(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.

(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. 

(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!

(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. 

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

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.

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.

(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.

(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"

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

(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?

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.

(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.

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

(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. 

(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.  

(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 

(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.....