| Author |
Message |
|
Sarlacc83
|
Post subject: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:01 am |
|
| * NET Philistine * |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am Posts: 10337 Location: Portland, OR
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Jazzhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:31 am |
|
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:16 pm Posts: 7698
|
|
Hmmm, interesting.
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
BAllenHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:03 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:45 am Posts: 225 Location: Tri-Cities, WA
|
|
That's our DangeRuss underneath Gholston lol. That Malliciah Goodman looks like an absolute monster.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
CamanoIslandJQ
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:21 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am Posts: 797 Location: Camano Island, WA
|
To say Margus Hunt hasn't put up enough "swatted passes" and not even mention his 82 inch wingspan and his 17 career blocked kicks (10 FGs, 7 PATs), which ties for second in NCAA history (record is 19) is dumb. He will be on display at the Senior bowl and we all need to be sure and focus on his play. He's maybe a possible Seahawk pick in round 2 or 3. JS/PC like "long" and "physical freaks". Another "statistically abnormal" player that may be available in middle/later rounds is Keith Pough, OLB, 6-2, 236, Howard University. His record career total of **83 TACKLES-FOR-LOSS** are pretty unreal, even at a small school. See UTUBE highlights tape (just through his junior year) Note that this guy plays way faster than his straight line speed would suggest, instints and lateral quickness are evident. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU8XCNIpDGEQ. Smith in rounds 5, 6 or 7 would make some sense, he looks fairly decent.
_________________ <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
theENGLISHseahawk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am Posts: 6394
|
|
The guy who wrote that is a character to say the least.
Sent me some tweets a few weeks ago boasting about how he had a natural flair for scouting because all of Seattle's draft picks last year were on his 'big board'. Completely out of the blue.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
CurryStopstheRuns
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:56 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:52 pm Posts: 1427
|
|
That was a great article. Really Intrigued by Smith in the later rounds. He only lists at 249, but by the look of him he could carry another twenty pounds at 6'5".
_________________ I am a firm believer in luck, and I found that the harder I work the more I have of it.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
theENGLISHseahawk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am Posts: 6394
|
|
Smith tore his ACL in November.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
CurryStopstheRuns
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:11 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:52 pm Posts: 1427
|
theENGLISHseahawk wrote: Smith tore his ACL in November. Yeah, I read that in the article. Still wouldn't mind using a seventh rounder on him. The nine month time range puts him back in August. If he recovered in six months we would have him in May. With the new injured reserve rules I would take the risk.
_________________ I am a firm believer in luck, and I found that the harder I work the more I have of it.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Sarlacc83
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:59 am |
|
| * NET Philistine * |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am Posts: 10337 Location: Portland, OR
|
CurryStopstheRuns wrote: theENGLISHseahawk wrote: Smith tore his ACL in November. Yeah, I read that in the article. Still wouldn't mind using a seventh rounder on him. The nine month time range puts him back in August. If he recovered in six months we would have him in May. With the new injured reserve rules I would take the risk. If you're using a 7th round pick as a flyer anyway, might as well go for it in the late rounds. Though, if PC and JS can get him as a UDFA, they'll go that route if they want him I'm thinking.
_________________ My single greatest contribution to the board: "42-13" (formerly 24-14)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
SharkHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:00 am |
|
| * NET Alumni * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am Posts: 3414
|
|
Meh. I don't get the hub-bub over Field Gulls. I'm not saying I'm a great writer or anything, but everybody says the folks there are, and I just see them as another fan site, with different backgrounds than this place and a format that is meant to seem intelligent and drive away non-kool-aid drinkers to what they're serving.
This isn't just a rip on the site... I meant that article in particular was just not that interesting or persuasive.
_________________  R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten 1/12/39 - 8/7/08
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Trrrroy
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:27 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am Posts: 2676
|
SharkHawk wrote: Meh. I don't get the hub-bub over Field Gulls. I'm not saying I'm a great writer or anything, but everybody says the folks there are, and I just see them as another fan site, with different backgrounds than this place and a format that is meant to seem intelligent and drive away non-kool-aid drinkers to what they're serving.
This isn't just a rip on the site... I meant that article in particular was just not that interesting or persuasive. Danny Kelly does good work and Derrick Stephens is good during the draft season. Everyone else is pretty mediocre, IMO.
_________________ I hate Tim Ruskell.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Sarlacc83
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:11 pm |
|
| * NET Philistine * |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am Posts: 10337 Location: Portland, OR
|
SharkHawk wrote: Meh. I don't get the hub-bub over Field Gulls. I'm not saying I'm a great writer or anything, but everybody says the folks there are, and I just see them as another fan site, with different backgrounds than this place and a format that is meant to seem intelligent and drive away non-kool-aid drinkers to what they're serving.
This isn't just a rip on the site... I meant that article in particular was just not that interesting or persuasive. This is the first I've linked to one of their articles, actually. With a lot of the talk about defensive ends in the forum, it seemed appropriate.
_________________ My single greatest contribution to the board: "42-13" (formerly 24-14)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
ivotuk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:43 pm |
|
| * NET Nobody * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm Posts: 4860
|
|
Milliciah looked pretty good in his Bowl game. Certainly got my attention. Nothing splashy, but a "good, steady performer."
_________________ Joe Vellano, DT, 6'1", 300lbs, 61 tkls 14 TFL, 6 sacks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_yzeVi-eU, Mike Catapano 6'4" 271QB Jordan Rodgers 6'1" 212# 2539 Yards, 60% completion 15td/5int
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
SharkHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Fieldgulls: DEs revisited Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:09 pm |
|
| * NET Alumni * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am Posts: 3414
|
Sarlacc83 wrote: SharkHawk wrote: Meh. I don't get the hub-bub over Field Gulls. I'm not saying I'm a great writer or anything, but everybody says the folks there are, and I just see them as another fan site, with different backgrounds than this place and a format that is meant to seem intelligent and drive away non-kool-aid drinkers to what they're serving.
This isn't just a rip on the site... I meant that article in particular was just not that interesting or persuasive. This is the first I've linked to one of their articles, actually. With a lot of the talk about defensive ends in the forum, it seemed appropriate. No knock on you. I appreciate the info. I just didn't think it was really persuasive. It seemed like he was even sort of waffling in the article. An actual article should leave you walking away from it saying, "THIS IS NOW MY OPINION" not, "I am still where I was before or I still am just not convinced at all....". This article didn't change my mind. Maybe I'm being hard headed, but usually I'm a pretty easily persuaded guy.
_________________  R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten 1/12/39 - 8/7/08
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 posts ] |
|
Users browsing this forum: Cirmman and 10 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
 |