What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Ryan Shazier to ILB in Pittsburgh. (1 Viewer)

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ιοο̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]

Initial report: Steelers say Ryan Shazier will play James Farriors old ILB position for them.

6'1, 237# combine measureables

4.36/4.38 pro-day

42" Vert (#1 LB). 10'10" Broad (#1 LB). 25 Bench reps.

Averaged 10+ tackles a game final season at OSU.

Had 75 tackles in final 5 games, which included 2 starts at ILB.

24 TFL and 7.0 sacks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting

The dude has talent and moving inside (had assumed he would play outside) is an upgrade.

Is he the #3 idp prospect behind clowney and Mosley? Or is Mack better?

 
Unless you're a big play league, there's no way Clowney belongs in the top 3 IDP discussion as an OLB

 
So, how do any of the rookie LBs line up in IDP rookie drafts? Any worth mentioning early to mid 2nd round?

 
Unless you're a big play league, there's no way Clowney belongs in the top 3 IDP discussion as an OLB
I guess, but who takes his place? Mosley seems like a top option. Mack isn't in a better spot. Maybe Mosley, Shazier and Pryor?

Mosley is the only one I'd look at until the 3rd right now. Things will likely change tonight.

 
Interested (hopeful) to see if 1st rd. pick R.Shazier breaks the malaise of Steelers' LBs drafted over the past few years

2013: J.Jones (1st/17), V.Williams (6th/206)

2012: S.Spence (3rd/86)

2011: C.Carter (5th/162)

2010: J.Worilds (2nd/52), T.Gibson (4th/116), S.Sylvester (5th/156)

2009: Steelers didn't draft a LB.

 
All the IDP's suck. Seriously. Shazier would have been a stud in a 4-3 system as a WLB but as an ILB in Pitts, he's going to be very average. Pittsburgh made a huge mistake by drafting him out of position. Clowney changing to OLB makes him a meddling option. I don't think I would touch any IDP before the 3rd this year in virtually any format.

 
All the IDP's suck. Seriously. Shazier would have been a stud in a 4-3 system as a WLB but as an ILB in Pitts, he's going to be very average. Pittsburgh made a huge mistake by drafting him out of position. Clowney changing to OLB makes him a meddling option. I don't think I would touch any IDP before the 3rd this year in virtually any format.
It's bad enough to pick a guy who doesn't produce, but no one wants a meddling player on their team. ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shazier selection caght me off guard, especially for Pittsburgh. Not huge, didn't see him taking on blockers so I didn't see the fit for 3-4. He looked like a classic speedy-pursuit 4-3 WLB. .

Then I caught Cecil's ESPN radio program yesterday, 'Riding Shotgun' and Lammey mentioned a LB that Elway drafted who was fast/athletic to offset the new passing attack.

I thought of Shazier with the Steelers going with the same plan. Shazier is the quickest LB I've ever heard of. If he can cover he could be something special as an NFL player but for IDP purposes I dunno if he's going to wrack up stats dropping in coverage.

C.J. Mosely seems like he can cover and he came up with some INTs in college so I prefer him but Shazier is interesting if Cecil is right about the new wave of speedy/athletic cover LBers. Just don't know about what he can provide IDP-wise.

 
I think he'll have some growing pains his first year. Much like Timmons when he got in the league he needs to put on some more weight. That being said how quickly people forget how productive, albeit inconsistent Timmons has been and how productive James Farrior was in the Steelers D. He's far more athletic than Mosley and he doesn't have Daryl Smith and Arthur Brown in front of him, just Vince Williams.

 
I asked Sig about some IDPs he shifted around from his 'pre' to his 'post'- draft lists and shared an article by Pittsburgh beat writer Ed Bouchette mentioning Shazier.

I then caught Bloom's live-Google Hangout of the draft when the picks were being called to see his reaction on the players taken in the first round and I was suprised he didn't react much with the Shazier selection.

He responded to my question of why he changed two IDP rankings and then gave his insights on the Bouchette Shazier article.

Bouchette feels that the Steelers have been trying to find a replacement for SS Troy-P. Super-fast/speedy/aggressive player who uses his incredible physical skills to disrupt or blow-up plays before they get a change to get going.

In watching Shazier tape you can see that from him but Bloom pointed out some things. He said the Steelers have been trying to find 'that-guy' to replace Troy for years but have failed. He ran down the list, I forget all the names but it included last year's 4th round selection of Shamarko Thomas.

Bloom said all of those guys had the incredible physical skills but lacked the key thing that made/makes Troy special and that is 'super-human instincts' to anticipate and diagnose plays before they began and to mask his intentions.

