20/20 Hindsight 2007 NFL Draft - Steelers Pick Right

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by ?teeldude

sorry, but i can't be a lemming. i can only be a realist. nothing has been shown to suggest that woodley or timmons were the right choices. just as there is nothing to show that they were the wrong choices. of course you only focus on the negative. good job

i will leave the dreams of an undefeated season and 20 point victories in every game to others. i would rather be logical and realistic.

There is a distinct difference between logical and realistic on one side, and negative on the other. I believe I am logical and realistic.

Logical and realistic says

Postive: Woodley played real well when given the chance. He put pressure on the QB, caused disruption, executed fundamentals well. Especially for a rookie. he showed that in the end, he has play making, even possibly game changing ability.
Negative: Woodley only played a short time, and has yet to prove he can keep that motor running for the entire season. Also, he has only been in with limited situations for the most part, so it remains to be seen if he can pick up the entire defensive play book and execute.


When you only post the second paragraph... that is being negative, which is what I only seen from you for the most part. That is why I ask. I don't know if you just assume that we all see the positives, and thus only discuss negatives, or if you only see the negatives and that is why you post negative most of the time.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Originally Posted by ?teeldude

sorry, but i can't be a lemming. i can only be a realist. nothing has been shown to suggest that woodley or timmons were the right choices. just as there is nothing to show that they were the wrong choices. of course you only focus on the negative. good job

i will leave the dreams of an undefeated season and 20 point victories in every game to others. i would rather be logical and realistic.

so 6 sacks ,in a very limited amount of playing time shows you nothing ?

[Steeldude]

Originally Posted by Preacher

There is a distinct difference between logical and realistic on one side, and negative on the other. I believe I am logical and realistic.

Logical and realistic says

Postive: Woodley played real well when given the chance. He put pressure on the QB, caused disruption, executed fundamentals well. Especially for a rookie. he showed that in the end, he has play making, even possibly game changing ability.
Negative: Woodley only played a short time, and has yet to prove he can keep that motor running for the entire season. Also, he has only been in with limited situations for the most part, so it remains to be seen if he can pick up the entire defensive play book and execute.


When you only post the second paragraph... that is being negative, which is what I only seen from you for the most part. That is why I ask. I don't know if you just assume that we all see the positives, and thus only discuss negatives, or if you only see the negatives and that is why you post negative most of the time.

because posting the first paragraph would be irrelevant since the first poster already said he was the right choice. i don't crown someone great, good or the right choice until they prove it with consistency.

sorry i can't be a homer perhaps later i will revise my post with nothing but praise and fantastic predictions of godhood.

[Steeldude]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

so 6 sacks ,in a very limited amount of playing time shows you nothing ?

take a look at the sacks. most of them were gildonesque. i am not taking the sacks away, but a handful of gimme sacks is not going to show whether he is going to be good or bad.

i remember fans being fooled by kordell in 97 because he had some highlights. i was never fooled by the WR. most of his passes were caught because of the receiver making outstanding and/or acrobatic catches.

the plus is he appears to be stronger than haggans or gildon ala green, but hopefully better pass cover skills. i am all for giving him the starting position. it's his to lose, IMO. i would also like to see timmons make a push for foote's job.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Originally Posted by ?teeldude

take a look at the sacks. most of them were gildonesque. i am not taking the sacks away, but a handful of gimme sacks is not going to show whether he is going to be good or bad.

i remember fans being fooled by kordell in 97 because he had some highlights. i was never fooled by the WR. most of his passes were caught because of the receiver making outstanding and/or acrobatic catches.

the plus is he appears to be stronger than haggans or gildon ala green, but hopefully better pass cover skills. i am all for giving him the starting position. it's his to lose, IMO. i would also like to see timmons make a push for foote's job.

ok...first of all i don't know what "gildonesque" means....second, those garbage sacks..4 of them came in games we LOST,....if those "garbage sacks" are so easy to come by,then why does haggens,who's played about 75 % more than woodley only have 4?

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

ok...first of all i don't know what "gildonesque" means....second, those garbage sacks..4 of them came in games we LOST,....if those "garbage sacks" are so easy to come by,then why does haggens,who's played about 75 % more than woodley only have 4?

Gildonesqe...

As in, Jason Gildon. I would LOVE it if he turned out like that.

[Steeldude]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

ok...first of all i don't know what "gildonesque" means....second, those garbage sacks..4 of them came in games we LOST,....if those "garbage sacks" are so easy to come by,then why does haggens,who's played about 75 % more than woodley only have 4?

gildonesque refers to sacks that come via unblocked or blocked by a RB. pretty much gildon's entire career. the one-move wonder. it's what porter turned into before being let go.

i never mentioned haggans. haggans is done. he was just an average LB in a LB friendly scheme. the steelers need good to great LBs to make the 3-4 zone-blitz scheme work correctly.

perhaps woodley will be good or even great, but for now i will wait.

[Steeldude]

Originally Posted by Preacher

Gildonesqe...

As in, Jason Gildon. I would LOVE it if he turned out like that.

i don't want to see another one-move LB who can't cover.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Originally Posted by ?teeldude

gildonesque refers to sacks that come via unblocked or blocked by a RB. pretty much gildon's entire career. the one-move wonder. it's what porter turned into before being let go.

i never mentioned haggans. haggans is done. he was just an average LB in a LB friendly scheme. the steelers need good to great LBs to make the 3-4 zone-blitz scheme work correctly.

perhaps woodley will be good or even great, but for now i will wait.

as long as woodley is an upgrade over haggens,which he appears to be , then i consider the pick a good one

[Steeldude]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

as long as woodley is an upgrade over haggens,which he appears to be , then i consider the pick a good one

good point.

i hope woodley will be a stronger and more agile version of kevin green.