
     
  32. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    No offense Jim1, but why do you get so worked up over a discussion?
     
  33. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Having to repeat the same point over and over is boring and annoying. But you're right, I shouldn't get worked up over it. On that note, I'm done for the day. Have a good one.
     
  34. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Just to clear it up, I'm not trying to be rude to you or anything; I'm just asking. Its a discussion though, try to expand on your thoughts and it will lead to something more.

    Have a good one. :up:
     
  35. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    I agree. So why not bring an actual argument instead of reiterating your thesis over and over again? I know your point by now. I've just not seen any kind of evidence that would prove that teams have successfully built franchises by drafting a QB early with no cornerstone LT in place.
     
  36. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    oher reminded me of a poor mans clady. very nice feet but a touch soft on the physical side of the position. kind of expect him to have a dbrickshaw kind of intro to the nfl; tough first year with slow improvement where he would be solid by his third year. loved the DT. Definitely a player. the receiver was nice but want to see a bit more of him
     
  37. BuckeyeKing

    BuckeyeKing Wolves DYNASTY!!!!

    25,411
    5,743
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    I think he is better than Clady.
     
  38. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008

    Well, I guess that I or anyone else who disagrees with you is "latantly insane", to use your words, correct? Amazing what kind of people one encounters on the internet...

    Who was John Elway's cornerstone LT? Who was Terry Bradshaw's? Who was Jim Plunkett's? You list 3 or four examples and think that you have a thesis and an argument? Maybe the QB"s that you mentioned were just not very good. Maybe they still would have sucked with better LT's, and maybe the common theme is not as much whether or not it was the OL's fault as opposed to whether the QB's in question had what it took to get the job done. Does Jamarcus Russell struggle because of his OL or because he just isn't very good yet? Which QB's that were drafted high failed even though they had good LT's?

    The point is moot, however, because the Lions can go a long way to building their OL this year and next, despite your opinion.

    Regarding your argument:

    1) I get it
    2) I disagree with it
    3) The argument and discussion are boring and I just don't care.

    If you're that bored make a project of it for yourself: research it, flesh it out, and back up your thesis. The last thing that you can do is discuss it with someone who gives a crap.
     
  39. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Evidently, I already am.

    Oh, and by the way, no, the first assumption is not correct.
     
  40. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    really? clady coming out of college was just about perfect other than not facing the best competition. i thought he was a bit meaner in the run game than oher. if he's better than clady he should go number one overall since you can argue that clady was the best rookie LOT this year (i know, i know dont throw anything at me. i just said you could argue it)
     

Share This Page