PDA

View Full Version : Max Jean-Gilles



Dolphin_Daz
01-30-2006, 05:52 AM
In my view the best O-linemen, or rather the O-Lineman i would rather see in Miami. What round do you think he will go? Would love to get him.

cowtowndick
01-30-2006, 06:10 AM
In my view the best O-linemen, or rather the O-Lineman i would rather see in Miami. What round do you think he will go? Would love to get him.

a lot of mocks i saw had him going at the top of the second, but after this weekend he's in the first for sure. he dominated. rumour is the bucs like him very much so i can see him going to them in the first.

Dolphin_Daz
01-30-2006, 06:16 AM
I was hoping he would have a shocking Senior Bowl but he didnt. He was being selfish and played well. :D

Who knows, maybe we could get him in the 2nd if we are very very lucky. Cutler and Jean-Giles in the first two rounds...wow!! heres hoping! :D

HysterikiLL
01-30-2006, 06:21 AM
IMO he's the Chris Spencer of this years draft, only better. Between 25-32 in the 1st round IMO.

Canadi-Phin
01-30-2006, 12:39 PM
If everyone that I want is gone, I'd love to trade down in the 1st pick up another third and pick him. he would help our line out and fill the guard spot for us. I have said this before. He crushes people and he's nasty. But that's if Cutler,Greenway, Huff, Williams are all off the board. I'd love to trade down twice int he first and pick up some additional 3rds. If we could get 5 picks on the first day, it would be sweet.

23Dolphins34
01-30-2006, 12:55 PM
If everyone that I want is gone, I'd love to trade down in the 1st pick up another third and pick him. he would help our line out and fill the guard spot for us. I have said this before. He crushes people and he's nasty. But that's if Cutler,Greenway, Huff, Williams are all off the board. I'd love to trade down twice int he first and pick up some additional 3rds. If we could get 5 picks on the first day, it would be sweet.

That would be very smart and I couldn't agree with more. However, unfortunately, Huff and Williams will probably be long gone before the 16th pick. Cutler and Greenway are the only 2 realistic choices that could fall. I would prefer Greenway, but, if he's gone and then I would move down to draft Jean-Gilles. Would Spencer still be there in the 2nd? If you feel he would be draft a DB if you can't get Greenway. There is just so many options Nick and Randy could go it would make your head :dolphins:

dominizzo
01-30-2006, 01:10 PM
I think jon Scott and Mcneill are better than this guy

MiamiDolphins34
01-30-2006, 01:13 PM
I think jon Scott and Mcneill are better than this guy

Dom..Max Jean Gilles is a guard.

Eshlemon
01-30-2006, 03:32 PM
IMO he's the Chris Spencer of this years draft, only better. Between 25-32 in the 1st round IMO.


Agree, and think he'll not get past Chris Spencers team at 31/32 if he lasts that long. Think Hawks sign Alexander but not Huctchinson.

Danny
01-30-2006, 04:44 PM
I like him but I don't really want a guard in the first.Guards always seem to fall and we can get one later like Rob Simms.I think the better move would be to get Mangold(who actually was the best lineman all week)and just move Hadnot back to guard and then draft one of the many good OT.

Ozzy rules!!
:rockon: :guitar:

Miamibyrd_24
01-30-2006, 05:59 PM
I didnt know who this guy was untill I seen him at the senior bowl. Man who ever gets this guy is a still. Every one is talking about this guy D’Brickashaw Ferguson (who was getting beat just about all day), for get that. Max Jean-Gilles is the real deal. I would not pass up on this guy, if all others fail in the draft. If he falls I say take him.

MiamiDolphins34
01-30-2006, 06:04 PM
I didnt know who this guy was untill I seen him at the senior bowl. Man who ever gets this guy is a still. Every one is talking about this guy D’Brickashaw Ferguson (who was getting beat just about all day), for get that. Max Jean-Gilles is the real deal. I would not pass up on this guy, if all others fail in the draft. If he falls I say take him.

Could he play at LT? I think if we traded down we still could have a shot at him.

Geforce
01-30-2006, 06:53 PM
I don't think he could play LT. He's dominate in tight quarters and putting him in space would not be a good move.

rdhstlr23
01-30-2006, 07:00 PM
I didnt know who this guy was untill I seen him at the senior bowl. Man who ever gets this guy is a still. Every one is talking about this guy D’Brickashaw Ferguson (who was getting beat just about all day), for get that. Max Jean-Gilles is the real deal. I would not pass up on this guy, if all others fail in the draft. If he falls I say take him.

