Thoughts on the draft
Ferraro, Ron
I’ll preface my comments by admitting (which no one else ever will) that I have absolutely no idea if any of our picks will turn out to be great NFL players or complete stumps. There is certainly no shortage of examples of both scenarios for *all* teams, and so anyone who tries to pass themselves off otherwise are just trying to sell you something (and they are very good at it!).
As far as our picks….
1 – Gholston: Anyone who knows me or has been even remotely paying attention to this list knows I wanted the Jets to draft Gholston in the worst way. Once the Falcons took Ryan, I knew we were going to get him. Well, I should say that for a fleeting, Kotitian™ Moment, I thought perhaps they’d draft a punter, causing the perfectly coiffed hair of Mel Kiper to stand straight up on his bulbous head. Anyway, I love the pick. I realize there are some questions about his motor, about his ability to drop back in to coverage, etc.. However, to me, if the guy can be John Abraham only without the vagina, then I’d say he’s worth the pick, and then some. Both he and Pace can line up on the line or off it, and on either side of the field. I’m excited at the havoc these guys are going to be able to wreak, but also at the prospect of how this will effect guys like Shawn Ellis. With those guys to keep track of, this should leave Ellis in a lot of single teams (something he hasn’t seen much of lately), and I think he’ll have a very, very good season next year.
2 – Keller: I wasn’t sure what to make of the Keller pick. I saw him play quite a bit in college (as I may have mentioned, I’m a Michigan fan), and thought he was an excellent receiver. I just wasn’t sure where he was going to play, since he was a prototypical “tweener”. But listening to the football guys talking about him being used in the slot, I really like the pick. He is going to cause all sorts of matchup problems for opposing teams, because he’s as big as a tight end, and runs more like a WR. That means that a linebacker can’t cover him, and he’ll outmuscle almost any nickel or dime back out there. Oh, and for an added bonus, he also has something sick like a 58” vertical leap, the best in the entire draft. The guy is a freak.
And as for blocking, while certainly part of blocking is physics-related (IOW, it will be hard for him to knock a 280 lb DE off the line on a straight, man-to-man block), it doesn’t mean he can’t get better. Blocking is not a genetic talent, like being able to throw a football 80 yards. Blocking is a learned skill, and there is no reason with hard work that he can’t become a very good blocker. Curtis Martin was not a big dude, but he was one of the best blockers in the game.
3 – Lowery: Prior to last college football season, a lot of folks had Lowery rated as one of the top CB’s in the draft, perhaps even a 1st round pick. Then he broke his jaw prior to the season, and he never really came back and dominated.
Further, he doesn’t have great speed, so you worry about him in man-to-man situations against real NFL receivers.
Which is why I pray they move him to safety, a position he played in junior college before transferring to San Jose State. I’ve read that they moved him to corner based on need, and he learned (and excelled) at the position. However, I think safety in the NFL is a much better fit for him. He’s got good size, and a frame that could probably carry 10-15 extra pounds for the position. And, it’s an area where the Jets have a hole, so I’m hoping that’s where he lands.
If they insist of keeping him at corner, then I think you’re looking at a career nickel back. Not necessarily a bad thing, but you would hope that you’d draft a guy in the fourth round who has a higher ceiling than a nickel back.
4 – Ainge: It’s really hard to assess college QB’s. Coming in to his junior year, Ainge was considered just a tad below an elite prospect, but certainly a top pro prospect nonetheless. Then he went out and had a horrible year with good talent around him, and well, you know the rest. But then last season, with a lousy team around him, he actually had a decent year. He cut down on his INT’s quite a bit, and was largely credited with solid-if-not-spectacular play.
I really liked the Woodson kid from Kentucky, thought he had all the tools. From what I’ve read, the Jets loved him too, but when left with the choice, while they do believe Ainge needs some mechanical work (especially his footwork, which has always been suspect from what I understand), they believe he is far more polished not just mechanically, but also in his ability to break down film, read defenses, etc.. Given that he may be called upon to play sooner rather than later, I guess they figured they didn’t have time to wait 3-4 years for Woodson to develop. It’s hard to argue with that logic.
