After extensive analysis.....

**The Excellector** · 02-28-2013, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by redmike34

What do you all think of this Corey Chavous character? Asking b/c was surprised that he has Ogletree rated so low...

http://www.draftnasty.com/football/p...t=LB&year=2013

That's the Draft Nasty guy Charles Davis and Mike Mayock were talking about at the combine!!

As for him having Ogletree rated so low, obviously, I agree with it. He's the guy who, if you try to put him in that ILB spot and give him the responsibilities of what that spot details, you are going to be the most frustrated with. Effort is a question, he does not play like a Raven. Blockers are going to have their way with him. Again, I think he can be coached out of the playing high, but he just doesn't seem to want to bother with blockers.

**The Excellector** · 02-28-2013, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by alien bird

I would hope so. Kevin Ogletree is a WR for the Cowboys. I think you mean Alec.

Aw hell, I sure do, will edit.

**leachisabeast** · 02-28-2013, 05:27 AM

That guy as Damontre Moore dropping to the second? I'd cry in joy if that happened and we drafted him.

**wickedsolo** · 02-28-2013, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

That guy as Damontre Moore dropping to the second? I'd cry in joy if that happened and we drafted him.

I don't see Moore dropping. I'm sure you don't either.

Moore had a bad combine outing. It happens.

Just like Suggs, the tape speaks volumes and Moore is a good pass rusher. I'd be ecstatic if he dropped.

**leachisabeast** · 02-28-2013, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I don't see Moore dropping. I'm sure you don't either.

Moore had a bad combine outing. It happens.

Just like Suggs, the tape speaks volumes and Moore is a good pass rusher. I'd be ecstatic if he dropped.

Yeah that guy is nuts, no chance of that happening. Sometimes I just think these websites purposely go against the trending prospects because they get bored of writing them high on their big board so they can randomly push someone else up to make it look new.

**Random Thoughts** · 02-28-2013, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Yeah when you lose five offensive players in the NFL, thats clearly NOT a lot of talent,

. Four of those players went in the first round, one went with the second pick in the second round. I'm not talking about next season, I was talking about this season. They had a pretty good year, but they still lost a great quarter back and a very good surrounding cast.

Well... I can see where you are coming from, but I thought Stanford was a pretty good team last season. They certainly lost a couple key players, but I thought they reloaded at key positions with the qb play being a surprise last season. Then again, I thought they returned virtually the entire defense.

**leachisabeast** · 02-28-2013, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Random Thoughts

Well... I can see where you are coming from, but I thought Stanford was a pretty good team last season. They certainly lost a couple key players, but I thought they reloaded at key positions with the qb play being a surprise last season. Then again, I thought they returned virtually the entire defense.

They had a great year, don't get me wrong, but I think the pac 12 was an all around better conference last year, they benefited from an easier conference this year IMO. They would have wiped the floor with everyone, including ND, had they had Luck, J Martin, Fleener, and DeCastro in 2012. I think they may have challenged Alabama with last years team.

**Random Thoughts** · 02-28-2013, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

I'm sorry dude, but I cannot debate Te'o with a ND fan. I don't think he has the mental capacity for the NFL, and he looked well out of shape at the combine when he had more than enough time to prepare for it.

Perhaps, there is something going on more than I know, but I didn't see srobert96's argument as biased as you may have implied. Notre Dame, while not a great offensive team, sure had a tougher schedule...

http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/01/f...dule-rankings/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt12.htm

I could not access a couple sites since I am in my office.

Nonetheless, I always thought LSU is an overrated team. Had LSU been in a different conference outside of Southeastern Conference, LSU would not have been ranked so high. As for their defense, that was another story in my opinion. They have playmakers all over the field, but I always thought the defense did not amount to the hype both individually and collectively... As a college football junkie, I watched their games, but did not come away impressed... I didn't think they were coached up to their talents defensively...

Regardless, Notre Dame certainly had a better strength of schedule than LSU did and Notre Dame was an independent football team, which said a lot about the team's scheduling unlike LSU, whose schedule strength was byproduct of its conference.

**Random Thoughts** · 02-28-2013, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

They had a great year, don't get me wrong, but I think the pac 12 was an all around better conference last year, they benefited from an easier conference this year IMO. They would have wiped the floor with everyone, including ND, had they had Luck, J Martin, Fleener, and DeCastro in 2012. I think they may have challenged Alabama with last years team.