I don't know what game you were watching but Ferguson was doing what he had all year and in practice...JUST DOMINATE people. If I were the Texans I would trade down to #4 or #5 to pick up another pick (maybe a 3rd or 4th) and draft Ferguson...I really think he is the best player in the draft...Yes, better than Bush, Leinart, and Young. D'Brickashaw isn't a project and could be the next coming of Jonathon Ogden in my opinion...plus I believe he's lighter on his feet and moves better than Ogden...he's sweet

Jean Gilles would be an AMAZING get in the 2nd round. I still believe we have to go with a DB (Michael Huff, Jimmy Williams) or an OT (Winston Justice) with our 1st round pick at #16

dominizzo
01-30-2006, 07:22 PM
Dom..Max Jean Gilles is a guard.


My bad sorry

finfan54
01-30-2006, 10:41 PM
Gilles is in that hard spot for us. I am hoping not the same for Mangold.

Oraclepz
01-31-2006, 09:59 AM
I didnt know who this guy was untill I seen him at the senior bowl. Man who ever gets this guy is a still. Every one is talking about this guy D’Brickashaw Ferguson (who was getting beat just about all day), for get that. Max Jean-Gilles is the real deal. I would not pass up on this guy, if all others fail in the draft. If he falls I say take him.

i dont know what game you saw.. but ferguson was dominating mathias kiwanuka... if anything after that battle... ferguson solidified himself as a top 5 pick and kiwanuka prollly dropped a bit...

Motion
01-31-2006, 10:28 AM
D’Brickashaw Ferguson (who was getting beat just about all day), for get that.
What game were you watching?

Danny
01-31-2006, 10:55 AM
I don't know what game you were watching but Ferguson was doing what he had all year and in practice...JUST DOMINATE people. If I were the Texans I would trade down to #4 or #5 to pick up another pick (maybe a 3rd or 4th) and draft Ferguson...I really think he is the best player in the draft...Yes, better than Bush, Leinart, and Young. D'Brickashaw isn't a project and could be the next coming of Jonathon Ogden in my opinion...plus I believe he's lighter on his feet and moves better than Ogden...he's sweet

Jean Gilles would be an AMAZING get in the 2nd round. I still believe we have to go with a DB (Michael Huff, Jimmy Williams) or an OT (Winston Justice) with our 1st round pick at #16
Aren't you getting a little carried away?Ogden is a future HOF player who dominates on both pass protection and run blocking.Ferguson has to get better at run blocking which I think he can but he's not there yet.I'd not put him on the same category with Ogden or Bosselli.

Ozzy rules!!
:rockon: :band2:

DrAstroZoom
01-31-2006, 04:03 PM
MJG is an interior lineman, which suggests that he will probably drop to the second round. He is a complete animal though, and I wouldn't mind seeing ihim in a Fins uniform. I don't see it happening, however, is my guess is we'll go defense in Round 1 and pick up Croyle in Round 2.

PhinstiGator
02-01-2006, 03:48 PM
Gilles certainly has incredible measurements...He is only second to D'Brickashaw Ferguson in Arm Length (36 Inches) which would be a plus for using him at the RT spot.

If we drafted him, I woud be tempted to move Carey inside to RG.

http://nfldraft.scout.com/2/492070.html

MiamiDolphins34
02-01-2006, 03:52 PM
Gilles certainly has incredible measurements...He is only second to D'Brickashaw Ferguson in Arm Length (36 Inches) which would be a plus for using him at the RT spot.

If we drafted him, I woud be tempted to move Carey inside to RG.

http://nfldraft.scout.com/2/492070.html

Max Jean-Gilles n Vernon Carey as our guards whooa.

DUB
02-01-2006, 04:49 PM
He certainly has versatility and is well known by Saban. Definitly a possibility.

Boomer
02-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Best G in the draft, strong as an ox, solid 1st rounder. Would be happy with him ay 16

MJG HAS played LT for Georgia BTW, although mainly at G

BlueFin
02-01-2006, 06:53 PM
Best G in the draft, strong as an ox, solid 1st rounder. Would be happy with him ay 16

MJG HAS played LT for Georgia BTW, although mainly at G

I have to disagree with you here, while he is a very good guard prospect, Guards are much easier to find than other positions.

Also, there is some question about whether MJG lacks a mean streak? I am a firm believer in the guys in the trenches having one.

He is not athletic enough to play left tackle in the NFL, and probably not even right tackle.

He should be a late first-early second rounder, 16 would be reaching for him I think, especially in light of the left tackles in this draft that could still be there at #16.

Roman529
02-02-2006, 03:37 AM
Is this guy a Frenchie? We don't want Inspector Clousseau. :shakeno:

CD13
02-08-2006, 07:51 AM
Best G in the draft, strong as an ox, solid 1st rounder. Would be happy with him ay 16

MJG HAS played LT for Georgia BTW, although mainly at G


You would take him at #16 ? I like the guy, but I just think that is kind of him for MJG. If we traded down and got him I would be happy.

finfan54
02-08-2006, 08:13 AM
IMO he's the Chris Spencer of this years draft, only better. Between 25-32 in the 1st round IMO.



