aREDSKIN Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 From various boards: Udeze ran a 4.74 40 and had a 39" vertical. Not too bad for a DE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by aREDSKIN From various boards: Udeze ran a 4.74 40 and had a 39" vertical. Not too bad for a DE not bad at all for a 285 pounder... that vertical is SICK i wanna know how many reps he did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 That's a crazy vertical leap. The highest VL I remember was Tom Carter's in '93, didn't help him or the Redskins any, but it was 45 inches, or 46 if I remember right. For a former DT to have that kind of leap is crazy. I also don't AT ALL get the Lang comparison. Where do you get that from? I suppose they could both play DT, that's true, but did Lang practically live in opponents backfields (40 TFL's in the past two years for Udeze) in college or the NFL? Nope. Udeze was a sack machine at USC improving every year AND playing the run well, he also was a turnover generator and has blocked several kicks. From what I remember of Lang, he was a hard working DE w/late first round skills who showed a willingness to gut through an injury when he was working out for the Redskins (I believe he strained or sprained his ankle, and kept going afterwards which really impressed softies like Norv and his "Bend and Break" defensive stewards). They don't really compare at all to me. I don't think people are being honest about Taylor or Winslow either. For all the online hype, what exactly have these guys done? I'm willing to buy the scouts hype to a degree, Taylor was a ballhawk, and Winslow has ocassionally showcased skills that remind you of his far superior father (at least at this point, KW2 couldn't hold a candle to his father, so he should think about closing that fat mouth of his). Still, Taylor had a ho-hum workout. Not horrible, but not good either. I'm not sold on workouts, but when people are selling a prospect as a once in a generation football player and athlete, and then he has a flat workout that doesn't show once a generation skills in ANY area, I'm concerned. Particularly when he plays safety. Would I like the next Ronnie Lott? Hell yeah, considering Ronnie Lott logged several years as a pro bowl corner before switching to Safety and playing potentially BEST EVER ball at Safety. How on earth is Taylor the second coming of Lott? He isn't good enough to play corner, let alone play Pro Bowl caliber corner in the NFL. And he hasn't played a single down in the NFL so comparing him to a LOTT is an enormous stretch. Lott was a sure tackler, a bone rattling hitter (neither of which is synonomous with Taylor), a natural leader, and a team guy. Taylor has a long way to go before he can log one of those attributes let alone all of them. Worse yet, he plays SAFETY, he'll command a 13-14 million dollar signing bonus at Safety. If we were barely willing to pay Bailey that much how on earth do we justify paying an unproven safety that? And how on earth do we resign him if he actually is the real deal, and how do we effectively address other areas of need (like the DL) if we're throwing that much money at Safety. How do we keep our OL intact? As for KW2, 1 TD against a crummy team despite 60 touches through the air. How all world is that? 10 YPC, not exactly sterling YAC, if he's the greatest physical specimen around why is his YAC so crummy. Why isn't he breaking tons of tackles. You can only blame so much on crummy Quarterbacking. Besides, Rashaun Woods hasn't exactly had Peyton Manning throwing to him at OSU, but he still got 32 TD's and more than 3,000 yards there. I don't expect Winslow to duplicate those kinds of numbers, being he's a TE, still, he wasn't even remotely close. ONE freaking TD. KW2 will probably be a good pro, Taylor probably will two. However neither have had earth shattering performances in college, and Taylor had a real mediocre workout. At least be honest about Udeze, all evidence we have suggest's he's special, maybe not as well regarded as Taylor or KW2, but he was more productive for his position than either of those guys were in their's and he plays a far harder position to address affordably, and effectively. Udeze isn't Lang, Taylor isn't Lott, and KW2 isn't KW. They're all unknown quantities, but I sure like Udeze a lot more considering his continual improvement, his big game play, his consistent productivity in all phases of the game for a DE (run stopping, pass rushing, turnover generating, tackles for losses, blocking kicks), and the fact that his signing bonus should be substantially less, and we can land an elite TE, S, DT, or WR prospect in round 2 in the bargain if we trade down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 errrr....oldskool....I have been pushing for Winslow. questioning your logic vis Taylor was just a freebee!!!! either way...I don't much care. my life and fortune aren't vested in who we draft. the rancor over this is silly in the extreme. how does the phrase go?..."lighten up Francis"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JangoFett Posted March 25, 2004 Author Share