Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46
  1. #31
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    My question to you is, is there something wrong with a player preserving his energy as much as possible for plays he actually has a chance to affect? Not saying this is the case here, but it is certainly within the relm of possibility, wouldn't you say?

    If you've been in the huddle, surely you know what I'm talking about.
    Yes, that is a huge problem! A true player fully believes they can affect EVERY play.

    But no I've never seen that situation in the huddle, as anyone who was "saving their energy" didn't spend much time in the huddle anyway. Sidelines? Yes. Bleachers? Yes. Huddles? Not so much.
    Besides that, how do we know Mr. Kirwan's opinion isn't biased?
    Do you see this, Nick!? This is the kind of stuff that befuddles me. We shouldn't question Gholston's consistency. It must be that Pat Kirwan has an ulterior motive. Oh Kirwan.....that wascally wabbit.

    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  2. #32
    harrydog's Avatar
    harrydog is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    429
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Sometimes, the greater risk is just that.....the greater risk. But if Long is gone, take Gholston. There's no doubt in my mind he is the best choice at DE left on the board.
    I think there are only a *very* few people in this forum who think we should take Gholston if C. Long is there at #2.

  3. #33
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,879
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    I just put this in another thread, but I think it kind of ends Hub's post fittingly, so I'm posting it again. It's from the ESPN story about Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning at the top of the 1998 draft.

    "Predraft talk painted Leaf as the more dynamic athlete and Manning as the more polished product."

    I agree with everything Hub has said, including and emphasizing that I really don't think there's a question of Chris Long vs Gholston, performance and reliability are what we need, and one provides both, the other provides one... sometimes.

  4. #34
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by harrydog View Post
    I think there are only a *very* few people in this forum who think we should take Gholston if C. Long is there at #2.
    I wholeheartedly agree, harry. However, it is the end of the spectrum that provides the most intriguing study, no?
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  5. #35
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,666
    Rep Power
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    I define it as better than 0.94 tfl per game, 0.64 sacks per game, and 3.17 tackles from a one trick DE.
    Okay, but I'm just wondering how one can really assess whether or not a player has put up numbers worthy of their pick without a standard to measure him against. For instance, if I just took a math test and got a 49, how would you know what that means without something to measure it against? Probably not a great example, but I'm in education so that's what I came up with.

    Anyways, in his final year at NC State, Mario Williams wracked up 14.5 sacks. 10.5 of them came in three games. Of his 27 tackles of loss, 15 of them came in those same games. So take those three games away, and Williams had four sacks and twelve tackles for loss over the remaining nine games. The year before, he didn't get his first sack until the fifth game of the season.

    Are those numbers worthy of going first overall? The Texans thought so, and two years later he was a nominee for GMC Defensive Player of the Year after recording 14 sacks. Note that eight of those sacks came in three games. Over the other 13, Williams recorded only six sacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    That's a little concerning as well in some cases. Take Umenyiora for example. Huge game against Philly, big sack in the SB, but just solid other than that. For me, I'd rather have the guy on the other end who has been much more consistent throughout his career.
    But again, let's look at Strahan. Last year he record nine sacks. Five and a half came in two games. So three and a half sacks over the remaining fourteen games. Look at his season in 2005 - 11.5 sacks. But 7.5 came in four games, leaving only four sacks for the remaining twelve games.

    So again, could some of this be the nature of the position? Sometimes guys have big games on the box score, sometimes they don't. But that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't applying pressure and trying to get those numbers when they're on the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Do you see this, Nick!? This is the kind of stuff that befuddles me. We shouldn't question Gholston's consistency. It must be that Pat Kirwan has an ulterior motive. Oh Kirwan.....that wascally wabbit.
    I see it. Some suggested the same thing when it came to Balzer and his report about Dorsey's injury status. I think both are rather ridiculous suggestions.
    Last edited by Nick; -04-09-2008 at 02:06 PM.

  6. #36
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    So again, could some of this be the nature of the position?
    Maybe. Let's take a look. Gholston has been shut out in 12 of his 26 games in the past two years (20 of his 34 total career games). During his prime, Strahan played 3 full years ('01-'03) before getting shut out 12 times.

    But Nick, we can play these numbers games all day, and don't get me wrong.....I enjoy it. However, what's the goal at the end of the day? To ease my concern over Gholston? No sweat......I'm cool with the Gholston pick, concerns or not. To rank Gholston ahead of Long? Neither of us would make that mistake, so no problem there either.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  7. #37
    RedArcher7's Avatar
    RedArcher7 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    626
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    It's a good thing they say sacks aren't the way to measure defensive ends.