5 – Henry: This guy is a marginal prospect. He brings nothing to the table other than being tall. He had pedestrian speed even by college standards, which will make him downright slow in the NFL. He’s not brawny or strong, so even though he’s taller that most/all CB’s, he’ll likely get pushed around quite a bit. I’m sure the Jets will give him every opportunity to make the team because they *need* someone with his size, but I can’t see him beating out any of their other receivers.
6 – Garner: Clearly a dart at a dart board. This guy wasn’t even a regular starter in college, so the odds of him being any more than a guy to hold a blocking dummy in two-a-days are long. But he is big, so if he’s got anything at all to work with, I guess he could perhaps be a practice squad candidate.
If any of you watched the draft on ESPN, you may have noticed they interviewed a kid named Danny Woodhead, a Div 2 RB from Chadron State (Nebraska). Woodhead holds several NCAA college football rushing records, including single season rushing and all-time rushing. In 2006 and 2007, he won the Harlon Hill Trophy, awarded to the best player in NCAA Division II. And he has 4.3 speed. J
Ron
Dan DiBiase
Central NJ USA
Alan Topal
Ron writes:
> If any of you watched the draft on ESPN, you may have noticed they
> interviewed a kid named Danny Woodhead, a Div 2 RB from Chadron State
> (Nebraska). Woodhead holds several NCAA college football rushing records,
> including single season rushing and all-time rushing. In 2006 and 2007, he
> won the Harlon Hill Trophy, awarded to the best player in NCAA Division
> II. And he has 4.3 speed. ☺
And the reason you’re telling us this is, they’ve apparently signed him to a FA deal.
-Alan
Ferraro, Ron
Umm, yeah. Sorry about that. What Alan said.
Ron
Wally Gobetz
> else ever will) that I have absolutely no idea if any of our
> picks will turn out to be great NFL players or complete
> stumps.
no else ever will? i've prefaced everything i said this past week with that
caveat. rich came out of obscurity to throw his hands up in the air.
> There is certainly no shortage of examples of both
> scenarios for *all* teams, and so anyone who tries to pass
> themselves off otherwise are just trying to sell you
> something (and they are very good at it!).
someone has to be the best at it to fill the blogosphere and the airwaves.
and the very best of those guys are probably reasonable proxys for one scout
on one team's opinion...so with some merit.
> As far as our picks..
>
> 1 - Gholston
with ryan, mcfadden, long and dorsey off the board, this was probably the
obvious pick. again, not saying that any of those guys would be better, but
you could understand the argument for picking them over VG. i suppose you
could've argued for ellis, but gholston probably has a better chance to
contribute in some way next year. i'm still worried about all the holes
that i read about, but even as a pure speed rusher spotted on passing downs,
he should be able to create some havoc.
but here's my question--what's our front 7 look like now? assuming a baes
3-4....ellis-jenkins-coleman. back 4? thomas-barton-harris-pace? who does
VG put on notice here? thomas? does he slot in for one of ellis-jenkins?
> Both he and Pace can line up on the
> line or off it, and on either side of the field.
ditto for thomas. and now he's got his typical MLB in harris and a run
stuffer in jenkins. we kept hearing so much about all these multiple looks,
but it's been more talk than anything. for the first time, we're finally
going to see mangini-system players...let's see if what he can do with this
mix.
> 2 - Keller: I wasn't sure what to make of the Keller
> pick.
i'm still puzzled we traded up for the guy. i can understand liking someone
enough to fill a need position that you pick him ahead of where he should be
picked, but to give up something to move up and do it? i imagine we had
good reason to think he wouldn't make it to our pick, but you wonder how the
pundits could've been that off projecting him when there were multiple teams
seeing him that high.
although after last year when we clearly targeted revis and harris,
sacrified the depth of our draft to get them, and it worked out...who am i
to question?
in fact, if you look at the tangini drafts so far...it's hard to quibble.
the hit ratio has been awfully good...and only schlegel can be called a real
"miss" so far.