The only problem I see here is that if we get Hutchinson in FA or someone else for the gaurd spot. If we were to get Bentley then Gilles fits the plan i guess.

finfan54
02-08-2006, 08:16 AM
You would take him at #16 ? I like the guy, but I just think that is kind of him for MJG. If we traded down and got him I would be happy.



exactly. But Saban said he wants mainly to do 3 things, upgrade the OLine significantly, get our future QB, and get the defense younger. This draft is healthy with good OL and you always need five of them so I can see this draft go big for us with 2 or 3 linemen. I would love to trade down from that spot which makes DEnver inviting in the Ricky regards, but I do not think that will happen, but keep Madison in mind here.

Trade down and get two Oline and Croyle and I would be in heaven!

Canadi-Phin
02-08-2006, 10:39 AM
I would take Jean-Gilles at 16. he is going to be a probowler. As for not taking guards this high. Most people want to pay Hutchinson a fortune to come play here as a guard why the big deal on drafting the next Hutchinson, by the way if you think high draft picks are never used on guards, Hutchinson was the 17th pick in 2001. Seems to have worked out for Seattle. If he is the BPA at that point. Grab him. If we can trade down and still get him all the better. If we can't, I'd take him. He is an instant starter and impat player which is exactly what you want your first rounder to be. Count me in with Boomer on this one.

DrAstroZoom
02-08-2006, 10:47 AM
I would take Jean-Gilles at 16. he is going to be a probowler. As for not taking guards this high. Most people want to pay Hutchinson a fortune to come play here as a guard why the big deal on drafting the next Hutchinson, by the way if you think high draft picks are never used on guards, Hutchinson was the 17th pick in 2001. Seems to have worked out for Seattle. If he is the BPA at that point. Grab him. If we can trade down and still get him all the better. If we can't, I'd take him. He is an instant starter and impat player which is exactly what you want your first rounder to be. Count me in with Boomer on this one.


Well, when you put it THAT way ...

BlueFin
02-08-2006, 12:53 PM
I would take Jean-Gilles at 16. he is going to be a probowler. As for not taking guards this high. Most people want to pay Hutchinson a fortune to come play here as a guard why the big deal on drafting the next Hutchinson, by the way if you think high draft picks are never used on guards, Hutchinson was the 17th pick in 2001. Seems to have worked out for Seattle. If he is the BPA at that point. Grab him. If we can trade down and still get him all the better. If we can't, I'd take him. He is an instant starter and impat player which is exactly what you want your first rounder to be. Count me in with Boomer on this one.

Do you care more about drafting a Pro Bowler or winning a Superbowl?

16 is a reach for Jean Giles, guards are much easier to find than tackles or centers, or several other positions for that matter.

While some would be experts on this board think drafting a guard at 16 this year is a good idea, I'll guarantee you Nick Saban doesn't. It simply is not a good value.

You simply don't use a pick that is high enough to get valuable skill position players with on a guard.

Canadi-Phin
02-08-2006, 02:29 PM
Do you care more about drafting a Pro Bowler or winning a Superbowl?

16 is a reach for Jean Giles, guards are much easier to find than tackles or centers, or several other positions for that matter.

While some would be experts on this board think drafting a guard at 16 this year is a good idea, I'll guarantee you Nick Saban doesn't. It simply is not a good value.

You simply don't use a pick that is high enough to get valuable skill position players with on a guard.

I said if he was the BPA then we take him. Lets not argue at whats easier to find, cause that will be silly. Not every team has probowl guards, they would if they were so easily found. Sure you can find servicable ones. We want impact players, like when we had Jamie Nails, he'd pull, run someone over, and create a huge hole for Ricky. RW had 1800 yards that year. Impact players can be found at every position. That's why people are going to pay Hutchinson a ton of money. The value of a great player is huge. Of course I want to win the superbowl, last time I checked it was done easier with probowl players. Both teams in the SB have probowl guards, funny how tha worked out. If he is the top graded player you take him regardless of position especially if you need a Right Guard like we do.

Don't give me a guarantee about what Saban is thinking, you have no clue.

studsatele
02-08-2006, 05:55 PM
I said if he was the BPA then we take him. Lets not argue at whats easier to find, cause that will be silly. Not every team has probowl guards, they would if they were so easily found. Sure you can find servicable ones. We want impact players, like when we had Jamie Nails, he'd pull, run someone over, and create a huge hole for Ricky. RW had 1800 yards that year. Impact players can be found at every position. That's why people are going to pay Hutchinson a ton of money. The value of a great player is huge. Of course I want to win the superbowl, last time I checked it was done easier with probowl players. Both teams in the SB have probowl guards, funny how tha worked out. If he is the top graded player you take him regardless of position especially if you need a Right Guard like we do.