Great point.

I'm not saying he'll fail, he's far too talented but I don't see really big upside that I thought he could have after reading Bouchette's theory.

I'll add one thing. Shazier is a quick-twitch athlete. Quick-twitch guys tend to get njuries moreso than average or slower guys, pulled hammies etc.

 
Sometimes after the draft rookies can go an extreme two ways: how did someone take this guy so early and how did this guy get passed up? Then you factor in that about 75% of those stories are fluff one way or the other. It sounds like Pitt views him as the Polamalu successor. It doesn't sound like they are even thinking about holding him back and I am very excited. I think Shazier is one of those guys because of the position he plays was viewed in one fashion but in reality was a superior athlete and football player. Can't wait to see him in the fall.

 
He reminds me a lot of Ogletree.

That isn't always a good thing.

He could use a stronger line in front of him too.

 
I'll be honest.

Their were pre-draft reports and many mocks that had Shazier going to the Browns 26th pick in the first round and I took a long look and saw the incredible speed/strength athleticism but I looked at tape and I saw inconsistency.

You gotta luv his measureables but what I saw was a classic 4-3 weakside pursuit linebacker.

It didn't look to me like he was good taking on blockers and Jene mentioned when he was looking at tape he sometimes was asking out loud, 'Where the hell is he going?" I think he took odd angles to avoid taking on blockers. He was still incredibly productive and made some splash plays. My take was that he was a weakside pursuit 4-3 OLB. That looked like the perfect fit to me.

I didn't want the Browns to take him and I felt he 'could' fall to the 2nd so I was shocked when he went off the board at 17 but really shocked he went to the Steelers. I had to re-evaluate because Pittsburgh doesn't take guys like that without a plan. Cecil pointed out the new breed of speedy linebackers who can cover but that was thee biggest weakness in Shazier's game so I was really puzzled.

Then the reports of the Steelers attempts to try and find that Troy Polumalu replacement and I thought, Oooh yeah, THAT makes sense. But Sig has doubts and he rattled off all of the names who they have tried and failed to replace Polumalu. From the article linked above. Shazier is the new hope to replace Troy Polumalu.

http://triblive.com/mobile/6253366-96/shazier-steelers-defense

"... Shazier was a younger version of Troy Polamalu — lining up everywhere and anywhere..."

This story says he is lining up everywhere and covering, so I'm assuming the pre-draft reports of poor pass coverage were incorrect.

Polumalu is so unique and its due to his instincts to diagnose anticipate before a play develops. His rare athletic ability is unique but far more common than the combination of that rare athletic abilty, which Shazier has in spades, but it has to be proven that Shazier also has the redonkulous instincts that Polumalu has that makes him a Hall of Fame safety.

Shazier is going to be a very-good linebacker but I would never say he's the next Troy Polumalu. No, I'm not going to say that. That's wrong. I don't agree with that. I see the insane athleticism but a hole in taking on blockers and taking odd angles to try and find a clean lane instead of taking on blockers. Reports he's covering well means he 'should' be on the field a lot his rookie season but I'm not buying he's the next Troy Polumalu.

 
I'll be honest.

Their were pre-draft reports and many mocks that had Shazier going to the Browns 26th pick in the first round and I took a long look and saw the incredible speed/strength athleticism but I looked at tape and I saw inconsistency.

You gotta luv his measureables but what I saw was a classic 4-3 weakside pursuit linebacker.

It didn't look to me like he was good taking on blockers and Jene mentioned when he was looking at tape he sometimes was asking out loud, 'Where the hell is he going?" I think he took odd angles to avoid taking on blockers. He was still incredibly productive and made some splash plays. My take was that he was a weakside pursuit 4-3 OLB. That looked like the perfect fit to me.

I didn't want the Browns to take him and I felt he 'could' fall to the 2nd so I was shocked when he went off the board at 17 but really shocked he went to the Steelers. I had to re-evaluate because Pittsburgh doesn't take guys like that without a plan. Cecil pointed out the new breed of speedy linebackers who can cover but that was thee biggest weakness in Shazier's game so I was really puzzled.

Then the reports of the Steelers attempts to try and find that Troy Polumalu replacement and I thought, Oooh yeah, THAT makes sense. But Sig has doubts and he rattled off all of the names who they have tried and failed to replace Polumalu. From the article linked above. Shazier is the new hope to replace Troy Polumalu.

http://triblive.com/mobile/6253366-96/shazier-steelers-defense

"... Shazier was a younger version of Troy Polamalu — lining up everywhere and anywhere..."