They sure would have competed better against Alabama than Notre Dame, I will agree to that. However, I am not sure if it would amount to much. As much as I love college football, I am not fond of the BCS because of the month-long wait. This bodes well for a team with solid coaching acumen. Nick Saban's coaching acumen cannot be understated. Give him a month to prepare for an opponent, he will exploit a mismatch somewhere. Additionally, his team typically a well-disciplined and fundamentally sound football team.

**Random Thoughts** · 02-28-2013, 06:37 AM

leach,

if that is true, we can, together, cry in joy... no way in living hell that guy will reach to us that far ahead into the 2nd round...

**leachisabeast** · 02-28-2013, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Random Thoughts

Perhaps, there is something going on more than I know, but I didn't see srobert96's argument as biased as you may have implied. Notre Dame, while not a great offensive team, sure had a tougher schedule...

http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/01/f...dule-rankings/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt12.htm

I could not access a couple sites since I am in my office.

Nonetheless, I always thought LSU is an overrated team. Had LSU been in a different conference outside of Southeastern Conference, LSU would not have been ranked so high. As for their defense, that was another story in my opinion. They have playmakers all over the field, but I always thought the defense did not amount to the hype both individually and collectively... As a college football junkie, I watched their games, but did not come away impressed... I didn't think they were coached up to their talents defensively...

Regardless, Notre Dame certainly had a better strength of schedule than LSU did and Notre Dame was an independent football team, which said a lot about the team's scheduling unlike LSU, whose schedule strength was byproduct of its conference.

He's right, I never realized LSU had such an easy overall schedule. But, that still doesn't take away from the fact that IMO there are a lot of questions about Te'o and more than we can afford if we're thinking about drafting him. He really seemed out of shape at the combine, and had a bad overall week end. I'm just not sure if he fills a huge need of ours as a run stuffing ILB.

**wickedsolo** · 02-28-2013, 06:52 AM

SEC has had this "aura" about their conference for a long time because of Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia.

Lately, it has really just been the Alabama show and it's not even close.

LSU is still a good team, but Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Auburn, Miss State, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ole'Miss...none of those schools are anywhere what they were a few years ago. Hell, Auburn was good for 1 season and that was by and large because of Cam Newton. There is a reason they had a coaching staff change following their season after Cam left for the NFL.

The PAC-12 is becoming a lot more competitive. Now that Jim Mora Jr is turning around UCLA, I could see their conference becoming pretty strong (Stanford is really good, Oregon is going to be good, USC is always going to get top recruits, UCLA is getting a lot better, and Arizona/ASU could make some noise too).

**JAB1985** · 02-28-2013, 07:13 AM

How is beating Oregon, UCLA twice and USC overrated?

Ill give you Oregon, but UCLA and especially USC sucked. I could careless about preseason grades. Standford wasnt bad but thats just one team in the same class as Florida, Texas A&M, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia. IMO, NDs schedule wasnt as top heavy, but they didnt have as many "easy" games either. You can say that equals out i guess, but id say the higher caliber teams is greater than facing overall lower, as it gives you a better chance of losing. I just dont see the powerhouse on their schedule, which is what makes people like myself say its weaker.

SEC has had this "aura" about their conference for a long time because of Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia.

Lately, it has really just been the Alabama show and it's not even close.

You can certainly say that as theyve gone above and beyond and clearly have been the most dominate but i just dont think the rest of the conference is somehow now garbage. georgia Florida and South Carolina are all still very good teams. If anything they beat each other up by all playing each other. If you just look at records youll certainly see some "bad" teams, but put those bad teams in other conferences and theyll likely be competing for their title. I think SEC has earned that Aura and continues to do so, even if it is a little more top heavy lately.

**NCRAVEN** · 02-28-2013, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

He's right, I never realized LSU had such an easy overall schedule. But, that still doesn't take away from the fact that IMO there are a lot of questions about Te'o and more than we can afford if we're thinking about drafting him. He really seemed out of shape at the combine, and had a bad overall week end. I'm just not sure if he fills a huge need of ours as a run stuffing ILB.

Other than the 40 (that he did have a good 10 yard split in) I thought he did pretty good in the on field drills. And the other workouts he was in the top 6 at the ILB position.

But like I've said before I don't like him or Minter at 32. And quite frankly, I don't want Ogletree either, he might be a little better athlete than those two but I am not sure he is the better LB.

I want our D-line stronger so we can get some speed guys at LB who can cover. I really like Greene out of Rutgers in the 2nd round.