Don't give me a guarantee about what Saban is thinking, you have no clue.i agree. how big is he? i dont have an issue taking a guard in the 1st espesially if he is what mjg is advertised as. will he fall to the 2nd? if our other guys arent there, do you think houck would yak this guy up till saban had to doit. we can pick up db, lb, qb, dl in the other rounds as well. if alabi is doing as good as said it might make sense to complete the o-line. saban did say it was his priority that and qb. daniels was in the 4th i beleive. hes workin out pretty good. count me on board to draft this guy if our most pursued guys are gone by the time we pick. i say pull the trigger on him.

SWS84
02-08-2006, 08:39 PM
Best G in the draft, strong as an ox, solid 1st rounder. Would be happy with him ay 16

MJG HAS played LT for Georgia BTW, although mainly at G

I was just wondering about that. I was going to ask CK if he thought it would be reach at 16, but decided not to post it because I thought I was being silly. I'm glad to see that I'm not and someone else would be happy with an interior O-lineman, if the player is not a reach. I would be happy with a NT as well.

Steve


P.S. I haven't posted in quite a while due to college. I Hope things are going well in London with you and your family. :)

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:10 PM
You would take him at #16 ? I like the guy, but I just think that is kind of him for MJG. If we traded down and got him I would be happy.

Listen, I still bemoan the fact that we didn't draft Alan Faneca when we had the chance. MJG might not be as good as Faneca, but he's performed consistently well in the best conference in college football at a variety of positions. Sometimes you've just got to pull the trigger on the guys you just know are going to be players. For sure he's in my top 10 of guys we are looking at at 16. Whoever drafts him is going to have a hell of a player.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Do you care more about drafting a Pro Bowler or winning a Superbowl?

16 is a reach for Jean Giles, guards are much easier to find than tackles or centers, or several other positions for that matter.

While some would be experts on this board think drafting a guard at 16 this year is a good idea, I'll guarantee you Nick Saban doesn't. It simply is not a good value.

You simply don't use a pick that is high enough to get valuable skill position players with on a guard.


Absolute nonsense. First of all, you have no idea WHAT Saban is thinking draft wise, so don't guarantee anything.

Secondly, you have NO IDEA how Miami stocks their draft board and how highly MJG is rated on that board. If he's rated as the #1 player on their board when they're on the clock then they take him.

Consistently Miami has problems on the OL and to add a player of this quality then you don't just shrug off the chance because 'Blue Fin' says its not viable. What valuable "skill position" player do you think we're targeting at 16? CB, OL, DT, FS.......not what I'd call valuable skill positions.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 03:19 PM
I said if he was the BPA then we take him. Lets not argue at whats easier to find, cause that will be silly. Not every team has probowl guards, they would if they were so easily found. Sure you can find servicable ones. We want impact players, like when we had Jamie Nails, he'd pull, run someone over, and create a huge hole for Ricky. RW had 1800 yards that year. Impact players can be found at every position. That's why people are going to pay Hutchinson a ton of money. The value of a great player is huge. Of course I want to win the superbowl, last time I checked it was done easier with probowl players. Both teams in the SB have probowl guards, funny how tha worked out. If he is the top graded player you take him regardless of position especially if you need a Right Guard like we do.

Don't give me a guarantee about what Saban is thinking, you have no clue.

I have much more of a clue about this than you do my Canadien friend, because it is a fact that NFL GM's know that guards are easier to find than other positions, it is an easier position to play on the line than the other line positions....that is a fact, and all your rhetoric doesn't change those facts.

Its about value, you simply don't use a top 20 pick on a guard, unless its an extremely rare guard, and there aren't impact players at other positions availalble, that WILL not be the case in this draft.

There are impact players at DB, LB, OT, and maybe even QB that will be available that you DON'T draft a Jean Jiles over.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:23 PM
I was just wondering about that. I was going to ask CK if he thought it would be reach at 16, but decided not to post it because I thought I was being silly. I'm glad to see that I'm not and someone else would be happy with an interior O-lineman, if the player is not a reach. I would be happy with a NT as well.

Steve


P.S. I haven't posted in quite a while due to college. I Hope things are going well in London with you and your family. :)

Hi Steve, yep we're all good. Hope college is going well?

It's all about how you rate the players on your board. Blue Fin has no good idea what he's talking about. We have no idea how Saban and Mueller stack their board, but you look at last year and they went for solid college players who had played consistently at good schools, over a decent period of time - Auburn, Iowa, Florida, LSU - Brown, Roth, Crowder - a junior but with 3 years starting experience and outstanding value - and Daniels. You just don't turn your nose up at a guy as good as MJG who has manned the G and LT spot consistently against some of the best DT's and ends in the nation for the Bulldogs. And Saban will have been going up against him for 3 years, trying to get his DL past him.