This story says he is lining up everywhere and covering, so I'm assuming the pre-draft reports of poor pass coverage were incorrect.

Polumalu is so unique and its due to his instincts to diagnose anticipate before a play develops. His rare athletic ability is unique but far more common than the combination of that rare athletic abilty, which Shazier has in spades, but it has to be proven that Shazier also has the redonkulous instincts that Polumalu has that makes him a Hall of Fame safety.

Shazier is going to be a very-good linebacker but I would never say he's the next Troy Polumalu. No, I'm not going to say that. That's wrong. I don't agree with that. I see the insane athleticism but a hole in taking on blockers and taking odd angles to try and find a clean lane instead of taking on blockers. Reports he's covering well means he 'should' be on the field a lot his rookie season but I'm not buying he's the next Troy Polumalu.
He's 230 pounds. That's what I'd expect to happen from him taking on guys 300+ every once in a while. i thought he would be a better fit as an OLB, flowing to the ball, sneak blitzing and being used in coverage.

He's going to rack up crazy stats despite any flaws though. He's just too athletic.

 
i thought he would be a better fit as an OLB, flowing to the ball, sneak blitzing and being used in coverage.
Not in a 3-4, or at least not in LeBeau's flavor anyway. Having him on the edge attempting to take on OTs one on one would have been a waste of his talent. He'd get engulfed.

Playing on the inside they can at least have the opportunity to cover him up a little. Let him run to all areas of the field with that speed, etc.

 
Interested (hopeful) to see if 1st rd. pick R.Shazier breaks the malaise of Steelers' LBs drafted over the past few years

2013: J.Jones (1st/17), V.Williams (6th/206)

2012: S.Spence (3rd/86)

2011: C.Carter (5th/162)

2010: J.Worilds (2nd/52), T.Gibson (4th/116), S.Sylvester (5th/156)

2009: Steelers didn't draft a LB.
Shazier is running with the first team. The last PIT rookie defender to start on opening day was Kendrell Bell in 2003. He won Defensive Rookie of the Year.

 
All the IDP's suck. Seriously. Shazier would have been a stud in a 4-3 system as a WLB but as an ILB in Pitts, he's going to be very average. Pittsburgh made a huge mistake by drafting him out of position. Clowney changing to OLB makes him a meddling option. I don't think I would touch any IDP before the 3rd this year in virtually any format.
Not counting Clowney and Barr, and I wouldn't bury their IDP prospects before they have played a down in the NFL, Shazier, Mosley and Mack all have star potential, and should be in the running for Defensive Rookie of the Year (Aaron Donald could be in the conversation, probably the best interior DL prospect since Suh). I think it was a great pick by PIT, he will be the centerpiece of their defense in the future, and imo has Pro Bowl potential. Most of these LBs are worthy of second round picks (with Barr arguably the most questionable).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He reminds me a lot of Ogletree.

That isn't always a good thing.

He could use a stronger line in front of him too.
They have some similarities, and sometimes that is a good thing.

Laurinaitis is one of the top tacklers (top 5-10?) in the league in his half decade of NFL service, and Ogletree led the team as a rookie.

He had more solo tackles than Kuechly and Alonso (though not their crazy amount of assists), 1.5 sacks, 1 INT, 1 TD and his 6 FFs were among the league leaders.

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/4862/ogletree-makes-kipers-all-rookie-team

Ogletree was #9 overall on Kiper's all-rookie team, #6 among defenders.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jene noted Shazier could have Daryl Washington-like potential, and I think that is an excellent comp. He had a Defensive Player of the Year-caliber campaign in 2012, and might be the best blitzing ILB in the league. Shazier is a LB, so the Polamalu comparison can't be taken too literally, he isn't identical. But like Polamalu, he can play all over the defense in a variety of roles. He has the potential to be the one of the best PIT LBs in coverage since Jack Ham, and will never need to leave the field.

 
He reminds me a lot of Ogletree.

That isn't always a good thing.

He could use a stronger line in front of him too.
They have some similarities, and sometimes that is a good thing.

Laurinaitis is one of the top tacklers (top 5-10?) in the league in his half decade of NFL service, and Ogletree led the team as a rookie.

He had more solo tackles than Kuechly and Alonso (though not their crazy amount of assists), 1.5 sacks, 1 INT, 1 TD and his 6 FFs were among the league leaders.

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/4862/ogletree-makes-kipers-all-rookie-team

Ogletree was #9 overall on Kiper's all-rookie team, #6 among defenders.
Ogletree and Shazier both have bad habits as a result of their superior athleticism. Over running plays and getting swallowed by defenders. They do it way too often.