2006 - ferguson (1-4), mangold (1-29), clemens (2-49), schlegel (3-76), eric
smith (3-97), brad smith (4-103), washington (4-117), jason pociask (5-150),
drew coleman (6-189), titus adams (7-220).
2007 - revis (1-14), harris (2-47), jacob bender (6-177) and chansi stuckey
(7-235)
> I saw him play quite a bit in college (as I may have
> mentioned, I'm a Michigan fan), and thought he was an
> excellent receiver. I just wasn't sure where he was going to
> play, since he was a prototypical "tweener".
he showed up to purdue as a 185 pound WR...so at 6'2-242, he doesn't have
much room to "grow."
> He is going to cause all sorts
> of matchup problems for opposing teams, because he's as big
> as a tight end, and runs more like a WR. That means that a
> linebacker can't cover him, and he'll outmuscle almost any
> nickel or dime back out there.
but a LB can outmuscle him...but if that means they need to worry about
jamming him at the line before he gets past them, it's all the better. i
keep reading that he's got potential as a red zone target, but without the
ability to take position against a LB, i think he's probably best used
stretching the field on slants and racking up YAC, or at least opening
things up for other guys. if nothing else, he should allow us to stretch
things out offensively and create some different looks. with he, franks and
richardson, we finally have the type of receivers that pennington could've
taken advantage of.
> And as for blocking, while certainly part of blocking
> is physics-related (IOW, it will be hard for him to knock a
> 280 lb DE off the line on a straight, man-to-man block), it
> doesn't mean he can't get better.
> Blocking is not a genetic talent, like being able to throw a
> football 80 yards. Blocking is a learned skill, and there is
> no reason with hard work that he can't become a very good
> blocker. Curtis Martin was not a big dude, but he was one of
> the best blockers in the game.
best blockers for a RB. keller will probably be fine blocking downfield or
in the backfield, but he doesn't sound like a point of attack blocker. as
alan said, if this means we're thinking of the TE spot as more of an h-back
who can become a playmaker, it's a good sign.
> 3 - Lowery:
>
> Which is why I pray they move him to safety, a position
> he played in junior college before transferring to San Jose
> State.
playmaker with a nose for the ball who may have questionable coverage
skills? seems like a no brainer on the surface.
> If they insist of keeping him at corner, then I think
> you're looking at a career nickel back. Not necessarily a
> bad thing, but you would hope that you'd draft a guy in the
> fourth round who has a higher ceiling than a nickel back.
anyone with a higher ceiling in the fourth round likely has a lower floor,
too.
> 4 - Ainge: It's really hard to assess college QB's.
> Coming in to his junior year, Ainge was considered just a tad
> below an elite prospect, but certainly a top pro prospect
> nonetheless.
good bloodlines at least? but from what i read, he sounds like a
backup...although i suppose if you get a solid backup in this spot, it's not
that bad....problem is that it's awfully tough for guys to establish
themselves as backups...in order to do so, they usually have to fail first
as starters.
> 5 - Henry:
> He had
> pedestrian speed even by college standards, which will make
> him downright slow in the NFL. He's not brawny or strong
same was said about cotchery..although henry is 6'4-207. he looks like more
like a swing guard than a WR, so he could probably add 10-15 pounds in
muscle...and apparently has the work ethic to do it.
> I'm sure the Jets will give him
> every opportunity to make the team because they *need*
> someone with his size, but I can't see him beating out any of
> their other receivers.
from what i'm reading, he's quick off the line (lacking breakaway speed, but
has a quick first step), finds open spots in coverage...particularly
underneath, and isn't afraid to go over the middle. throw in his length and
if he adds a little size he could be an adequate possession/slot guy when
matched up against nickel backs. we don't have one of those right
now...smith, stuckey and wright are our 3-4-5. it's a low upside pick, but
what do you expect in the 5th?
> 6 - Garner: Clearly a dart at a dart board. This guy
> wasn't even a regular starter in college, so the odds of him
> being any more than a guy to hold a blocking dummy in
> two-a-days are long. But he is big, so if he's got anything
> at all to work with, I guess he could perhaps be a practice
> squad candidate.
our backups on the line are will mongtgomery, clint oldenburg, jacob bender
and wayne hunter. anyone heard of any of them?