    Gholston has been shut out in 12 of his 26 games in the past two years
    Unless he was beaten to the ground every play during those games, I don't think he was shut out. He still get's pressure on the QB. You also said Osi was just solid in his other games...uh, since when is being solid a bad thing? If you can make people adjust to what you're doing, and mess up their plans, even a little you're doing your job.

  8. #38
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by redarcher
    It's a good thing they say sacks aren't the way to measure defensive ends.
    Who's "they"?
    since when is being solid a bad thing?
    Since when is being solid a #2 overall thing?
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  9. #39
    RedArcher7's Avatar
    RedArcher7 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    626
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    They would be every major football analysist.

    Being solid when you're not being great is a #1 overall thing. You can't expect (if we draft defensive end) for that player to get a sack, or even pressure every play. Michael Strahan, a HOF was beat by Barron his rookie year. It's going to happen, if you can be solid while you're taking time off, that's good for the team.

  10. #40
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,670
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Yes, that is a huge problem! A true player fully believes they can affect EVERY play.

    But no I've never seen that situation in the huddle, as anyone who was "saving their energy" didn't spend much time in the huddle anyway. Sidelines? Yes. Bleachers? Yes. Huddles? Not so much. Do you see this, Nick!? This is the kind of stuff that befuddles me. We shouldn't question Gholston's consistency. It must be that Pat Kirwan has an ulterior motive. Oh Kirwan.....that wascally wabbit.

    First let me state what I mean by "affect". I mean either make the play, or be directly responsible for someone else making the play.

    If a "true player" believes he will be in that position on every play, he is dellusional. He can be easily proven wrong on the very first play, if the offense so desires.

    Sure you can bring up double teams and thus affecting the play by freeing up another defender, but that would be more indirectly affecting the play.

    Since you haven't been in the huddle much, you probably haven't seen many players gasping for air and subsequently preserving their energy, but trust me, it is as common as the word common.

    And lastly, no sense crying to Nick, I'm the one rebutting your arguements.

    You most certainly have every right to question Vernon Gholston's consistency, but it would be silly of you to expect no response from his supporters.

    Remember, if it gets to much for you, you can bow out at any time.

  11. #41
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by redarcher
    They would be every major football analysist.
    Really, Red? Every major football analyst says defensive ends aren't measured by their sacks? Hmm?
    If a "true player" believes he will be in that position on every play, he is dellusional.
    If a "true player" doesn't believe he will be in position on every play, he is justifying taking plays off. Go ask a hall of famer how many plays they took off, then pick up your teeth.
    Since you haven't been in the huddle much, you probably haven't seen many players gasping for air and subsequently preserving their energy, but trust me, it is as common as the word common.
    You're too funny, niner. If you're going to make a personal attack, at least make it factual. Come on, surely you're better than that.
    And lastly, no sense crying to Nick, I'm the one rebutting your arguements.
    Rebutting my arguments? Hang on, let me get my dictionary and make sure I understand the word "rebut"............yes, here it is: rebut - [ri-buht], verb, - 1. to refute by evidence or argument. 2. to oppose by contrary proof.

    Yea, the Pat Kirwan conspiracy theory, doesn't exactly qualify, does it? Unless you were the surgeon on my gluteus transplant, you've yet to rebut me.
    You most certainly have every right to question Vernon Gholston's consistency, but it would be silly of you to expect no response from his supporters.
    No, no, no.....by all means, it's the responses that keep us all doing what we're doing. This place would be awful boring without all the different perspectives.
    Remember, if it gets to much for you, you can bow out at any time.
    Holy Heifer from Hartford! I got to tell you, niner......I don't agree with your logic train on this issue, but man you are one funny guy. I don't even drink, but I may have to buy you a beer at the Bash this year. You've earned it.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  12. #42
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,670
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Really, Red? Every major football analyst says defensive ends aren't measured by their sacks? Hmm? If a "true player" doesn't believe he will be in position on every play, he is justifying taking plays off. Go ask a hall of famer how many plays they took off, then pick up your teeth. You're too funny, niner. If you're going to make a personal attack, at least make it factual. Come on, surely you're better than that. Rebutting my arguments? Hang on, let me get my dictionary and make sure I understand the word "rebut"............yes, here it is: rebut - [ri-buht], verb, - 1. to refute by evidence or argument. 2. to oppose by contrary proof.