Doesn't mean as much in our game, but it does in the real thing. They'll lose some tackle opp's, but their raw athleticism will create others to offset.

 
Based on Ogletree's rookie year, he made a lot more good plays plays than bad plays, so the way too often part sounds like your subjective take (I trust he wasn't overrunning the play on the 95 solo tackles and 6 FFs that placed him among the league leaders). Ogletree showed improvement (like most rookies who prove capable of improvement) as the season progressed, which could bode well for Shazier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on Ogletree's rookie year, he made a lot more good plays plays than bad plays, so the way too often part sounds like your subjective take (I trust he wasn't overrunning the play on the 95 solo tackles and 6 FFs that placed him among the league leaders). Ogletree showed improvement (like most rookies who prove capable of improvement) as the season progressed, which could bode well for Shazier.
We were watching different games then. When Ogletree reads and diagnoses the play correctly, it's over. Good Ogletree is fantastic, but bad Ogletree is really bad. When he doesn't read the play correctly he's flushed out of it and if he is the guy the play is being funneled towards the runner is off down field if he makes it through the line. Cannot make that mistake in the NFL, he does.

Like Shazier needs to do as he transitions to the NFL, he needs to minimize the damage on his bad plays or it will be very bad for the defense.

 
Based on Ogletree's rookie year, he made a lot more good plays plays than bad plays, so the way too often part sounds like your subjective take (I trust he wasn't overrunning the play on the 95 solo tackles and 6 FFs that placed him among the league leaders). Ogletree showed improvement (like most rookies who prove capable of improvement) as the season progressed, which could bode well for Shazier.
We were watching different games then. When Ogletree reads and diagnoses the play correctly, it's over. Good Ogletree is fantastic, but bad Ogletree is really bad. When he doesn't read the play correctly he's flushed out of it and if he is the guy the play is being funneled towards the runner is off down field if he makes it through the line. Cannot make that mistake in the NFL, he does.Like Shazier needs to do as he transitions to the NFL, he needs to minimize the damage on his bad plays or it will be very bad for the defense.
Like I said, when Ogletree was among the league leaders in solo tackles and FFs, he was making a lot more good than bad plays, so it is your subjective impression that he makes "way too many bad plays".

If Shazier makes a lot more good plays than bad plays, it won't be "way too many bad plays", and his projection to the NFL will be very favorable.

 
Yep, tackles tell the entire story. No reason to cite anything else. If you make tackles you're great.

 
Yep, tackles tell the entire story. No reason to cite anything else. If you make tackles you're great.
That's not what I said. You left out the part about 6 FFs being among the league leaders. He also had a 98 yard INT return TD, which most players never do in a career, and he did as a rookie. These are clear signs he is a playmaker.It's not just that he made tackles, it was the volume of tackles. That is the point you seem to be diminishing. Only six LBs in the league had more solo tackles than him. I think Alonso was the only other drafted rookie LB that was in the top 50. I don't know if I said he was great, most players fall within a spectrum or continuum of possibilities more nuanced than great or terrible.

Physically and athletically, Ogletree has some similarities with Karlos Dansby. Both have a safety background and experience playing outside and inside LB, and have the skill set versatility to run, hit, cover and blitz.

I'm just saying that if he makes a lot more good playes than bad plays, than it is your subjective impression in calling that "way too many bad playes".

IMO, STL isn't planning on replacing Ogletree ASAP because they think he makes "way too many bad plays". It doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does seem to me a contrarian view (that we should indict Ogletree's OVERALL level of play, even if he makes a lot of good plays, because you may have arbitrarily decided a certain number or threshold of bad plays constitutes "way too many"), an awareness of which seems to be absent based on your responses. Saying it more often or more forcefully doesn't make it any less contrarian or subjective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh i know this is just your way of passively aggressively talking down to me. Couldn't make it louder or clearer.

Or is that just subjective too?

Hold my hand through it and sermon to me oh wise one.

 
From the deflect and absorb playbook.

Change the subject with ad hominem attacks when things aren't going well. :)

I just think you are mistaken, and repeating the same thing over and over doesn't change that. But I appreciate how anything less than unquestioning acceptance of your personal, intuitive vision could be challenging to someone so obviously committed to it.

It's fine to hold contrarian, subjective beliefs such as Ogltree is a bad LB, just as it is to scrutinize and vet them for possible mistakes.

