bills44 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...kies/index.html 3. James Hardy, WR, Buffalo The Bills thought they satisfied their long-standing need for a big receiver last year when they drafted Hardy in the second round (41st overall) out of Indiana. But he caught just nine passes for 87 yards and two touchdowns in 14 games, ending the season on injured reserve after tearing his ACL in Week 15. His rehab has been ahead of schedule, and Hardy might be ready to play in time for Buffalo's final preseason game. In the meantime, the Bills went out and got themselves another big receiver this offseason. A guy by the name of Terrell Owens, who promptly took Hardy's No. 81, with Hardy switching to No. 84. Shouldn't Gholston be near the top of this list, instead of at #14?
DDD Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...kies/index.html 3. James Hardy, WR, Buffalo The Bills thought they satisfied their long-standing need for a big receiver last year when they drafted Hardy in the second round (41st overall) out of Indiana. But he caught just nine passes for 87 yards and two touchdowns in 14 games, ending the season on injured reserve after tearing his ACL in Week 15. His rehab has been ahead of schedule, and Hardy might be ready to play in time for Buffalo's final preseason game. In the meantime, the Bills went out and got themselves another big receiver this offseason. A guy by the name of Terrell Owens, who promptly took Hardy's No. 81, with Hardy switching to No. 84. Shouldn't Gholston be near the top of this list, instead of at #14? Hardy=bust. Take it to the bank.
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Hardy=bust. Take it to the bank. Did you say the same about Moulds?
GOBILLS78 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Hardy=bust. Take it to the bank. Do you even qualify to be a bust if you're picked in the second round? I don't think so. Are Ryan Denney and Chris Kelsay busts? No. They're just abject failures.
bills_fan Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Reading this list of mostly 1st and 2nd roudners makes me wonder why we get so hyped up for the draft. I was hoping we would get some of those guys and they turned out to contribute very little. Some of them will be decent in time, but I think its rare for rookies to come in and make a huge impact on your team (other than at RB, and perhaps CB). I know there are many obvious exceptions, but it always seems like the draft is a 50/50 proposition and free agency or a trade is the better route many times.
KOKBILLS Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Gholston should be #1 Yep... And as far as Hardy goes...I was watching "Hard Knocks" the other night and enjoying that little one-on-one battle T.O. and Pacman were having in Camp...I noticed something about TO that made me immediately question whether or not Hardy can be a successful big Wide-Out in the NFL...TO is willing to mix it up physically to get that little positional advantage, and He's won a decent amount of those battles over the years...Hardy is going to have to get some toughness into his Game in a hurry to make it in this league...At times, to me at least, Hardy looks a bit clumsy...He's REAL tall, and unless he learns the hand game well enough these compact, powerful NFL CB's are going to get under his pads inside 5 Yards and it's going to be over... Hopefully Hardy can learn a thing or two from TO over the next Season...His off-the-field reputation aside, I'm not sure there can be a better example of what Hardy must become on-the-field than TO...I thought Hardy was by far the best WR in the 08 Class, and I was thrilled when The Bills picked him...I was not at all impressed by what I saw in 08, then he gets the knee...I would be shocked if 09 was much more than a Red Shirt year for James...But if he digs down and uses this time to get stronger and better, he may be the answer to the "What's up with the one year deal" question...
Big Turk Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Reading this list of mostly 1st and 2nd roudners makes me wonder why we get so hyped up for the draft. I was hoping we would get some of those guys and they turned out to contribute very little. Some of them will be decent in time, but I think its rare for rookies to come in and make a huge impact on your team (other than at RB, and perhaps CB). I know there are many obvious exceptions, but it always seems like the draft is a 50/50 proposition and free agency or a trade is the better route many times. The problem lies in how their college skillset translates to the NFL... for instance, if you are just more athletic than the players you are facing in college, many times that allows you to not work on your positional development since you have no need to. If you can beat the guy with the same move every time, why bother working on new moves. When they get to the NFL however, they soon realize they are facing athletes just as good if not better virtually every week. Their one move will no longer work since it will be studied and picked apart by opposing teams and coaches. They now need to either develop other moves and learn how to actually play the position or they risk becoming "busts". So basically what drafted players have to do is learn a whole new set of skills for the NFL game. Teams draft players based a lot on their athleticism with the hopes it will make it easier for them to translate their college game and pick up the pro game. After all, players that are able to athletically do what others cannot have a much greater upside than less athletic payers. On the flip side, many times the less athletic players have to know how to play their positions much better in college because their success depends on them taking the right angles, making the right moves, and playing with better technique. These type of players will likely become average to solid pros. However, noone wants an average to solid pro with their first round pick----they want a guy that has the potential to turn into a superstar pro bowler, which lesser athletes, or at least perceived lesser athletes, likely do not have. So in the end, a team is willing to sacrifice guys that have a high percentage of being average to slightly above average pros, with a low chance of becoming a bust for players that are high risk but high reward also. It would be like asking someone would you trade in a 70% chance of winning a thousand dollars for a 20% chance of winning ten thousand dollars. The reward of taking a "super athlete" is much higher than taking a lesser athlete but better football player. The thinking is that coaches can always help a player become a better football player, but the coaches cannot teach a player how to become a better athlete. That is something you either have or you don't...
ans4e64 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 That is a horrible list. 1.) Campbell? Seriously? Why does he need to step up? He's not filling the shoes of anyone important, and him playing well vs. not isn't going to make or break Arizona's defense. 2.) How does Doucet need to step up, he's the 4th WR on the depth chart! Fitzgerald is there, Boldin's back, and Breaston is one of the top producing 3rd WR's in this league. Doucet doesn't even need to touch the field. 3.) Same here. Why does Hardy need to step up, he's like 9th on the depth chart. We signed T.O., we don't need Hardy to be the 2nd receiver anymore this year. Jesus. 4.) The Bears signed Orlando Pace and Kevin Schaffer, Williams doesn't need to step up. If he can, it's gravy, but not necessary. I could keep going on. That is a horrible list.