> If any of you watched the draft on ESPN, you may have
> noticed they interviewed a kid named Danny Woodhead, a Div 2
> RB from Chadron State (Nebraska). Woodhead holds several
> NCAA college football rushing records, including single
> season rushing and all-time rushing. In 2006 and 2007, he won
> the Harlon Hill Trophy, awarded to the best player in NCAA
> Division II.
> And he has 4.3 speed. J
and he's white with shaggy hair. he's really small (5-7 1'2-197)...but if
he makes a name in special teams, he could sell some jerseys.
Ferraro, Ron
Wally writes:
>no else ever will? i've prefaced >everything i said this past week with >that caveat. rich came out of >obscurity to throw his hands up in the >air.
I meant professional pundits, not anyone on this list. Don't be so defensive.
A57moon( Tony)
from 270 last year to 22 ( dr's orders per diabetes fight....) If I
have some grey hair...am I slower?? LOL
Ron Ferraro
>obvious pick. again, not saying that any of those guys would be better, but
>you could understand the argument for picking them over VG.
Well, yes and no. I could have seen McFadden, C Long and even
Ryan. And I love Dorsey as a player...I just see the same problem
with him as we had with Robertson. Just not a good fit for the
defense we play (or are gonna play).
>but gholston probably has a better chance to
>contribute in some way next year.
In some way? Are you serious? If he's not at *least* splitting time
with Thomas next season, I will be stunned.
> >but here's my question--what's our front 7 look like now? assuming a baes
> >3-4....ellis-jenkins-coleman. back 4? thomas-barton-harris-pace? who does
> >VG put on notice here? thomas? does he slot in for one of ellis-jenkins?
Has to be Thomas. He's only had one decent year since he's been here.
>i imagine we had good reason to think he wouldn't make it to our
pick, but you wonder how the
>pundits could've been that off projecting him when there were multiple teams
>seeing him that high.
I think they really wanted him, and they got wind that someone was
going to take him (the rumor is the Giants, who were then going to
dump Shockey). The more I"ve read and seen of this kid, I like the
pick more and more.
>i keep reading that he's got potential as a red zone target, but without the
>ability to take position against a LB, i think he's probably best used
>stretching the field on slants and racking up YAC, or at least opening
>things up for other guys.
He's a good red zone target because he has a great vertical leap and
excellent hands. And at 6'2" 242, he's not exactly a delicate
flower. I"m sure he does just fine lining up against LB's.
> >best blockers for a RB. keller will probably be fine blocking downfield or
> >in the backfield, but he doesn't sound like a point of attack blocker. as
> >alan said, if this means we're thinking of the TE spot as more of an h-back
> >who can become a playmaker, it's a good sign.
Right. I'm not suggesting he's going to morph into Kyle Brady as a
blocker. My point is that with hard work, he can become an adequate blocker.
Wally Gobetz
> in some way next year.
>
> In some way? Are you serious? If he's not at *least*
> splitting time with Thomas next season, I will be stunned.
yes...i'm serious. he's a rookie who scouts have questioned as to his
consistency, versatility and ability to pick up a playbook. i don't know
that he's going to be better than thomas next year.
> >i imagine we had good reason to think he wouldn't make it
> to our pick, but you wonder how the >pundits could've been
> that off projecting him when there were multiple teams
> >seeing him that high.
>
> I think they really wanted him
obviously...
> and they got wind that someone was going to take him
probably....
> (the rumor is the Giants, who
> were then going to dump Shockey).
to who? the saints traded up already and were out of bullets.
> The more I"ve read and
> seen of this kid, I like the pick more and more.
but you're only seeing highlights....you can't judge a player by that.
> >i keep reading that he's got potential as a red zone
> target, but without the >ability to take position against a
> LB, i think he's probably best used >stretching the field on
> slants and racking up YAC, or at least opening >things up
> for other guys.