Thinking what you think because you see what you see is no doubt meaningful to you, but it is subjective, and may not resonate with others the more iconoclastic and outlier your impressions are. Sometimes people don't think what you think, how could it be otherwise if they can't see what you see. It isn't subjective in the same way to state that getting 6 FFs for a rookie 4-3 LB isn't common. You could verify both the stat and historical context for yourself. You could also ignore them (or dismiss them with another straw man caricature such as, FFs are the only thing that matters), but it still exists outside of your subjective, impressionistic scouting world, it's stubborn in that It doesn't go away despite not conforming to your belief.

Stating that what your eyes reveal to you is in some way more "real" and "true" than numbers, which are false and lie is yet another contrarian, subjective belief, which should also be subjected to scrutiny and vetting. If this belief is reasonable, it should be strong enough to withstand the acid test of questioning. If not, it would be doing a disservice to pretend otherwise.

* I wouldn't say talk down, or up or sideways, I just find your way of thinking very alien and foreign, and to the limited extent I can make sense of it, has to be done obliquely. I find the complete abdication of stats, while potentially self serving, an obstacle to a coherent conversation with anything resembling closure. No matter what the numbers reveal, you can always say you see what you see and the numbers lie. You could practically make a career here of creating and recreating the conditions for perpetual unresolveable arguments, simply by employing that one method over and over. Not that anybody would want to do that. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone but Bob, sorry, I thought we were at the stage in which we did more than just filter tackle numbers and punch numbers into a computer to make our decisions. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe bob just likes to follow me around. The great production//mediocre play stories are many. They're great while they happen, but get caught holding the bag? Oops.

And not saying either is mediocre. I think both have a big hole in their game that could lead to problems later. It's something I am monitoring. Exceptional talents, but that only takes you so far.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone but Bob, sorry, I thought we were at the stage in which we did more than just filter tackle numbers and punch numbers into a computer to make our decisions. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe bob just likes to follow me around. The great production//mediocre play stories are many. They're great while they happen, but get caught holding the bag? Oops.

And not saying either is mediocre. I think both have a big hole in their game that could lead to problems later. It's something I am monitoring. Exceptional talents, but that only takes you so far.
this is the part of your point that I have a problem with. even if they misdiagnose and/or miss some plays I cannot imagine that their teams are looking to replace them given their immense physical/athletic talent that allows them to make the occassional "game changing plays". That makes me think they are safe and therefore, for our fantasy purposes, we can just look at the potential tackle numbers.

On another note, I do agree that your thinking is valid for those players with merely average physical/athletic talent. Shazier is not in this category don't you agree?

 
Everyone but Bob, sorry, I thought we were at the stage in which we did more than just filter tackle numbers and punch numbers into a computer to make our decisions. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe bob just likes to follow me around. The great production//mediocre play stories are many. They're great while they happen, but get caught holding the bag? Oops.And not saying either is mediocre. I think both have a big hole in their game that could lead to problems later. It's something I am monitoring. Exceptional talents, but that only takes you so far.
this is the part of your point that I have a problem with. even if they misdiagnose and/or miss some plays I cannot imagine that their teams are looking to replace them given their immense physical/athletic talent that allows them to make the occassional "game changing plays". That makes me think they are safe and therefore, for our fantasy purposes, we can just look at the potential tackle numbers.On another note, I do agree that your thinking is valid for those players with merely average physical/athletic talent. Shazier is not in this category don't you agree?
these guys fit the profile of types like Kiko Alonso and Lavonte David. They also fit Lawrence Timmons and Paul Worrilow. Or Bruce Carter and Demario Davis. Athletic, rangy inside backers that profile as potential three down guys because they can play vs the pass and are good enough vs the run. Alonso and David have not shown many issues vs the run, their instincts are top notch, and it translates to both the field and the stat columns. Timmons took forever to get on the field. After he did some great things happened, but it wasn't always the case. His play has been up and down. Now he is being replaced and moved to a lesser role. This is probably the most realistic downside for Shazier and Ogletree. Worrilow took the fantasy world by storm last year, but I don't think his play was all that special when I saw him. Opportunity is still great, but he needs to be more consistent if it will continue to be there. Enjoy this year though. Davis and Carter have flashed, but that's it. They are the extreme low end of these types. Ogletree is probably past that, need to see how Shazier does year one to see if he is. Kinda like with qb and wr I am a lot more critical of lb's than most. Wr probably is easier to compare to lb though.The elite are the elite, but the middle ground is easier to replace. I have had success finding lesser valued guys that become the middle ground or elite, so if I am not completely sold on a consensus top ten guy that I see as a hazier top twenty guy I'll flip him to fill a hole and trust that I can find a top twenty guy for pennies. I did that with Ogletree last year, flipping him for a future one after a few games, then sliding Trevethan who I picked up in August into my lineup. I might do the same with Worrilow and Shazier this year. We will see how the first few weeks go. If it is more of the same, but they start off hot statistically and I have found another starter I'll look to move them.