If the players I was targeting are gone - so say the realistic targets have gone - Greenway (12 to Cleveland?), Huff (7 to the 9ers or to Atlanta?), Justice, Cromartie etc, then do you reach for a player that isn't rated as highly on your board - an Ashton Youboty or a Bobby Carpenter? Or do you go with the value pick, the guy that's higher on your board, despite being a G (which BTW is a dumb argument - you have spent the #2 pick on a TB, you have a legit 1800+ runner as well and yet Blue Fin thinks drafting a G is a reach).

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:26 PM
I have much more of a clue about this than you do my Canadien friend, because it is a fact that NFL GM's know that guards are easier to find than other positions, it is an easier position to play on the line than the other line positions....that is a fact, and all your rhetoric doesn't change those facts.

Its about value, you simply don't use a top 20 pick on a guard, unless its an extremely rare guard, and there aren't impact players at other positions availalble, that WILL not be the case in this draft.

There are impact players at DB, LB, OT, and maybe even QB that will be available that you DON'T draft a Jean Jiles over.
FLMAO.

What a no-mark you are. You have no better idea than anyone on this site so stop making out that you do. You clearly have no understanding of the draft and how to work a draft board if you continue with that moronic stance.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 03:28 PM
Absolute nonsense. First of all, you have no idea WHAT Saban is thinking draft wise, so don't guarantee anything.

Secondly, you have NO IDEA how Miami stocks their draft board and how highly MJG is rated on that board. If he's rated as the #1 player on their board when they're on the clock then they take him.

Consistently Miami has problems on the OL and to add a player of this quality then you don't just shrug off the chance because 'Blue Fin' says its not viable. What valuable "skill position" player do you think we're targeting at 16? CB, OL, DT, FS.......not what I'd call valuable skill positions.

The only nonsense is some of the drivel you post my friend, and if you don't understand that guards values are diminished in the top of the first round, and that NFL teams only reach for guards in the top half of round one in rare circumstances, then you need to re-read your "Everything You Ever Needed to Know About American Football Manual".

Just go back in the previous drafts and see how many guards were drafted in the top 16, then maybe you'll realize the only nonsense posted here was somebody thinking Jean Giles would be drafted at 16 or higher.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 03:33 PM
Listen, I still bemoan the fact that we didn't draft Alan Faneca when we had the chance. MJG might not be as good as Faneca, but he's performed consistently well in the best conference in college football at a variety of positions. Sometimes you've just got to pull the trigger on the guys you just know are going to be players. For sure he's in my top 10 of guys we are looking at at 16. Whoever drafts him is going to have a hell of a player.

Where was Faneca drafted? Not in the top 16.

LIQUID24
02-09-2006, 03:34 PM
I agree with BlueFin on this. A guard would have to be pretty damn special for me to even consider him at 16. And I see Jean-Guilles as very good... but not special.

But that's MY philosophy (and many others), I have no idea how much value Saban places on guards.

Zeke0123
02-09-2006, 03:37 PM
The only nonsense is some of the drivel you post my friend, and if you don't understand that guards values are diminished in the top of the first round, and that NFL teams only reach for guards in the top half of round one in rare circumstances, then you need to re-read your "Everything You Ever Needed to Know About American Football Manual".

Just go back in the previous drafts and see how many guards were drafted in the top 16, then maybe you'll realize the only nonsense posted here was somebody thinking Jean Giles would be drafted at 16 or higher.:rolleyes2

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 03:39 PM
FLMAO.

What a no-mark you are. You have no better idea than anyone on this site so stop making out that you do. You clearly have no understanding of the draft and how to work a draft board if you continue with that moronic stance.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black there MR. draft guru.

I've been watching drafts a lot longer than you have, and it is fact that guards are de-valued in the top half of round one because of the position they play. I happen to be friends with an ex-NFL head coach of 9 years.

We'll see come April if Jean Giles is a top 16 pick, and again, I challenge you to go back in previous drafts and count the number of guards that went in the top 16 picks.

Zeke0123
02-09-2006, 03:39 PM
I agree with BlueFin on this. A guard would have to be pretty damn special for me to even consider him at 16. And I see Jean-Guilles as very good... but not special.

But that's MY philosophy (and many others), I have no idea how much value Saban places on guards.well lets see...he said he wanted to sign an "impact interior OL" in FA so he does in fact "Value" interior OL.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:41 PM
The only nonsense is some of the drivel you post my friend, and if you don't understand that guards values are diminished in the top of the first round, and that NFL teams only reach for guards in the top half of round one in rare circumstances, then you need to re-read your "Everything You Ever Needed to Know About American Football Manual".

Just go back in the previous drafts and see how many guards were drafted in the top 16, then maybe you'll realize the only nonsense posted here was somebody thinking Jean Giles would be drafted at 16 or higher.

FLMAO. Once again you clearly have no understanding as to HOW TEAMS STACK A DRAFT BOARD.