>
> He's a good red zone target because he has a great vertical
> leap and excellent hands. And at 6'2" 242, he's not exactly
> a delicate flower. I"m sure he does just fine lining up against LB's.
i keep reading that he isn't good at establishing position or pushing
off...isn't that what the red zone is largely about?
Bill S.
-----Original Message-----
From: ron.f...@neustar.biz
Sent: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:18:32 -0400
To: jetsd...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Jets Digest] Thoughts on the draft
I'll preface my comments by admitting (which no one else ever will) that I have absolutely no idea if any of our picks will turn out to be great NFL players or complete stumps. There is certainly no shortage of examples of both scenarios for *all* teams, and so anyone who tries to pass themselves off otherwise are just trying to sell you something (and they are very good at it!).
As far as our picks....
1 - Gholston: Anyone who knows me or has been even remotely paying attention to this list knows I wanted the Jets to draft Gholston in the worst way. Once the Falcons took Ryan, I knew we were going to get him. Well, I should say that for a fleeting, Kotitian(tm) Moment, I thought perhaps they'd draft a punter, causing the perfectly coiffed hair of Mel Kiper to stand straight up on his bulbous head. Anyway, I love the pick. I realize there are some questions about his motor, about his ability to drop back in to coverage, etc.. However, to me, if the guy can be John Abraham only without the vagina, then I'd say he's worth the pick, and then some. Both he and Pace can line up on the line or off it, and on either side of the field. I'm excited at the havoc these guys are going to be able to wreak, but also at the prospect of how this will effect guys like Shawn Ellis. With those guys to keep track of, this should leave Ellis in a lot of single teams (something he hasn't seen much of lately), and I think he'll have a very, very good season next year.
2 - Keller: I wasn't sure what to make of the Keller pick. I saw him play quite a bit in college (as I may have mentioned, I'm a Michigan fan), and thought he was an excellent receiver. I just wasn't sure where he was going to play, since he was a prototypical "tweener". But listening to the football guys talking about him being used in the slot, I really like the pick. He is going to cause all sorts of matchup problems for opposing teams, because he's as big as a tight end, and runs more like a WR. That means that a linebacker can't cover him, and he'll outmuscle almost any nickel or dime back out there. Oh, and for an added bonus, he also has something sick like a 58" vertical leap, the best in the entire draft. The guy is a freak.
And as for blocking, while certainly part of blocking is physics-related (IOW, it will be hard for him to knock a 280 lb DE off the line on a straight, man-to-man block), it doesn't mean he can't get better. Blocking is not a genetic talent, like being able to throw a football 80 yards. Blocking is a learned skill, and there is no reason with hard work that he can't become a very good blocker. Curtis Martin was not a big dude, but he was one of the best blockers in the game.
3 - Lowery: Prior to last college football season, a lot of folks had Lowery rated as one of the top CB's in the draft, perhaps even a 1st round pick. Then he broke his jaw prior to the season, and he never really came back and dominated.
Further, he doesn't have great speed, so you worry about him in man-to-man situations against real NFL receivers.
Which is why I pray they move him to safety, a position he played in junior college before transferring to San Jose State. I've read that they moved him to corner based on need, and he learned (and excelled) at the position. However, I think safety in the NFL is a much better fit for him. He's got good size, and a frame that could probably carry 10-15 extra pounds for the position. And, it's an area where the Jets have a hole, so I'm hoping that's where he lands.
If they insist of keeping him at corner, then I think you're looking at a career nickel back. Not necessarily a bad thing, but you would hope that you'd draft a guy in the fourth round who has a higher ceiling than a nickel back.
4 - Ainge: It's really hard to assess college QB's. Coming in to his junior year, Ainge was considered just a tad below an elite prospect, but certainly a top pro prospect nonetheless. Then he went out and had a horrible year with good talent around him, and well, you know the rest. But then last season, with a lousy team around him, he actually had a decent year. He cut down on his INT's quite a bit, and was largely credited with solid-if-not-spectacular play.