    Yea, the Pat Kirwan conspiracy theory, doesn't exactly qualify, does it? Unless you were the surgeon on my gluteus transplant, you've yet to rebut me. No, no, no.....by all means, it's the responses that keep us all doing what we're doing. This place would be awful boring without all the different perspectives. Holy Heifer from Hartford! I got to tell you, niner......I don't agree with your logic train on this issue, but man you are one funny guy. I don't even drink, but I may have to buy you a beer at the Bash this year. You've earned it.
    First of all, I have yet to make a personal attack on you. If you've been offended by anything I've written, I sincerely apologize.

    As for the arguement, no matter what I say or what you say, the other will have an opposing view. So I am willing to agree to disagree on this one, particularly since the chances are remote that our front office would have the balls to draft Gholston anyway.

    Though I still feel he is going to be a better player in time, the point is really moot, since he'll likely be doing it in a city not named St. Louis.

    By the way, I'd never get the truthful answer if I were to ask the HOFamers how many plays they took off. Besides that's up for interpretation anyway. But believe me there has been and will always be, plenty of energy preserved.

  13. #43
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    If you've been offended by anything I've written, I sincerely apologize.
    No, no.....not offended. We're just having a good time here.
    So I am willing to agree to disagree on this one, particularly since the chances are remote that our front office would have the balls to draft Gholston anyway.
    Now this is a good one. Kudos for it. I like the "well, we just have our different viewpoints and that's okay" appeal to the agree to disagree, and then follow it up with the "but I'm right & the rest of the world is wrong" backhand. And to aim it at the front office which everyone has a problem with anyway. That was brilliance!
    By the way, I'd never get the truthful answer if I were to ask the HOFamers how many plays they took off.
    Which is to say, no HOFer would ever say they took a play off. Does that make it not true?
    But believe me there has been and will always be, plenty of energy preserved.
    And believe me there has been and will always be, plenty of players not worth the 2nd overall pick.


    Come on, do we really want to just agree to disagree? This has been fun.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  14. #44
    ram1906's Avatar
    ram1906 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    134
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Another factor to consider when you guys are throwing out these stats are the level of competition the 2 DE had to face. i cant remember any OL in the ACC who i can recall making it or will make any waves in the 1 day of the draft. i can name 3 tackles that have been or will be taken in the top 10 picks that VG looked Super human (not godlike) against.....

  15. #45
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Ouch....Pat Kirwan's 3.0 mock

    Quote Originally Posted by ram1906 View Post
    Another factor to consider when you guys are throwing out these stats are the level of competition the 2 DE had to face. i cant remember any OL in the ACC who i can recall making it or will make any waves in the 1 day of the draft. i can name 3 tackles that have been or will be taken in the top 10 picks that VG looked Super human (not godlike) against.....
    Oh goody. Tell me the 3.....or better yet, let me guess!

    Jake Long, Joe Thomas, & Levi Brown......right? Let's take a look.

    Jake Long - In two games, Henne dropped back 72 times, and Gholston got to him exactly 1 time.

    Levi Brown - In the '06 game (the only time Brown and Gholston were on the field together), Morelli dropped back 25 times and again, Gholston got to him exactly 1 time.......though I don't know if that was against Brown or another lineman.

    Joe Thomas - Oops, I was wrong about Thomas. He and Gholston have never been on the field together. So, you'll have to tell me the third OL you had in mind.

    So against Long and Brown, that would be 2 sacks (unless the PSU sack wasn't against Brown, then it's only 1) in 97 attempts for the Super Human (not godlike) Vernon Gholston.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 3 Round Fantasy Mock Draft [NFL.com]
    By evil disco man in forum FANTASY
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -11-27-2007, 10:18 PM
  2. Return of the MOCK GAMBLING Competition for 07/08
    By JackieSlater in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: -09-09-2007, 12:13 PM
  3. Week 10 Mock Gambling - Richbert88 takes the lead!
    By JackieSlater in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: -11-12-2006, 02:07 PM
  4. Week 9 Mock Gambling - lead changes again!
    By JackieSlater in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: -11-05-2006, 02:07 PM
  5. Week 8 Mock Gambling- Major changes
    By JackieSlater in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: -10-29-2006, 02:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •