ACor58 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Something's Not Right Here: In the 2008 draft, Jersey/B used the sixth selection on Vernon Gholston; in the 2009 draft, Buffalo used the 11th choice on Aaron Maybin, and Denver used the 14th selection on Robert Ayers. All are hybrid defensive end/linebacker types who specialize in rushing the passer, and the three have combined for zero career sacks in the NFL. This year, Jersey/A used the 15th choice of the draft on hybrid defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul, who specializes in rushing the passer. Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player, finishing a distant 69th in Division I sacks. Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference. Drafts can be judged three years later. TMQ has a sawbuck that says in three years, the undrafted Coleman will be a more accomplished NFL player than Pierre-Paul, Gholston, Maybin or Ayers. Also undrafted in 2010 was Blue Cooper, who bested Terrell Owens' receiving records at Tennessee-Chattanooga. I would have drafted him for his name alone. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl Paging Brian Orakpo ... paging Andre Carter ... paging DeMarcus Ware ... All were first round picks. God, does Gregg "stop me before I blitz again" Easterbrook do even the slightest amount of research?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted August 17, 2010 Author Share Posted August 17, 2010 Paging Brian Orakpo ... paging Andre Carter ... paging DeMarcus Ware ... All were first round picks. God, does Gregg "stop me before I blitz again" Easterbrook do even the slightest amount of research?? You obviously don't read him often. He is probably the best researched blogger out there. He is refrencing the "hybrid" athletic tweeners that turn out to be busts. He could have went back as Erik Flowers if he wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 You obviously don't read him often. He is probably the best researched blogger out there. He is refrencing the "hybrid" athletic tweeners that turn out to be busts. He could have went back as Erik Flowers if he wanted to. I've read practically every TMQ column of his since he wrote for Slate. In fact, I've read him since the early nineties since he came up with The New Republic. I also know that he played for Kenmore West, and that his brother is a pretty well known judge. I don't hate him at all; I just think he's an incredibly shoddy analyst. For years, he was so enamored with the Bills defense of the mid-1990s that he let it color his perception about blitzing throughout the NFL (a subject about which he was completely wrong). He was relentless about the issue, and didn't let facts get in the way of his argument. He can be very interesting and perceptive, but he tends to fly off the handle. For instance, in the pages of the New Republic, he blamed Jews in the film industry for allowing Kill Bill to be made (he hated it because of the violence, which indicates to me at least that he's a lousy film critic). He was subsequently fired by ESPN (owned by Disney and hence Michael Eisner), but made enough credible mea culpas to eventually get his job back. PS - every name I listed above is a "hybrid athletic tweener." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throwback Bills Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 To answer your question, YES!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Pierre-Paul looked like he's gonna be a player last night. He reminds me of a young Jevon Kearse with his size and athleticism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I've read practically every TMQ column of his since he wrote for Slate. In fact, I've read him since the early nineties since he came up with The New Republic. I also know that he played for Kenmore West, and that his brother is a pretty well known judge. I don't hate him at all; I just think he's an incredibly shoddy analyst. For years, he was so enamored with the Bills defense of the mid-1990s that he let it color his perception about blitzing throughout the NFL (a subject about which he was completely wrong). He was relentless about the issue, and didn't let facts get in the way of his argument. He can be very interesting and perceptive, but he tends to fly off the handle. For instance, in the pages of the New Republic, he blamed Jews in the film industry for allowing Kill Bill to be made (he hated it because of the violence, which indicates to me at least that he's a lousy film critic). He was subsequently fired by ESPN (owned by Disney and hence Michael Eisner), but made enough credible mea culpas to eventually get his job back. PS - every name I listed above is a "hybrid athletic tweener." I am not sure why hating Kill Bill because of the violence is such a bad thing. What Gregg Easterbook said was inappropriate, but I think it is a mischaracterization to just say that "he blamed Jews in the film industry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 You obviously don't read him often. He is probably the best researched blogger out there. He is refrencing the "hybrid" athletic tweeners that turn out to be busts. He could have went back as Erik Flowers if he wanted to. Easterbrook is amusing, and writes comical articles that are worth the read every tuesday. However his football analysis leaves much to be desired. Specifically, he picks and chooses among plays from the week to support some of his outlandish theories (ie-blitzing is never a good idea) and ignores any and all evidence to the contrary. He's good at what he does, but no one will ever confuse him with a sound football analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Easterbrook is amusing, and writes comical articles that are worth the read every tuesday. However his football analysis leaves much to be desired. Specifically, he picks and chooses among plays from the week to support some of his outlandish theories (ie-blitzing is never a good idea) and ignores any and all evidence to the contrary. He's good at what he does, but no one will ever confuse him with a sound football analyst. I wish teams playing the Bills would follow his no-blitz philosophy. That said, he has a point about 6 and 7 man blitzes, which are huge gambles, especially when it is 3rd and very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts