(02-02-2016, 03:43 PM)Wyche Wrote: I agree with you on that.....it also gets in my crawl when someone says he wasn't that good coming out because he's a 4th rounder.  The guy is a good guard in the league, and was a good prospect coming out in the draft.  This wasn't some Margus Hunt project on the o line.

He was one of the better guards in a weak class. 

It's no surprise he was good. I think there was a lot of projection with him, and that's why he's a fourth rounder. He never stayed too long at one spot at UGA. Played 3 or 4 spots there. (None of them center lol) 

Would he stick at OT? Can he be a RT or is he a guard? 
Most people thought guard but again, that was a bit of a projection. 

(02-02-2016, 03:48 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: He was one of the better guards in a weak class. 

It's no surprise he was good. I think there was a lot of projection with him, and that's why he's a fourth rounder. He never stayed too long at one spot at UGA. Played 3 or 4 spots there. (None of them center lol) 

Would he stick at OT? Can he be a RT or is he a guard? 
Most people thought guard but again, that was a bit of a projection. 

I guess I have a different mindset about o line play.  To me, if a guy is that versatile, he's a guy I want on my team.  I draft the guy and find out where he sticks. I get what you are saying though, I remembered he had moved around some at Ga, and you couple that with the rampant speculation on the boards and emergency C distinction that you brought up earlier, it's no wonder my old man memory was getting confused!

(02-02-2016, 03:53 PM)Wyche Wrote: I guess I have a different mindset about o line play.  To me, if a guy is that versatile, he's a guy I want on my team.  I draft the guy and find out where he sticks. I get what you are saying though, I remembered he had moved around some at Ga, and you couple that with the rampant speculation on the boards and emergency C distinction that you brought up earlier, it's no wonder my old man memory was getting confused!

I mean, versatility is nice. You share a mind with PA on this one. He values that a lot. 

Versatility means little to me if you are only ever "Okay" at a bunch of positions. 
Give me the guy who can be great at one. 

(02-02-2016, 03:55 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I mean, versatility is nice. You share a mind with PA on this one. He values that a lot. 

Versatility means little to me if you are only ever "Okay" at a bunch of positions. 
Give me the guy who can be great at one. 

My eyes!!!!!!

To add further, I guess diversity would be a necessity for me as far as depth goes.....if you can get that from a starter, that's nice, but it would be ideal for a backup, imo.  Bottom line, we got a good deal in the 4th on Clint.

(02-02-2016, 03:59 PM)Wyche Wrote: My eyes!!!!!!

To add further, I guess diversity would be a necessity for me as far as depth goes.....if you can get that from a starter, that's nice, but it would be ideal for a backup, imo.  Bottom line, we got a good deal in the 4th on Clint.

Are you sure you don't like PA?


You are basically quoting him at this point!

And I agree, versatility is ideal from a backup. You need 2 main backups on the OL. 
IOL - G/C type who can not embarrass himself snapping.
OT - Guy who can keep your QB from getting killed. Value pass pro over run block here. 

(02-02-2016, 03:43 PM)Wyche Wrote: I agree with you on that.....it also gets in my crawl when someone says he wasn't that good coming out because he's a 4th rounder.  The guy is a good guard in the league, and was a good prospect coming out in the draft.  This wasn't some Margus Hunt project on the o line.

According to you he was a great prospect.

According to all 32 NFL teams he was a fourth rounder despite being healthy and having no character issues.

Guess who I think has more credibility.

(02-02-2016, 02:54 PM)Wyche Wrote: Eddie Lacy, Larry Warford, and Honey Badger were not exactly unknowns freddy.....how many had even heard of Margus Hunt?  Shit, how many people realized SMU was even playing football again?

Everyone who knew anything about college football had heard of Margus hunt and had him ranked anywhere from 1st to 3rd round.

Not surprised that you did not even know who he was.

Hey Fred.....STFU....

(02-02-2016, 01:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Still" means currently.

And, yes, I can't help but speak the truth.  Sorry that bothers you.

The truth does not bother me at all.  What does bother me is a pompous, arrogant blowhard who thinks his opinion (make no mistake, the bulk of what is said on this board is opinion) is more worthwhile than anyone else.  Someone who constantly has to make little snide remarks.  A friendly discussion, even a spirited debate, is great.  Someone who thinks everything he says is some sort of football gospel is annoying to practically everyone.

(02-03-2016, 09:38 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: The truth does not bother me at all.  What does bother me is a pompous, arrogant blowhard who thinks his opinion (make no mistake, the bulk of what is said on this board is opinion) is more worthwhile than anyone else.  Someone who constantly has to make little snide remarks.  A friendly discussion, even a spirited debate, is great.  Someone who thinks everything he says is some sort of football gospel is annoying to practically everyone.

Hey, man, you have to get past that.  At times RoyleRedleg says something that is actually informative.

(02-02-2016, 04:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: According to you he was a great prospect.

According to all 32 NFL teams he was a fourth rounder despite being healthy and having no character issues.

Guess who I think has more credibility.

......and no, according to his scouting reports and his bio....I've linked them for you numerous times, I'm not going to do it again.

(02-02-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone who knew anything about college football had heard of Margus hunt and had him ranked anywhere from 1st to 3rd round.

Not surprised that you did not even know who he was.

Not so fast......