I really liked the Woodson kid from Kentucky, thought he had all the tools. From what I've read, the Jets loved him too, but when left with the choice, while they do believe Ainge needs some mechanical work (especially his footwork, which has always been suspect from what I understand), they believe he is far more polished not just mechanically, but also in his ability to break down film, read defenses, etc.. Given that he may be called upon to play sooner rather than later, I guess they figured they didn't have time to wait 3-4 years for Woodson to develop. It's hard to argue with that logic.
5 - Henry: This guy is a marginal prospect. He brings nothing to the table other than being tall. He had pedestrian speed even by college standards, which will make him downright slow in the NFL. He's not brawny or strong, so even though he's taller that most/all CB's, he'll likely get pushed around quite a bit. I'm sure the Jets will give him every opportunity to make the team because they *need* someone with his size, but I can't see him beating out any of their other receivers.
6 - Garner: Clearly a dart at a dart board. This guy wasn't even a regular starter in college, so the odds of him being any more than a guy to hold a blocking dummy in two-a-days are long. But he is big, so if he's got anything at all to work with, I guess he could perhaps be a practice squad candidate.
Bill S.
-----Original Message-----
From: d_di...@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: jetsd...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Jets Digest] Re: Thoughts on the draft
Good summary, Ron. Don't that much about any of the lower-round picks, but Ainge can't be that bad, with that name. Although Danny Ainge was one of my least-favorite Celtics ever (umm, of course, that was before he pulled the trigger on the Garnett deal ;-). Yeah, in addition to the Red Sox, I'm a Celtics fan too.....Dan D
Central NJ USA
----- Original Message ----
From: "Ferraro, Ron" <ron.f...@neustar.biz>
To: jetsd...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:18:32 AM
Subject: [Jets Digest] Thoughts on the draft
Iʼll preface my comments by admitting (which no one else ever will) that I have absolutely no idea if any of our picks will turn out to be great NFL players or complete stumps. There is certainly no shortage of examples of both scenarios for *all* teams, and so anyone who tries to pass themselves off otherwise are just trying to sell you something (and they are very good at it!).
Alan Topal
Wally writes:
>> i imagine we had good reason to think he [Keller] wouldn't make
>> it to our pick, but you wonder how the pundits could've been
>> that off projecting him when there were multiple teams
>> seeing him that high.
>>
I can't recommend enough watching with the sound off (if at all).
> > (the rumor is the Giants, who
> > were then going to dump Shockey).
>
> to who? the saints traded up already and were out of bullets.
>
Which leaves about 30 other teams (and about 4 more months).
> > The more I"ve read and
> > seen of this kid, I like the pick more and more.
>
> but you're only seeing highlights....you can't judge a player by that.
>
But you can tell he's not another Becht/Brady clod.
>>> i keep reading that he's got potential as a red zone
>>> target, but without the ability to take position against a
>>> LB, i think he's probably best used >stretching the field on
>>> slants and racking up YAC, or at least opening >things up
>>> for other guys.
>>>
>> He's a good red zone target because he has a great vertical
>> leap and excellent hands. And at 6'2" 242, he's not exactly
>> a delicate flower. I"m sure he does just fine lining up against
LB's.
>>
> i keep reading that he isn't good at establishing position or pushing
> off...isn't that what the red zone is largely about?
>
They can't teach him to push off?
-Alan
Alan Topal
> > 2 - Keller: I wasn't sure what to make of the Keller
> > pick.
> >
> i'm still puzzled we traded up for the guy. i can understand liking
> someone enough to fill a need position that you pick him ahead of
where he > should be picked, but to give up something to move up and do
it?
>
They did two trades with Green Bay, the net result of which was giving
up picks 36 and 102, and receiving 30 and 162.
> he showed up to purdue as a 185 pound WR...so at 6'2-242, he doesn't
have
> much room to "grow."
>
I've heard him compared to Dallas Clark, who's listed at 6-3, 252.
> > 4 - Ainge: It's really hard to assess college QB's.
> > Coming in to his junior year, Ainge was considered just a tad
> > below an elite prospect, but certainly a top pro prospect
> > nonetheless.
>
> good bloodlines at least?
>
Danny's kid?