Oh no, sorry I forgot, you know what Saban is doing as you make cast iron guarantees. I fully understand the value of guards is to be found in later rounds. What you clearly cannot grasp is that if Miami have him highly rated and he's their #1 player on their value board at 16, then that's what they do, no matter what your buddy Nick Saban might be telling you.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:42 PM
Where was Faneca drafted? Not in the top 16.

When or where did I say he was?

Please point that out to me.

CD13
02-09-2006, 03:45 PM
Listen, I still bemoan the fact that we didn't draft Alan Faneca when we had the chance. MJG might not be as good as Faneca, but he's performed consistently well in the best conference in college football at a variety of positions. Sometimes you've just got to pull the trigger on the guys you just know are going to be players. For sure he's in my top 10 of guys we are looking at at 16. Whoever drafts him is going to have a hell of a player.


I don't know enough about him to judge, but I do know, typically that is high for a guard. That is just the general sense. IBut hell yeah I wish we had Faneca, Pittsburgh wouldn't have won the Super Bowl without him. If he is projected to be that good then it is probably not a reach. Would you take him over Justice ?

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:46 PM
I agree with BlueFin on this. A guard would have to be pretty damn special for me to even consider him at 16. And I see Jean-Guilles as very good... but not special.

But that's MY philosophy (and many others), I have no idea how much value Saban places on guards.

I'm not saying that's what they'll do and I absolutely agree that the best value on guards is in later rounds. Like you say it's the value that Nick places on them that counts. Remmeber, we run a lot up the gut. We've struggled to get great push off the ball the last couple of years as James hasn't fulfilled the calibre he showed in Carolina and Hadnot has been inconsistent, coupled with the mediocrity of McKinney.

We'll see how it plays out.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 03:47 PM
well lets see...he said he wanted to sign an "impact interior OL" in FA so he does in fact "Value" interior OL.

Assuming you quoted him correctly, which I'm not sure you did, what has signing a free agent guard have to with a debate about a guard getting drafted in the top 16 of the NFL draft?

Apples and oranges, yes, he might sign a proven commodity in free agency, but you won't see him reach for a guard at 16 in this draft.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:48 PM
I don't know enough about him to judge, but I do know, typically that is high for a guard. That is just the general sense. IBut hell yeah I wish we had Faneca, Pittsburgh wouldn't have won the Super Bowl without him. If he is projected to be that good then it is probably not a reach. Would you take him over Justice ?

I think a lot of it depends on where Saban and Houck think Vernon Carey is going to play. Do they think he'll play RT? If so, then he - MGJ - becomes more of an option. Do they see Carey at RG? If that's the case, then Justice for sure is the option.

Personally I'd take Justice over the two, but I'd have no problems with either.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 03:50 PM
When or where did I say he was?

Please point that out to me.

You used him in the context of defending a decision to draft Jean Giles, and the point was you didn't have to use a top 16 pick to get Faneca, I believe he was drafted at 24-26 or thereabouts.

LIQUID24
02-09-2006, 03:50 PM
I'm not saying that's what they'll do and I absolutely agree that the best value on guards is in later rounds. Like you say it's the value that Nick places on them that counts. Remmeber, we run a lot up the gut. We've struggled to get great push off the ball the last couple of years as James hasn't fulfilled the calibre he showed in Carolina and Hadnot has been inconsistent, coupled with the mediocrity of McKinney.

We'll see how it plays out.

All true. Is there any chance he falls to our 2nd rounder? I wouldn't mind taking him there.:D

Boomer
02-09-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't know enough about him to judge, but I do know, typically that is high for a guard. That is just the general sense. IBut hell yeah I wish we had Faneca, Pittsburgh wouldn't have won the Super Bowl without him. If he is projected to be that good then it is probably not a reach. Would you take him over Justice ?

I think a lot of it depends on where Saban and Houck think Vernon Carey is going to play. Do they think he'll play RT? If so, then he - MGJ - becomes more of an option. Do they see Carey at RG? If that's the case, then Justice for sure is the option.

Personally I'd take Justice over the two, but I'd have no problems with either.

LIQUID24
02-09-2006, 03:51 PM
Edit double post.

SWS84
02-09-2006, 04:06 PM
Hi Steve, yep we're all good. Hope college is going well?


Listen, I still bemoan the fact that we didn't draft Alan Faneca when we had the chance. MJG might not be as good as Faneca, but he's performed consistently well in the best conference in college football at a variety of positions. Sometimes you've just got to pull the trigger on the guys you just know are going to be players. For sure he's in my top 10 of guys we are looking at at 16. Whoever drafts him is going to have a hell of a player.



Thanks Simon,

I'm hanging in there. This is my last semester at Valencia Community College and then I should start going to UCF in the fall. Thanks for the input about drafting strategies. I'm no expert, but this type of thinking makes sense to me. I would rather play it safe with a known productive player than take a chance on a guy based on his potential and have him flop. I don't agree with some saying OG's are easy to find. If that were the case, our running backs would run the ball right up the middle instead of having to run towards the edge around the D-line.