Posted March 25, 2004 At least be honest about Udeze, all evidence we have suggest's he's special, maybe not as well regarded as Taylor or KW2, but he was more productive for his position than either of those guys were in their's and he plays a far harder position to address affordably, and effectively. Udeze isn't Lang, Taylor isn't Lott, and KW2 isn't KW. They're all unknown quantities, but I sure like Udeze a lot more considering his continual improvement, his big game play, his consistent productivity in all phases of the game for a DE (run stopping, pass rushing, turnover generating, tackles for losses, blocking kicks), and the fact that his signing bonus should be substantially less, and we can land an elite TE, S, DT, or WR prospect in round 2 in the bargain if we trade down. I can appreciate your arguments and your use of statistical back up. The stats are an essential part of projecting success at the pro level. But they tell only a part of the story. Consider that last season Dave Ball across town from Udeze had 54 tackles, 21 tackles for loss and 17 sacks. Most people think this guy will be a second day pick. Who knows, maybe Ball will become a sack machine in a couple of years. But people see a lot more in Udeze's size and physical ability than in Ball. Those kind of attributes--superior speed, power, quickness, football instincts--is a huge part of what's causing scouts to drool over prospects like KW2 and Taylor and lead them to believe that they can dominate at the next level. It just seems that to this point the "experts" have generally seen more in the play and physical ability of KW2 and Taylor to lead them to believe these guys have more potential to dominate in the nfl than Udeze. That said, in the end after all of the evaluations have been completed, Udeze may shoot up the charts and be as highly regarded as KW2 and Taylor. Frankly if either JG or GW (Ceratto is a different story) has a high degree of confidence that Udeze will be a pro bowler (even if they have an equally high degree of confidence that K2 and Taylor will also be top notch pros) then I would be delighted if the Skins pull the tigger on Udeze at #5. Like you said they're all unknown quantities--even to professional GMs (but especially to amatuers like me and you). I have the guys that I favor and you have the guy that you favor as potential difference makers for the skins. I'm all for that debate and I think that's the point you're arguing, that Udeze is a superior prospect that the two Miami guys. What I'm less inclined to buy into is the idea of drafting d-line purely for the sake of need--certainly not in a situation where you're reaching, but even in a trade down situation. We've got a couple of former first rounders on the d-line (Wynn and Upshaw) who, in my mind, demonstrate the risk you take of dropping down and taking a guy who, based on the then-available information, projects to be just a solid pro with some upside, while someone who projects to be a star can be had for the taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by fansince62 errrr....oldskool....I have been pushing for Winslow. questioning your logic vis Taylor was just a freebee!!!! either way...I don't much care. my life and fortune aren't vested in who we draft. the rancor over this is silly in the extreme. how does the phrase go?..."lighten up Francis"..... the rancor and the fevor over this has come from all sides. Any attempt to place the figer on my chest is laughable at the very least. If you honestly think that anyones life (besides the players of course) rests on who we draft, the you have a screw loose. One more time, im just pasionate about what we should as a draft. Thats what fan(atics) do when they talk about their team. Perhaps you and I have a difference of opinion on what a fan is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Sorry, Oldskool, but I agree with Al. I've sensed a level of acrimony in your posts that pretty much surpasses anyone else's. Reasonable people can differ, and there are compelling arguments to go either way. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean that he is an idiot, nor should they be treated as such. Look at Jango's last post - the last one on pg. 2. An excellent post - it's polite and civil, well thought out, and provides a counter-point to Consig in a non-contentious and confrontational manner. The draft isn't for another month, guys. This is going to be rehashed ad nauseum. There's no sense in this topic creating a bunch of animosity, as we're all going to be rooting for whichever player is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by JangoFett I can appreciate your arguments and your use of statistical back up. The stats are an essential part of projecting success at the pro level. But they tell only a part of the story. Consider that last season Dave Ball across town from Udeze had 54 tackles, 21 tackles for loss and 17 sacks. Most people think this guy will be a second day pick. Who knows, maybe Ball will become a sack machine in a couple of years. But people see a lot more in Udeze's size and physical ability than