-Alan
Ferraro, Ron
Wally writes:
>>>but gholston probably has a better chance to contribute in some way next year.
>> In some way? Are you serious? If he's not at *least*
>> splitting time with Thomas next season, I will be stunned.
>yes...i'm serious. he's a rookie who scouts have questioned as to his
>consistency, versatility and ability to pick up a playbook.
I never said he was a “perfect” player. Every player has holes. You can’t, however, teach athletic ability. He has all the physical tools to excel at the position. Scouts have also said there was no one in the draft with his overall athletic ability. He’s going to a good defensive coaching staff, and he is an extremely hard worker in practice and in the film room (this according to his teammates and defensive coordinator, who would know best). Everything I’ve read is that he’s a quality person and a hard worker.
The thing that makes me laugh is how on one hand the scouts are writing these negative comments about his motor and his consistency, yet on the other hand, there wasn’t a single person who didn’t list him as a top ten prospect. I mean, I don’t care how good of an athlete he is, if he’s got that many holes, how could he possibly be a top ten pick? Or a top 20 pick, for that matter?
>i don't know that he's going to be better than thomas next year.
Bryan Thomas is a marginal NFL linebacker, playing only because the Jets had no one better to play. If Gholston, as the #6 pick in the draft can’t steal large chunks of playing time from him in 2009, then this was a wasted pick.
>>>i imagine we had good reason to think he wouldn't make it to our pick, but you wonder how the pundits could've been
>>>that off projecting him when there were multiple teams seeing him that high.
>>(the rumor is the Giants, who were then going to dump Shockey).
>to who? the saints traded up already and were out of bullets.
No clue. Unfortunately my green-room ticket request was denied.
>>The more I"ve read and
>>seen of this kid, I like the pick more and more.
>but you're only seeing highlights....you can't judge a player by that.
I actually do follow college football, and I think I did mention that I’ve seen him play in real games. I’m not only relying on highlight films on YouTube. I only posted it yesterday because many on the list had no idea who he was.
>> He's a good red zone target because he has a great vertical
>> leap and excellent hands. And at 6'2" 242, he's not exactly
>> a delicate flower. I"m sure he does just fine lining up against LB's.
>i keep reading that he isn't good at establishing position or pushing
>off...isn't that what the red zone is largely about?
I don’t know what your definition of “the red zone” is, but in most general terms, it’s anything inside the 20 yard line. Add in 10 yards for the end zone, and that’s a 30 yard field area to play with. Being a good red zone target doesn’t *only* mean cementing yourself in the middle of the end zone and pushing LB’s out of the way. He can run around and make LB’s try to catch him, which they can’t.
The best comparison I saw was Shannon Sharpe only with more speed. If that turns out to be true, I think I’d take it.
Ron
Ferraro, Ron
Alan writes:
>>i'm still puzzled we traded up for the guy. i can understand liking
>>someone enough to fill a need position that you pick him ahead of
>>where he should be picked, but to give up something to move up and do
>>it?
>They did two trades with Green Bay, the net result of which was giving
>up picks 36 and 102, and receiving 30 and 162.
Right. I just don’t understand what the big deal is. They saw a guy they liked for whatever reason, were afraid they were going to lose him, and moved up to get him at the cost of moving down in later rounds.
>>he showed up to purdue as a 185 pound WR...so at 6'2-242, he doesn't have much room to "grow."
>I've heard him compared to Dallas Clark, who's listed at 6-3, 252.
Actually, as I just posted in another thread, the most interesting (and applicable, IMHO) comparison I’ve heard was Shannon Sharpe, who is/was 6’2” 228. Only Keller is faster, at least in the 40.
>>> 4 - Ainge: It's really hard to assess college QB's.
>>> Coming in to his junior year, Ainge was considered just a tad
>>> below an elite prospect, but certainly a top pro prospect
>>> nonetheless.
>>good bloodlines at least?
>Danny's kid?
Nephew.
Ron
Bill S.
-----Original Message-----
From: ron.f...@neustar.biz
Sent: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:23:31 -0400
To: jetsd...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Jets Digest] Re: Thoughts on the draft