Ogletree may become a top ten guy for a long time, which is why the other owner wanted him. I just disagree with his risk assessment. Possible, but I am less optimistic about his chances. I ended up using his one and Hakeem Nicks to get Harvinin January, who is viewed by most as a hazy top twenty guy on most boards but top ten in mine. I feel more comfortable gambling on him staying healthy than I do Ogletree correcting the issues I have seen on the field.

Bob hates subjective analysis, but that is exactly what I think football is. It's subjective. So much depends on what is going on around a player that impacts what the box score says they are.the value is finding that out before it happens. Never going to be right about everyone and a player can and does correct his issues over time...not all the time though. I think both Ogletree and Shazier have elite ceilings, but I think there are issues with their game that cloud their long term outlook. Disagree? Cool. Just do so without being condescending. Bob could learn that from buckeye chaos. Somewhere in between his sermons. Maybe. Preach on,b rotha!

 
Bob hates subjective analysis, but that is exactly what I think football is. It's subjective. So much depends on what is going on around a player that impacts what the box score says they are.the value is finding that out before it happens.

Never going to be right about everyone Disagree? Cool. Just do so without being condescending. Bob could learn that from buckeye chaos. Somewhere in between his sermons. Maybe. Preach on,b rotha!
That position is simultaneously patently untrue and extraordinarily ironic given that it comes from you.

I've watched you spin arguments in several threads now. You completely ignore or dismiss facts because they do not fit your position. You place absolute correctness on your opinion, and any facts that do not align with that position in your judgment are meaningless. The only other opinion you value is one that echoes your own, and you summarily dismiss others' opinions even though they may be supported by facts - because you believe with no room for alternatives that you are much more capable of judging players than anyone else, regardless of the facts.

Then you label anyone else as hating subjective positions and being condescending?

They ought to put your picture in the dictionary under the word "ironic", because there isn't a better example.

 
You place absolute correctness on your opinion
If that's how you're interpreting my posts then the problem is how you're reading them.
Yes. I know. As always anyone who thinks there is a flaw in your position is wrong. That's why I'm finished attempting to have a discussion with you.
I don't usually post my opinion unless it is a pretty strong one, developed over a period of time using several different factors. It'll be pretty difficult to change it unless somethign else changes because I've probably already factored what you, or anyone else, is bringing up into what I'm thinking. Sometimes it ends up like Beanie Wells, when I redundantly said over and over again he is too fragile and soft to ever be anything useful...other times it ends up like Trent Richardson, who developed a mental block sometime after getting to the NFL...or Alshon Jeffrey, when you realize the error in your ways too late for dynasty but just in time to take advantage in redraft.

The most important thing is to be right about the players you pick for your team. If you're going to be wrong about a player be wrong about a player on someone else's team. Be right about the player's on your team and you will do well. Being borderline overly critical about players has its drawbacks, it limits the available player pool, but if you're right about the guys on your squad then you'll be in the playoffs often. I change my mind about players all the time, but something's gotta be brought to the table that's either changed or I haven't considered before.

 
Everyone but Bob, sorry, I thought we were at the stage in which we did more than just filter tackle numbers and punch numbers into a computer to make our decisions. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe bob just likes to follow me around. The great production//mediocre play stories are many. They're great while they happen, but get caught holding the bag? Oops.

And not saying either is mediocre. I think both have a big hole in their game that could lead to problems later. It's something I am monitoring. Exceptional talents, but that only takes you so far.
You have a puzzling quirk in taking something that everybody does, and acting as if you are somehow unique in WATCHING GAMES. If someone mentions a stat, that must mean they never watch games, probably because they scanned a stat sheet once, started seeing secret codes everywhere and descended into madness like the dude from A Beautiful Mind. There's really nothing special about the fact that you watch games, in and of itself, as a distinguishing feature that separates you from others. What is a distinguishing feature, based on your own descriptions, if there is a disconnect between what your eyes see and what the stats reveal, instead of trying to reconcile the two, you simply ignore the information that contradicts your belief system. How does that work, does that help reinforce your beliefs when you limit yourself only to information that confirms what you already believed?