Steve

Boomer
02-09-2006, 04:17 PM
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black there MR. draft guru.

I've been watching drafts a lot longer than you have, and it is fact that guards are de-valued in the top half of round one because of the position they play. I happen to be friends with an ex-NFL head coach of 9 years.

We'll see come April if Jean Giles is a top 16 pick, and again, I challenge you to go back in previous drafts and count the number of guards that went in the top 16 picks.

None of these points are even remotely relevent. But well done for continuing to prove your lack of any knowledge on the point of a draft board. I could care less if Joan of Arc was your mum, it still has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to show me the point about Faneca.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 04:19 PM
You used him in the context of defending a decision to draft Jean Giles, and the point was you didn't have to use a top 16 pick to get Faneca, I believe he was drafted at 24-26 or thereabouts.

So at which point did I say he was a top 16 pick?

Or did you just get that wrong as well?

Philter25
02-09-2006, 04:21 PM
I have much more of a clue about this than you do my Canadien friend, because it is a fact that NFL GM's know that guards are easier to find than other positions, it is an easier position to play on the line than the other line positions....that is a fact, and all your rhetoric doesn't change those facts.

Its about value, you simply don't use a top 20 pick on a guard, unless its an extremely rare guard, and there aren't impact players at other positions availalble, that WILL not be the case in this draft.

There are impact players at DB, LB, OT, and maybe even QB that will be available that you DON'T draft a Jean Jiles over.

What pick did we take Carey at? Also, didnt Philly trade UP to take Shawn Andrews, who right now is playing RG.

I wouldnt be upset if we took MJG at #16. If he is rated high on our draft board and all the guys before him are taken, then so be it.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 04:32 PM
What pick did we take Carey at? Also, didnt Philly trade UP to take Shawn Andrews, who right now is playing RG.

I wouldnt be upset if we took MJG at #16. If he is rated high on our draft board and all the guys before him are taken, then so be it.

Both Carey and Andrews were drafted as tackles, that is what is relevent, they were not drafted to play guard per say.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 04:38 PM
Lets have a look at G's in say the top 20 over the last 20 years. There have been 20, including 8 in the top 10. Even in the past 10 years, we've had Ruben Brown at 14, Chris Naeole at 10 to the Saints, Damien Woody at 17 to the Pats, Matt Stinchcomb at 18 and Steve Hutchinson at 17.

So it's hardly a rarity.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 04:40 PM
All true. Is there any chance he falls to our 2nd rounder? I wouldn't mind taking him there.:D

Now that would be nice :D

Don't see it though. That said, I thought Eric Steinbach was a top 15 pick and he ended up at 33 a couple of years ago. Now he's playing at a Pro Bowl level next to Levi Jones for the Bengals. And of course he's a guy that Miami tried to trade up and get but failed.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 04:40 PM
None of these points are even remotely relevent. But well done for continuing to prove your lack of any knowledge on the point of a draft board. I could care less if Joan of Arc was your mum, it still has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to show me the point about Faneca.

Excuse Mr. BBC reporter, or whatever you are.....self proclaimed draft guru.

My friend coached in the NFL for over 20 years, including head coaching for 9, I'd say his opinion of how an NFL team views the guard position is a little more relevent than a messageboard draft guru from England. He happens to know Nick Saban very well and was in his lockerroom this season.

What I'm saying is true regarding how teams view the top half of round one regarding drafting guards, whether you agree or not.

The fact is, unless the guard is a really really special player, he will not get drafted in the top 16 picks.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 04:47 PM
Lets have a look at G's in say the top 20 over the last 20 years. There have been 20, including 8 in the top 10. Even in the past 10 years, we've had Ruben Brown at 14, Chris Naeole at 10 to the Saints, Damien Woody at 17 to the Pats, Matt Stinchcomb at 18 and Steve Hutchinson at 17.

So it's hardly a rarity.

Top half of round one.......which is top 16, used to be top 15 and top 14 before that, 3 out of the last 5 you named don't even fit the criteria I was referring too.

This discussion was about the 16th pick Boomer.

Wasn't Damien Woody a center coming out of college?

And compare how many tackles were drafted in that time.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 04:48 PM
Excuse Mr. BBC reporter, or whatever you are.....self proclaimed draft guru.

My friend coached in the NFL for over 20 years, including head coaching for 9, I'd say his opinion of how an NFL team views the guard position is a little more relevent than a messageboard draft guru from England. He happens to know Nick Saban very well and was in his lockerroom this season.

What I'm saying is true regarding how teams view the top half of round one regarding drafting guards, whether you agree or not.

The fact is, unless the guard is a really really special player, he will not get drafted in the top 16 picks.

