This should put to bed this "Gholston was an under-achiever" nonsense, unfortunately we know that it won't.
Of course it doesn't make him a lock, there's no such thing as a lock in the draft. That doesn't change the fact that this belief that Gholston was an underachiever and "Mike Mamula part 2" is absurd on many levels.
He was a no show in certain big games. He's not in the same stratosphere as Mcfadden as a prospect. Sorry, but he isn't.
You should just stop your bashing- you've backed it up with nothing and are coming across as quite foolish.
yes, yes it was a lie. I thought the ridiculousness of the statement was pretty evident. I'll break it down for you slowly so you can keep up. you see, 15 fumbles is a concern, but it is downplayed by those who want McFadden. now 14 sacks is tremendous, but it is being downplaying by those who don't want Gholston. you see the backwards logic that is being exhibited by those who want McFadden and not Gholston. in that backwards universe, 15 fumbles isn't a big deal and either is 14 sacks. in this backwards universe, 15 fumbles is fine, but 14 sacks is not enough. the reality is 15 fumbles is a concern, and 14 sacks is a pretty good lock.
Very true - besides some pretty good points on the factual side, IMO there is nothing more ridiculous than a fan on a message board claiming to know exactly what the front office of any team is thinking, right up until a pick is actually made.
You are half right. Gholston is absolutely all hype. He will more then likely be good at the next level but he is not Top 10 worthy. He only showed up in one major game at OSU, which was the Michigan game. He takes plays off on a consistent basis. He plays like a rock star against subpar teams and complete doo - doo against good teams (exception - Michigan). His technique is nothing compared to, Long. He doesn't posesse the overall skills of a, Chris Long. Not even close.. he can probably run faster and jump higher, should that really justify him going in the top 5 of this draft? Hell no... He plays very lost, especially in coverage. Which, believe it or not, is necessary within the Jets 3-4 scheme. He actually played better at end, then at the OLB. Which is an obvious concern for our team. He wasn't even the best player on the OSU defense. Not even close. Atleast 3 others were better then, Gholston. Which says a lot alone. Keep in mind, I am a OSU fan. I watch every game on saturday, go to half of them. So I am not biased in the least. Now, your other arguement.. McFadden is not a top 10 pick either. You dont take a RB in the top 10 unless they are balanced overall. DMAC can run, very fast. Lets face it, he doesn't have much else to offer. He wont break any tackles, even if it was to save his life, it wouldn't happen. He does not strike me as a very patient runner and relies severely on speed alone. Which means, a lot of outside runs, not so much between the tackle. I have a feeling that our team will be needing a RB with this skill set. Considering we just signed a 3 time pro-bowl FB, I would imagine we would want to put him to some good use. Just my theory..
a running back touches the ball (in our offense) MAYBE 10-20 times a game (20-40%). but a pass rushing, run stopping, drop back line backer affects EVERY defensive play (100%). a full time LB is worth MORE than a part time RB. we will NOT waste a 6th round pic on a RB until we see what our current tandem can do behind our new and improved O-line. never. re-watch the last SB. re-play the 'reggie bush, once in a generation, sweepstakes' and all the heat the texans took for NOT taking bush (mcfadden?) and opting for mario (gholston?). i don't know if gholston, pace, thomas, and harris would be a dominating LB core, but in the 3-4 where LB's are called upon to reak havoc, it's the most important core after NT. if gholston is on the board at #6, belicheck will grunt f**k, because he knows the pats will NOT win the afce. if gholston is gone and mcfadden is on the board, mcfadden will have a star on his helmet and enjoy the opportunity to impregnate numerous Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders. we will then draft the best DB and the best receiver available to close out the first round. look for more OL/DL help in round 2. it does not matter if mcfadden is a better athlete than gholston. unless mcfadden can play OLB in a 3-4 D, record 6-10 sacks (2-3 against Brady), force 2-4 fumbles, chase down screen plays, and stuff the other team's RB on 4th and goal from the 1, then he may as well be jesus christ himself. 1) gholston, take him. 2) mcfadden (trade with dallas)-> best DB and receiver at the end of round 1. 3) if neither available (most likely), then trade down a few spots and take the best DB and pick up a 3rd rounder for the best available receiver. 4) round 2, take the best OL or DL available (prefferably OL).
I really like the two above posts... good reading and makes a lot of sense. Nice job, Mean Dean and Football God.
MeanDean, I respect your argument and you have provided a very interesting perspective on Gholston. I have to ask you though, what would your draft board (1-6) look for the Jets? Assuming trading down in not an option (not an unrealistic possibility IMO considering the lack of movement at the top of the 1st round the last few years), who would you take? I'll admit I've had questions about Gholston and McFadden, just like you do. I just wonder if you're judging them to a standard that doesn't really fit the situation. The top of this draft is not as strong as it has been in other drafts. Considering the cost of a top 6 pick, Gholston/McFadden very well may not be worth the money. But if there's only 3 or 4 guys that are, then you have to unfortunately bite the bullet and "overpay" a pick. I commend you for being critical and giving very valid reasons for your criticism. You clearly have watched these guys play. I just wonder if labeling these guys "unworthy of a top 10 pick" is fair/realistic considering the rest of the available draft class.
Your argument on Gholston is one I've heard from a few Ohio State fans. I root for the team, too, but I'm not that big into them. I really should pick a team and start though... I would rather have Chris Long than Gholston (though maybe not for the 3-4, but who knows), but Gholston's athleticism is astounding, and 14 sacks is a lot. I mean, he showed up for Michigan, the biggest game of the season, and Wisconsin, which is always a big game. Some days the linemen is just going to beat you. I've just seen it with John Abraham that, throwing out the injuries, a lot of people didn't like him because people said he didn't show up every game. You can't have 2 sacks every game. I'm just looking for more opinions. As for McFadden, I think you're exaggerating a little bit on his tackle breaking ability. You don't run for that many yards if you can't break tackles. NFL.com compares him to Marshall Faulk, and that makes sense, only I think McFadden is both faster and maybe a little stronger, and Faulk had better hands. You are right he's not very patient, but you can't argue with the numbers he put up in a fairly complicated offense. Runningbacks aren't perfect. I don't like the fumbling issues one bit, but as we saw with Tiki Barber, that can be changed and learned. Curtis fumbled 5 times the first year he was here in 15 games. McFadden is a better prospect than Reggie Bush, in my opinion, though not as good as Peterson, who fell mostly to injury.
Foolish nothing. Alot of you just embarrass yourselves as people who don't even watch college football. Mcfadden is so far above Gholston as a prospect, it's not even a conversation. Yet you come on the Jet site, and it never fails, you find a large contingent wanting the Jets to ignore the best prospect and settle. Never fails.
Man crush nothing. I want the best player in the draft, a guy whose a dynamic playmaker, something the Jets desperately need. ONE TIME I WANT THE BEST to go to the Jets, not always settling.
Perfect statement. Gholston will not be an automatic in our system just because he is an athletic freak. We are in a terrible position at #6. It seems like the Jets are going to have to take either DMC or Gholston and I think most people have concerns with either.