Our brains are wired to process all sorts of information, including images, numbers and words. It's your decision to consciously, willfully deprive yourself of another source of information, but there is no reason to lord that self-deprivation over others as some kind of virtue, to the point you ridicule others for simply wanting to avail themselves of all possible types of information at their disposal. Looking at stats prior has never caused me to hallucinate like a scene from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, something that wasn't there in a game.

I'm not the only person that disagreed with the numbers lie shtick in the past few threads. Were they following you, too? When you disagreed with my post in the Justin Hunter thread, were you following me? When I respond to multiple other people in the thread, am I following them, too? Is everybody following each other (play that back and ask yourself if that sounds a little paranoid)? Is everybody that disagrees with you following you? If so, a lot of people must be following you. :)

I'm not feeling the I WATCH GAMES boogeyman with Ogletree.

Ogletree is the only LB (and possibly at any position) since at least 2001 to have as many as 95 solo tackles and 6 FFs in a season.

Keith Bulluck (also drafted by Fisher and an Ogletree comp by some scouts) was the closest with 106 solo tackles and 5 FFs in 2003. Note that I'm not saying tackles are everything, or FFs are everything. Just that it was rare, especially for a rookie (you could have found that out, but you abhor stats). From there, if you twist things so you can feel more clever by setting a blatant misrepresentation and gross caricature of my actual, stated position against your own, than your just playing sock puppet Kabuki with yourself and substituting my dialogue. I don't need to misrepresent positions like numbers lie to make them look worse (that would be redundant).

It might help others understand your position (if that is even of interest to you, it could lead to a reduction in arguments, and you would also have to go out on a limb and risk being wrong, which might be bad things from your perspective), if instead of expressing yourself in vague, nebulous generalities, quantify how many bad plays = WAY TOO MANY BAD PLAYS in your world. Is it 1? 3? 5? 10? Otherwise, you are just spinning your wheels in your own world.

Coming from you, I'm not going to dignify the tone remark with a response much beyond observing it is funny shtick (I don't see you as a Sensitivity Training seminar leader or author of a self-help best seller entitled How to Make Friends and Influence People by Being Agreeable any time soon). I'm not sure how I could have been more direct and straightforward in communicating to you what I disagree with about your position (like numbers lie), so I don't think passive aggressive means what you think it does. Talking about a person, through a post directed to somebody else, would be such an example, though.

Needless to say, when your position mutates and evolves over the course of a debate, and perhaps the later variant is more balanced and palatable compared to an earlier iteration that was more extreme and strident, than debating in good faith would seem to require acknowledging that, rather than fobbing off the latter attenuated, modulated version as what you were saying all along. The first response mentions Ogletree and Shazier's superior athleticism. That's unclear, no shortage of failed athletes. Later, the phrase "exceptional talents" is introduced to the exchange for the first time. That sounds better. Later still, presto change-o, Ogletree could be top 10 (point taken you don't think he will), and he and Shazier both have elite ceilings. Why didn't you say that in the first place? :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It might help others understand your position (if that is even of interest to you, it could lead to a reduction in arguments, and you would also have to go out on a limb and risk being wrong, which might be bad things from your perspective), if instead of expressing yourself in vague, nebulous generalities, quantify how many bad plays = WAY TOO MANY BAD PLAYS in your world. Is it 1? 3? 5? 10?
Enough to catch my eye. So, more than one, not necessarily more than 10, but more than 3? 5? Yeah. More importantly, what is a coach's tolerance level? Depends coach to coach. They can also try to mask the weakness with players around him. I believe Fisher has done that with Ogletree, building one of the best DL's in the league and pairing him with a LB with average skills but one that does not make many mistakes. They can also scheme so the play funnels to another player, allowing a less disciplined player more freedom to improvise. It helped him to a statistically successful season. Long term? We'll see.

How does this relate to Shazier? He does not have a strong DL in front of him. I think it's pretty bad. They won't be occupying as many blockers as Ogletree has benefited from in St. Louis. A similar problem Shazier dealt with in college, leading him to constantly have to make tackles 6-7-8 yards down field. He got tackles, so, great! For now. Not every player is given a long term opportunity to do that in the NFL. DQ Jackson just got shown one door because of doing that for two straight years, we'll see how long his second chance lasts.

Now, if you don't care for my observational approach there is an ignore feature available.

 
No matter one's opinion on Shazier (which I hope we can agree is subjective), there is one FACT which can not be denied whether you have a tendency to wear blinders once you form your opinion or not...