VOR Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 That is a horrible list. 1.) Campbell? Seriously? Why does he need to step up? He's not filling the shoes of anyone important, and him playing well vs. not isn't going to make or break Arizona's defense. 2.) How does Doucet need to step up, he's the 4th WR on the depth chart! Fitzgerald is there, Boldin's back, and Breaston is one of the top producing 3rd WR's in this league. Doucet doesn't even need to touch the field. 3.) Same here. Why does Hardy need to step up, he's like 9th on the depth chart. We signed T.O., we don't need Hardy to be the 2nd receiver anymore this year. Jesus. 4.) The Bears signed Orlando Pace and Kevin Schaffer, Williams doesn't need to step up. If he can, it's gravy, but not necessary. I could keep going on. That is a horrible list.
rpcolosi Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...kies/index.html 3. James Hardy, WR, Buffalo The Bills thought they satisfied their long-standing need for a big receiver last year when they drafted Hardy in the second round (41st overall) out of Indiana. But he caught just nine passes for 87 yards and two touchdowns in 14 games, ending the season on injured reserve after tearing his ACL in Week 15. His rehab has been ahead of schedule, and Hardy might be ready to play in time for Buffalo's final preseason game. In the meantime, the Bills went out and got themselves another big receiver this offseason. A guy by the name of Terrell Owens, who promptly took Hardy's No. 81, with Hardy switching to No. 84. Shouldn't Gholston be near the top of this list, instead of at #14? DEs and WR are known to be slow, slow developers. This is a stupid list. Take Moulds for example, took him forever to live up to his 1st round potential. He ended up being a stud. Likewise with a LOT of DE's. Mario Williams is a perfect example. Few guys have stud first years like Kearse or Bruce...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 The problem lies in how their college skillset translates to the NFL... for instance, if you are just more athletic than the players you are facing in college, many times that allows you to not work on your positional development since you have no need to. If you can beat the guy with the same move every time, why bother working on new moves. When they get to the NFL however, they soon realize they are facing athletes just as good if not better virtually every week. Their one move will no longer work since it will be studied and picked apart by opposing teams and coaches. They now need to either develop other moves and learn how to actually play the position or they risk becoming "busts". Great post, matter. This is why you're seeing such an emphasis on "character" these days. Teams realize they need to try to get inside the heads of these athletic, high risk/high reward-type players. They need to take an educated guess at which ones have the dedication and attitude necessary to better learn their position in order to be successful at the next level. Some guys, like John McCargo, will never fully dedicate themselves to their craft and will never sniff at the potential that their athleticism gives them. Figuring out which guys have the right mindset for the job is an extremely difficult task, I'd imagine, but its more important than an extra couple tenths of a second on the stopwatch. Lets hope that, mentally, Aaron Maybin has what it takes. We know he has the measurables.
metzelaars_lives Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Shouldn't Gholston be near the top of this list, instead of at #14? Hey morons, the list is obviously in alphabetical order of the teams. Can't wait for training camp so there's actually something to talk about.
bills44 Posted May 6, 2009 Author Posted May 6, 2009 Hey morons, the list is obviously in alphabetical order of the teams. Can't wait for training camp so there's actually something to talk about. Sorry, Pete....no offense intended
CFLstyle Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Hardy=bust. Take it to the bank. Thank you for that wonderful contribution.
metzelaars_lives Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Sorry, Pete....no offense intended Sorry dude, I got your first beer next time.
Christopher Capolupo Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Hardy doesn't need to prove much really. I don't know if he was expected to be anything more than a red zone WR in the first place. The offensive coordinator is the one that needs to prove he can call plays to fit his players strengths IMO.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Hardy doesn't need to prove much really. I don't know if he was expected to be anything more than a red zone WR in the first place. The offensive coordinator is the one that needs to prove he can call plays to fit his players strengths IMO. I agree on this one. If you watched Plaxico Burress and the success he had in this league it was clear that he ran patterns which suited his strengths. With a big, long guy like Burress or Hardy, you don't want them doing a lot of cutting and changing direction. Hardy is big and has good straight line speed. He can jump well. You can let him do what he does best or make him conform to some convention as to what you think a wide receiver is supposed to do.
billsfan_34 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Do you even qualify to be a bust if you're picked in the second round? I don't think so. Are Ryan Denney and Chris Kelsay busts? No. They're just abject failures. Whats the difference between the second and first round? Answer....not a whole heck of alot except for the first rd contract a player gets. Second rounders should be high production players. Their is thousands of college players trying to make it to the ranks of the NFL. Rd 2 is supposed to be the 33rd to the 64th best players in the country. I would definitely say Kelsay and Denney are busts!
Recommended Posts