**JAB1985** · 02-28-2013, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

But like I've said before I don't like him or Minter at 32. And quite frankly, I don't want Ogletree either, he might be a little better athlete than those two but I am not sure he is the better LB.

This is the end result, no matter who you like or dont like at ILB. none are really worthy of 32 so its a matter of where you can get them in the 2nd where there value is. Personally, im not sure where Bostic stacks up as far as round goes ( i think i heard 3-5), and i have no idea if he can cover a shadow, but i think hed be a huge help for the run game and blowing up holes much like bart scott did here (hopefully minus the personality). I think the guy could be one of the better values as he proved to be a better athlete than those listed, just might need some coaching. His 3 cone and 20 yard shuttle were high which leads me to believe he could be decent in coverage. Id rather have him in the 3rd or 4th than spend a first on any of the others. I just dont think theyre that much better to warrant the pick.

reading up on him, most of the scouts say he lacks speed to stick with RBs and TEs... he posted one of the fastest 40s for a LB, so whats that say about the rest?

**Random Thoughts** · 02-28-2013, 07:49 AM

JAB,

What did you mean by "top heavy"? Notre Dame had top 5 toughest schedule... if not, the toughest schedule by some pundits...

As for USC sucked... sure, they didn't live up the preseason hype, but they didnt suck... the talents were there, but the coaching wasn't (I still wonder how did Lance Kiffin get the job)....

**NCRAVEN** · 02-28-2013, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Random Thoughts

JAB,

What did you mean by "top heavy"? Notre Dame had top 5 toughest schedule... if not, the toughest schedule by some pundits...

As for USC sucked... sure, they didn't live up the preseason hype, but they didnt suck... the talents were there, but the coaching wasn't (I still wonder how did Lance Kiffin get the job)....

Yeah USC had the talent, they just gave up towards the end. I do think they tried against ND though.

**JAB1985** · 02-28-2013, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Random Thoughts

JAB,

What did you mean by "top heavy"? Notre Dame had top 5 toughest schedule... if not, the toughest schedule by some pundits...

As for USC sucked... sure, they didn't live up the preseason hype, but they didnt suck... the talents were there, but the coaching wasn't (I still wonder how did Lance Kiffin get the job)....

meaning they may have had a better record (and therefore helped strength of schedule) but i dont think they were necessarily a better team, just in an easier conference. I dont think Standford was light years better than any of those teams i listed. id probably place them behind all of them but maybe Florida, but even they had a great Defense that im not sure I wouldnt have favored them. So Oregon was a good win, imo, their best for sure, but even them i wouldnt place far and away better than those others listed. They may not have had the few cake games LSU did, but the teams they faced i just dont think were top tier teams for the most part outside Oregon and Standford.

FTR, im not saying they lack talent. USC may be a top 10 talented team but they played like shit pretty much all season, imo.

**GOTA** · 02-28-2013, 08:21 AM

The strength of schedule argument doesn't hold much weight. Successful players in NFL can come from any school. The difference between LSU, Notre Dame and USC isn't that much when you look at it in terms of how players from those schools are prepared for the NFL.

The bigger issue is that the quality at the ILB position just isn't there this year. The value is later on in the draft. I would much rather get the 7th DE in this draft than the top ILB in this draft. Those second tier ILBs like Reddick will be there later in the draft to fill the need.

**wickedsolo** · 02-28-2013, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Ill give you Oregon, but UCLA and especially USC sucked. I could careless about preseason grades. Standford wasnt bad but thats just one team in the same class as Florida, Texas A&M, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia. IMO, NDs schedule wasnt as top heavy, but they didnt have as many "easy" games either. You can say that equals out i guess, but id say the higher caliber teams is greater than facing overall lower, as it gives you a better chance of losing. I just dont see the powerhouse on their schedule, which is what makes people like myself say its weaker.

You can certainly say that as theyve gone above and beyond and clearly have been the most dominate but i just dont think the rest of the conference is somehow now garbage. georgia Florida and South Carolina are all still very good teams. If anything they beat each other up by all playing each other. If you just look at records youll certainly see some "bad" teams, but put those bad teams in other conferences and theyll likely be competing for their title. I think SEC has earned that Aura and continues to do so, even if it is a little more top heavy lately.

I'm not saying that SC, Georgia, and Florida aren't good.

What I'm saying is that they aren't what they were 2,3, or 4 years ago.