Shazier is a relatively high 1st round pick and therefore a significant investment by the Steelers. If he does not eventually show promise and perform, like all players he will be expendable. But due to the Steelers' investment in him they will have every motivation to see him succeed, and he will be given a very long leash. Based on history you can conservatively expect that to be the first 4 years of his rookie contract at a minimum (even if he proves to be a bust). They would probably decline his 5th year option prior to year 4 of the contract, but he'd have 4 years to prove himself in a worst-case scenario.

Of course the same can be said about Ogletree and other 1st round picks... not to mention the fact it is expected that young players will make mistakes. It's part of the normal evolution process of a player. The ones who learn from their mistakes and play using more than physical ability make it.

To discount the season Ogletree had as a rookie, and suggest he and Shazier make so many mistakes that they will fall out of favor in the near future is sounding a premature alarm. Certainly it is possible this will be proven to be true. I'm not even arguing about the player evaluation (again a subjective argument). Instead, simply that it is way too early for any such judgement on players who due to their draft status and investment will have 3-4 years to prove themselves at a minimum.

 
To suggest he and Shazier make so many mistakes that they will fall out of favor in the near future is sounding a premature alarm.
I didn't. I noticed an issue in college that has carried over to the pros and wrote it. I liked him enough to spend a 2nd on him last year after Alonso went right in front of me. I didn't like the lack of progress I saw in the one major weakness I saw out of college, so I flipped him for a #1 midseason. I expected to see some development and I did not. I'd rather roster players that both produce and look the part, more long term sustainability. If I can flip a guy I'm not sold on for a profit and be able to adequately replace that guy immediately I will do it every time. Some guys develop, some don't. I'd rather trade too early and still net a profit then replace him with a guy I trust than risk being the one left holding the bag with a guy I had doubts about.

I doubt I'll get a similar offer for Shazier right now. If his first half goes like Ogletree's and he goes from a top 20-25 LB to a top 10 I'll look to flip him then.

 
To suggest he and Shazier make so many mistakes that they will fall out of favor in the near future is sounding a premature alarm.
I didn't. I noticed an issue in college that has carried over to the pros and wrote it. I liked him enough to spend a 2nd on him last year after Alonso went right in front of me. I didn't like the lack of progress I saw in the one major weakness I saw out of college, so I flipped him for a #1 midseason. I expected to see some development and I did not. I'd rather roster players that both produce and look the part, more long term sustainability. If I can flip a guy I'm not sold on for a profit and be able to adequately replace that guy immediately I will do it every time. Some guys develop, some don't. I'd rather trade too early and still net a profit then replace him with a guy I trust than risk being the one left holding the bag with a guy I had doubts about.

I doubt I'll get a similar offer for Shazier right now. If his first half goes like Ogletree's and he goes from a top 20-25 LB to a top 10 I'll look to flip him then.
That's exactly how I felt about Mayo. He still has a major issue (of not able/willing to attack downhill. and the team brought in more physical players over the years) and it led to me trading him.

Yet he still had 150 and 175 combined tackles in 2 of the next 3 seasons. The one season was top 3 overall everywhere.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a buckeye fan who watched every single snap of every game he played, I can tell you he needed all his speed and athleticism to compensate for constantly being out of position, over pursuing, and taking bad angles. At the end of the game I was surprised to see how many tackles he made considering these flaws.

And I seemed to see him get blocked a ton.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a buckeye fan who watched every single snap of every game he played, I can tell you he needed all his speed and athleticism to compensate for constantly being out of position, over pursuing, and taking bad angles. At the end of the game I was surprised to see how many tackles he made considering these flaws.

And I seemed to see him get blocked a ton.
I too have watched every single snap of every game he played. Lets just say "agree to disagree". After you've watched the coaches tape and prove that you understand the scheme of the defense and Shazier's responsibilities, then you can diagnose whether is out of position or not. I tend to trust the evaluation and judgement of the Pittsburgh Steelers organization a little further than you. That is no disrespect to you, they do this for a living.

Edit to add: We all tend to evaluate from our couches in this game we play but the sheer amount of subjective hyperbole being thrown at this player boggles my mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i thought he would be a better fit as an OLB, flowing to the ball, sneak blitzing and being used in coverage.
Not in a 3-4, or at least not in LeBeau's flavor anyway. Having him on the edge attempting to take on OTs one on one would have been a waste of his talent. He'd get engulfed.

Playing on the inside they can at least have the opportunity to cover him up a little. Let him run to all areas of the field with that speed, etc.
I know. He just plays like a natural OLB (or safety) to me. The best way to deflect his size would be sneak blitzing him so he can beat OL to spots. I'd use him the same way as Jamie Collins in NE, Shazier is just better. He'll be fine in the middle either way. No biggie

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top