Quote:A team will take Margus Hunt higher than his film justifies. Hunt is as raw from a technique standpoint as they come. Picking up the game in 2009 it shows in his game as he has little sense for block recognition and feel for the game. He’s a major project that can contribute on special teams immediately. At worst, I think he’s a guy that you could try at tight end if there isn’t a future at DE. Hunt needs to add some bulk to his frame in the hopes that a 30 front team will see him as a five-technique. I think that’s his best fit at the next level but will likely only be used in sub-packages due to issues in run defense. Hunt probably gets drafted in the 2nd to 3rd round range but I wouldn’t touch him before the 4th round.
Read more at http://nflsfuture.com/2013/03/02/margus-hunt-scouting-report/#sRaJpCFFe8zdpQQg.99

SI called his NFL future "a mystery"....and added.....

Quote:For NFL teams, the draft is as much a challenge in deciphering a player's upside as it is picking apart his current skills. Perhaps no 2013 prospect is as much a walking Rubik's Cube as Hunt.

From Yahoo.....

Quote:While I stop short of saying that Margus Hunt is a Mike Mamula-style workout wonder who doesn't have what it takes to succeed in the NFL, there's a lot of work to be done here. As athletic as he is, and as much as that athleticism shows up on tape in fits and starts, there are far too many plays in which Hunt is a non-factor when he shouldn't be.

.....but yeah, most saw the guy as 2nd to 3rd round project.  Interestingly enough, the guy who pegged him as a 4th rounder, pretty much nailed it.  They all said he needed to coached up to be an NFL caliber starter, I guess the staff failed another "project"

.....but the point was, the casual fan most likely doesn't know who Margus Hunt is, and still doesn't.

(02-03-2016, 10:52 AM)Wyche Wrote: ......and no, according to his scouting reports and his bio....I've linked them for you numerous times, I'm not going to do it again.

None of the links you provided have the credibility of the 32 NFL teams.  

(02-03-2016, 10:52 AM)Wyche Wrote: Interestingly enough, the guy who pegged him as a 4th rounder, pretty much nailed it.  They all said he needed to coached up to be an NFL caliber starter, I guess the staff failed another "project"

So you are agreeing that the fourth round is proper for a "project" that needs to be coached up?

(02-03-2016, 11:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: None of the links you provided have the credibility of the 32 NFL teams.  

....nah, they're just scouting reports

(02-03-2016, 11:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are agreeing that the fourth round is proper for a "project" that needs to be coached up?

Nope....I'm agreeing with this:

Quote:A team will take Margus Hunt higher than his film justifies. Hunt is as raw from a technique standpoint as they come. Picking up the game in 2009 it shows in his game as he has little sense for block recognition and feel for the game......


I think that’s his best fit at the next level but will likely only be used in sub-packages due to issues in run defense.

......along with several other things he said in that report....a rather detailed one instead of following what everyone else was saying about the guy.

(02-03-2016, 10:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Hey, man, you have to get past that.  At times RoyleRedleg says something that is actually informative.

I could have sworn you said you don't do this shit fred?
Hmmm....I'll be nice and pay a little rent for living in your head. 

(02-03-2016, 11:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: None of the links you provided have the credibility of the 32 NFL teams.  

Guessing Tom Brady is the exception to the all 32 teams being football geniuses rule. 

Now I wanted Hunt drafted there and even predicted on the mothership that he would be at that spot. 

But clearly I was wrong. Still think it was worth a shot though. 

(02-03-2016, 02:36 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Guessing Tom Brady is the exception to the all 32 teams being football geniuses rule. 

Now I wanted Hunt drafted there and even predicted on the mothership that he would be at that spot. 

But clearly I was wrong. Still think it was worth a shot though. 

Personally, I would have liked him later, but was not outraged or anything by the pick.  I thought it a reach, but was fine with a project since we were deep on the DL.....then we lost MJ.  

(02-03-2016, 03:19 PM)Wyche Wrote: Personally, I would have liked him later, but was not outraged or anything by the pick.  I thought it a reach, but was fine with a project since we were deep on the DL.....then we lost MJ.  

We were going to lose one of MJ or Dunlap in a year anyways. 
That's why I hated the pick. 


We've needed a edge rusher who can beat a LT for years and we keep ignoring it and you see how important it can be, since it basically carried Denver to the Super Bowl 

(02-03-2016, 03:22 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: We were going to lose one of MJ or Dunlap in a year anyways. 
That's why I hated the pick. 


We've needed a edge rusher who can beat a LT for years and we keep ignoring it and you see how important it can be, since it basically carried Denver to the Super Bowl 

It's a good enough reason, I just thought they had enough sense to keep Carlos and Mike.....

(02-03-2016, 03:36 PM)Wyche Wrote: It's a good enough reason, I just thought they had enough sense to keep Carlos and Mike.....

Not about sense. It's about money.

You'd always like to keep all your good players. But you can't always afford to.

MJ wasn't taking a sweetheart deal to stay and turned down what they offered Carlos.
The only reason he is here is because he stunk it up in Tampa and came cheap (along with residual money from the Bucs). 

Same reason we won't draft a center as high as we should.
You can't have 3 guys coming up on big contracts on the OL at once. You essentially admit in drafting them that you don't plan on re-signing one. 

Less tricky there since you can play two OTs, but similar thoughts.