Zolak excited about Crable, thinks he can contribute immediately - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

NYCPatsFan · 07-10-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 363839

You should have seen Belichick play.

LOL!!

10 char...

BradyManny · 07-10-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradmahn

There are a lot of ass-holes -- err, I mean opinions, in this thread that are relying heavily on assumptions, or simply ignorance.

Assumption one: Crable can't contribute (or contribute effectively) unless he thickens his legs.

Why not wait until he's at least wearing pads before proclaiming this? His leg strength could be perfectly suitable for him to have an impact this year.

Assumption two: the praise of Woods in the post-draft presser. This means very little other than that BB feels Woods has/had talent/potential (but he wouldn't be on the team if BB didn't feel that way). One can also speculate that Belichick isn't too fond of the program up in Michigan.

Assumption three: Woods's production (or lack thereof) in the past is predictive of what he will do in the future. It's his third year in the NFL after not playing very much his senior year in college. On top of that (or as a result of that), he was an UDFA. These players are undrafted because they either have red flags, suck, or need development. Woods needed development, undoubtedly. This does not mean that what we have seen from Woods is all we will get. He has the potential to be a solid back up/nickel rusher. Forgive us if we feel he could show that this year. Playing time is earned in training camp and preseason, not by what players did or did not do last year.

And patsgo, Mike Reiss never played in the NFL, does that mean his opinion is worthless?

I'd bank on Zo having been at the minicamps this past spring, that's significantly more exposure than you or I have experienced. His opinion should not be dismissed purely based on cynicism.

Good points all around. Specifically in reference to Crable, I remember the scouting reports citing his skinny legs and suggesting he didn't have the "sand in his pants" to be a force in stopping the run - but a) that's contradicted by his production and stops for losses last season b) barring injuries, we wouldn't be asking him to do that this season anyway.

Ochmed Jones · 07-10-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

Good points all around. Specifically in reference to Crable, I remember the scouting reports citing his skinny legs and suggesting he didn't have the "sand in his pants" to be a force in stopping the run - but a) that's contradicted by his production and stops for losses last season b) barring injuries, we wouldn't be asking him to do that this season anyway.

If Crable played ILB then the lack of sand in his pants would be a huge liability, however on the outside he can make lots of plays and tackles in pursuit.

Only by watching film can you truly learn if a guy's stats are legit.

However I think you are correct, barring injuries, I also do not think see that many snaps in the base defense this season.

Of all the rookies, I think Wheatley will get the most snaps next season if he stays healthy and especially if Hobbs is not healed by the start of the year. If Hobbs is ready to go by day one, then the competition between Wheatley and Merriweather for sub package snaps should be very interesting.

***AndyJohnson*** · 07-10-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsgo

thats the problem with the majority of prople on this forum, they belive and read everything the media says, and posts almost everything the media says, my point was most dont know anything so dont take it as gospel what they say, especially zolak, who has no inside knowledge of a belichick run defense, i guess i just should belive everything, would that make you guys happy/

When you and Scott Zolak look at a football player and draw an opinion, he knows an awful lot more than you do.

patsgo · 07-10-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

When you and Scott Zolak look at a football player and draw an opinion, he knows an awful lot more than you do.

if zolak is such a talent evaluater why isnt he working in a nfl teams personell dept.???? im not the one making outlandish statements that a 3rd round draft pick is going to be a impact player in his rookie year, knowing how belichick doesnt play rookies that often i highly doubt it, thats my opinion, zolak was a bad q b in the nfl, all im saying what he says shouldnt always be believed, if you want to believe everything he says and accept that as gospel, good for you im not buying it

***fgssand*** · 07-10-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsgo

first im not your buddy, i have a right to question what Zolak really knows, and if his opinion is creditable, if you have a problem , just go away, you seem to have a problem mr. belichick fan of anybody who disagrees eith you, i suggest some anger management courses for yourself

Stop it....my head hurts. Back down and admit that your trying to discredit a guy that made it to the NFL, starred in college and has been around football all his life IS way off base. He is indeed qualified, much more so than most/all of us here and in the media, to make assessments about potential of a new draft choice.

He has prolly forgot more than we'll ever know about the game.

jays52 · 07-10-2008, 02:03 PM

You have to admit that not only does Zolak know more about football than patsgo, he in all likelyhood has a much firmer grasp on the concept of comma usage.

Patsgo, if you disagree with Zolak so much, would you care to validate that opinion? Why? I am curious as to your evaluation.

signbabybrady · 07-10-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsgo

if zolak is such a talent evaluater why isnt he working in a nfl teams personell dept.????

could it maybe be that his cushy gig on TV pays about the same probably more for less work.

How does anyone even get the job if the only people qualified to evaluate talent are working in a personell dept.?