in Ball. Those kind of attributes--superior speed, power, quickness, football instincts--is a huge part of what's causing scouts to drool over prospects like KW2 and Taylor and lead them to believe that they can dominate at the next level. It just seems that to this point the "experts" have generally seen more in the play and physical ability of KW2 and Taylor to lead them to believe these guys have more potential to dominate in the nfl than Udeze. That said, in the end after all of the evaluations have been completed, Udeze may shoot up the charts and be as highly regarded as KW2 and Taylor. Frankly if either JG or GW (Ceratto is a different story) has a high degree of confidence that Udeze will be a pro bowler (even if they have an equally high degree of confidence that K2 and Taylor will also be top notch pros) then I would be delighted if the Skins pull the tigger on Udeze at #5. Like you said they're all unknown quantities--even to professional GMs (but especially to amatuers like me and you). I have the guys that I favor and you have the guy that you favor as potential difference makers for the skins. I'm all for that debate and I think that's the point you're arguing, that Udeze is a superior prospect that the two Miami guys. What I'm less inclined to buy into is the idea of drafting d-line purely for the sake of need--certainly not in a situation where you're reaching, but even in a trade down situation. We've got a couple of former first rounders on the d-line (Wynn and Upshaw) who, in my mind, demonstrate the risk you take of dropping down and taking a guy who, based on the then-available information, projects to be just a solid pro with some upside, while someone who projects to be a star can be had for the taking. I've never been a Need first guy, the Bowie rule always applies. But I have and will always have an addendum to the rule. No TE's, no Safeties, no kickers, no centers, no punters and no fullbacks in the top 10-15 (no kickers or punters or fullbacks in the first round at all). As for the DL, I believe that Udeze is going to be special, not Reggie White Special, but I do think he could turn into a Charles Mann/Sean Jones caliber DE if everything went right. I'm not sold on Taylor being great, definitely not sold on that. And I just don't believe TE's should be selected in the top 10 Ever, particularly considering how we use them. As effective as Didier could be, he never blew up, and as effective as KW2 could be, would he be more effective than a Roy Williams, Lee Evans, Rashaun Woods or Larry Fitzgerald if they can get the job done? I doubt it. I believe in BAFP, but w/that previously mentioned addendum. That's why I'm in favor of a trade down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 passion is good......belittling fellow Skins fans (e.g., bandwagoners, Taylor sexy pick, morons, etc.) in what is essentially a self defense mechanism is somewhat less enobling. I know.....I have made the same mistake more than once. either way........we'll all be in there pulling for the home team once the draft is done and attention shifts to what is actually being done with the assembled pieces. see you at hogfest!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Udeze was never the best DE in the Pac 10, let alone this draft. Both of the Ball brothers had better careers in the conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by SonnyJ Sorry, Oldskool, but I agree with Al. I've sensed a level of acrimony in your posts that pretty much surpasses anyone else's. Reasonable people can differ, and there are compelling arguments to go either way. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean that he is an idiot, nor should they be treated as such. Look at Jango's last post - the last one on pg. 2. An excellent post - it's polite and civil, well thought out, and provides a counter-point to Consig in a non-contentious and confrontational manner. The draft isn't for another month, guys. This is going to be rehashed ad nauseum. There's no sense in this topic creating a bunch of animosity, as we're all going to be rooting for whichever player is taken. every poster has his/her way of posting. if you take inferrence to how I post, im sorry. I dont come on this board to pi$$ other posters off nor do I come to troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by SoCalSkins Udeze was never the best DE in the Pac 10, let alone this draft. Both of the Ball brothers had better careers in the conference. God, you're such a blind homer...Matt ball had 3 sacks last year. And 6 TFL. Stop with the LSD-inspired posts, PLEASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanFromAsia Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I though Udeze camp said he is going to run in the 4.6 although 4.74 is not bad, but it is not 4.