Point 1: I'm not a BBC Reporter.

Point 2: I have no good idea why where I work is relevant to ANYTHING, most of all this argument, other than to highlight how childish you are, trailing me round endlessly on these forums and slagging me off. And yet doubtless dining out on some of the information I've passed over the years.

Point 3: Not sure where I said I was a 'draft guru'. In fact I know I haven't said it.

Point 4: The fact that your imaginary friend was in Nick Saban's locker room might make great fodder when you're out drinking moonshine with your buddies, suffice to say that I'm not sure how this gives him the inside track on how Saban stacks his draft board.

Point 5: The fact I'm from England is relevant how? Exactly?

Point 6: Chris Naeole strike you as a really special player?

Point 7: Remind me again how you know that Saban doesn't view Jean Gilles as a special player?

Point 8: It claims that you are 43 years old. You're either a very jealous person, still immature or just a fool. I can't work out which. The fact that you like to throw in my job and my country of origin whenever we have a conversation cracks me up. You float in here giving guarantees that you know what the Dolphins will do as if you're the ghost of Joel Buchsbaum and yet you summarily fail to take on board any of the points made, but continue to bleat on that you know a headcoach.

Point 9: The act is getting very dull indeed.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 04:51 PM
Top half of round one.......which is top 16, used to be top 15 and top 14 before that, 3 out of the last 5 you named don't even fit the criteria I was referring too.

This discussion was about the 16th pick Boomer.

Wasn't Damien Woody a center coming out of college?

And compare how many tackles were drafted in that time.

Funny because I set the criteria. Interesting that you made the discussion about the 16th pick, then used Faneca as a rod to beat me with when he was drafted 26.

Woody was a G.

Tackle is a far more important position. It's not part of the discussion.

Philter25
02-09-2006, 04:53 PM
Both Carey and Andrews were drafted as tackles, that is what is relevent, they were not drafted to play guard per say. Well didnt they both play OG? Andrews STILL plays OG. At least Carey moved to RT, so I can let that one slide. However Andrews was Philly's starting RG this entire season IIRC. I dont care if he was drafted as a PK, he went into training camp as an OG and he is playing OG.

Heck, a guy can be drafted as a C but if he plays OG in his first year, then he is an OG.

I agree with you that you USUALLY dont draft an OG that high, however if a team feels that a potential stud OG is on the board and we have a hole at OG and he is rated highest on their draft board, you take that player.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Funny because I set the criteria. Interesting that you made the discussion about the 16th pick, then used Faneca as a rod to beat me with when he was drafted 26.

Woody was a G.

Tackle is a far more important position. It's not part of the discussion.

You set the criteria? It started with you suggesting Jean Giles would make a great 16th pick, the criteria has always revolved around the 16th pick, not the expanded view you took to try make your vain point.

Actually old boy, Woody was a center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Woody

Tackle is a part of the discussion in that we would be passing up more valuable tackles to draft your less valuable guard.

Oh, and my imaginary friend is Wayne Fontes, come to Tampa Bay and I'll introduce you.

BlueFin
02-09-2006, 06:29 PM
Well didnt they both play OG? Andrews STILL plays OG. At least Carey moved to RT, so I can let that one slide. However Andrews was Philly's starting RG this entire season IIRC. I dont care if he was drafted as a PK, he went into training camp as an OG and he is playing OG.

Heck, a guy can be drafted as a C but if he plays OG in his first year, then he is an OG.

I agree with you that you USUALLY dont draft an OG that high, however if a team feels that a potential stud OG is on the board and we have a hole at OG and he is rated highest on their draft board, you take that player.

Philter, all I'm saying is originally their draft position was based on them being tackles, in both of their cases right tackles. What happens after is not relevent to how highly they were drafted to play tackle.

Also, my point was, in this particular draft, there are too many impact players at other positions to consider drafting a guard at 16.

Boomer
02-09-2006, 07:02 PM
You set the criteria? It started with you suggesting Jean Giles would make a great 16th pick, the criteria has always revolved around the 16th pick, not the expanded view you took to try make your vain point.

Actually old boy, Woody was a center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Woody

Tackle is a part of the discussion in that we would be passing up more valuable tackles to draft your less valuable guard.

Oh, and my imaginary friend is Wayne Fontes, come to Tampa Bay and I'll introduce you.

He still would make an excellent 16th pick regardless of what you think.

Actually if you watched any BC football when Woody was playing, you'd know that he flip flopped positions his last 2 seasons. But then I wouldn't expect you to notice that.

Who's the more valuable tackle? Winston? McNeil? Winston off the mediocre year, still troubled by the knee, McNeil with the back issues?

Next.

Wayne Fontes. A man who knows so much about Saban's draft policy. 1-4 in the playoffs and an overall losing record.

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Great job on answering all the other questions.

NOT.