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 What the hell does his forty time matter? He's not a safety . But seriously, did any Udeze boosters talk up his forty? I don't see why, considering he was a former DT, I was quite happy w/his forty, but I wasn't especially concerned with it. I was a bit more bothered w/his strength tests, he supposedly set some nice records at USC, but didn't equal them, or surpass them today. That was the only disappointing thing to me. Forty times don't matter at all, I don't really understand why they'd test DE's for that, I'd think they would have come up with effective tests to see what kind of burst they might have off the line, maybe some sort of test out of the blocks or something like that, even the first ten yards of the forty to see how quick their acceleration is from a dead stop onward. DE's are like Bears, you don't need them to be able to chase someone down forty yards away, you use your back seven to handle that, nah, you need them quick and w/burst in short distances to be able to get leverage on lineman, and get around blockers on run and pass plays. As for that post about the Ball's, I won't even dignify that cr@p with a reply (then again when my posts involve DE comparisons w/grizzly and black bears maybe I need to rethink the quality of my posting ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Funny isn't it bomb, that they can say that Ball is better than Udeze, but god forbid you compare the Georgia Safety or Ware with Taylor. Or Watson/Troupe with Winslow. :laugh: And if you did pull off a trade down and still landed Udeze, you just might be able to get one of those players with a 2cd rounder if it was early enough. :laugh: but no, two tallented rookies are not as good as one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNorth Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Udeze is a stud, his upside is just as high as KW2 and Taylor. But with any pick the key is to develop their talent. No prospect is a sure thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost- Daquarium Simpkins How is a guy who set the school record for forced fumbles at USC not a playmaker and not talented? Was Taylor Freshman All-America? Harris is definitely talented. Smith has great physical gifts. Wilfork is a beast. Watson's avg is much higher per catch than Winslow BOTH years. Not just this year. Come on now. Taylor and Winslow are in many eyes the best prospect if years, not this years sexiest picks. Please dont pull up college stats Winslow demanded a lot more attention by defenses and had a pretty sorry excuse of a QB throwing the ball to him last year. As for Udeze he is a good prospect not best in years and as for his stats didn't a possiblle 5th round pick named David Ball have VERY similar stats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost- Daquarium Simpkins God, you're such a blind homer...Matt ball had 3 sacks last year. And 6 TFL. Stop with the LSD-inspired posts, PLEASE. How conveniant you bring up Matt and fail to bring up Dave:doh: talk about biased and on somebodys ---- :notworthy Udeze is a good prospect (will be on Total access tonight btw) Dont knock Taylor or Winslow they are far higher prospects at there postions. I am a supporter of picking up Taylor or Winslow at 5 and just as big a supporter of trading down and picking up Udeze or Will Smith. BUT for all you that claim you are old school and "know so much more about football":laugh: b4 you draft a stud DE it all starts in the middle if you dont stop the run (which was a bigger problem than our pass rush last year btw) there wont be a lot of 3rd and longs to utilize this great DE how about we trade down take Wilfork and in the second get a Antwan Odom or Marquise Hill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I think that if Lang had come in while we had a real coach, he might have been something. I remember he started out looking okay for a rookie, not as polished as most would have liked for a guy taken that high, but still had flashes of talent. He never really progressed. He looked okay in the Kool-aid year but by then I think it was too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull How conveniant you bring up Matt and fail to bring up Dave:doh: talk about biased and on somebodys ---- :notworthy Udeze is a good prospect (will be on Total access tonight btw) Dont knock Taylor or Winslow they are far higher prospects at there postions. I am a supporter of picking up Taylor or Winslow at 5 and just as big a supporter of trading down and picking up Udeze or Will Smith. BUT for all you that claim you are old school and "know so much more about football":laugh: b4 you draft a stud DE it all starts in the middle if you dont stop the run (which was a bigger problem than our pass rush last year btw) there wont be a lot of 3rd and longs to utilize this great DE how about we trade down take Wilfork and in the second get a Antwan Odom or Marquise Hill? Dude, in order to blast someone's credibility, all I have to do is pick the guy who doesn't even REMOTELY stack up to Udeze's output or athletic ability. Matt is so far behind, it shoots SCSkins cred all to ish. And I've said about Dave, that he's not the athlete a lot of guys are and that's why he's not rated as highly. Just like Corey Moore could get 17 sacks but was undersized for the NFL(though he was quick and fast) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.