I don't think that's necessarily true. He's a pretty outstanding athlete, and 98% of 34 OLBs in the NFL were college DEs. There's no reason that he can't drop off to 34 OLB full time and be successful. That said, it's kind of a moot argument because a great majority of the 34s in the league utilize the rush LB dropping his hand down. In our monster hybrid defense, Quinn would line up weakside and pretty much never have any man coverage responsibilities, all he'd have to worry about is the flat to his side, and that's only on the rare occasions he's not blitzing. Someone with Quinn's athleticism should have no problem making that minor adjustment to his game.
If Nick Saban was after Quinn hot & heavy for his prized Jack LB position a few years ago, I'm inclined to believe he had the athleticism to transition there full on...
It seems there are small insecure people on every board that are wrong so frequently they are desperate to be right that they grasp at any aspect of someone else's post to be correct even when they make a fool of themselves in the process. Then they prove how minute their testicles are by their need to insult those they feel are intellectually superior to them. Here Mr E. is the perfect proof. No one compared Gholston to Ayers in the gym, except him. When it was brought up, no one claimed Ayers was a workout warrior, yet that is Mr E's desperate attempt to be right about something. His original arguement for drafting Ayers was for the pass rush. So was the arguement (admittedly not his) for drafting Gholston. When pointed out that Ayers is likely too slow and not strong enough to generate a dominant pass rush, Mr E shifts to Ayers ability to pass cover. Hello, we don't need a #1 pick OLB to cover TE/RBs on passes. We need an OLB who can consistantly get to the QB. Ayers is not that player. Its even questionable if Ayers would be an improvement over Bryan Thomas. The only comparison I ever made between Gholston and Ayers was that they would both be considered failures at providing the pass rush. Gholston is a known. Ayers, right now, is supposition. Without a second round pick, Ayers is a gamble I don't think the Jets should indulge in. Mr E. please continue to post. I need more laughs in my day.
...proof that there's a god, and that god is me. Akeem Ayers is NOTHING like Vernon Gholston. It's a shitty comparison. If you think he'll be a bust, that's fine...but don't compare him to a completely different style of player. I didn't have an "original" argument. It was just stupid to compare two very different players. I "shifted" to Ayers' pass coverage because it's shows he's absolutely nothing like Vernon Gholston. This team needs to get younger in certain areas. Outside linebacker is one of those spots - bringing in a some young blood to replace mediocre-at-best talents like Pace and Thomas is much more important than you seem to think. "Ayers is Vernon Gholston Part 2" Vernon Gholston's a known? I guess that means everyone knows that he sucks. Every single player in this draft is a "supposition" ...every prospect the Jets choose is a gamble. Let me bring this garbage back into the equation: 1. The PAC-10 is most definitely not one of the weakest conference. Strike 1. 2. Jamaal Westerman is most definitely not talented enough to start. Strike 2. 3. Sione Pouha is arguably the most underrated player on our defense. Strike 3. Bart Scott plays a specific role in Rex Ryan's scheme. He's like a fullback on defense. You don't seem to understand that he's taking on blockers on purpose. It's his job to free up David Harris, just like it was his job in Baltimore to free up Ray Lewis. Sione Pouha is so incredibly underrated. Yea, let's replace that nose tackle that anchored our top tier run defense. I'll use one of your crappy sayings here: Pouha is known. Taylor and Paea are just suppositions. This makes me laugh: Good day, peasant.
Mr E I have no intention of getting into a pissing contest with or anyone else. I've been down that road before and only a very sick individual with extremely low self esteme enjoys it. Unfortunately for you I don't fit either criteria. You may think you proved something, but you have yet to provide facts. You believe your opinions are facts. They aren't. I believe the PAC10 is among the weaker conferences. That is an opinion. An opinion based on the fact they routinely get humilitated by the SEC, ACC, SWC and Big10. You have the opinion Westerman is not talented enough to start and call it a fact. Yet Bart Scott and Bob Sutton have both been quoted in articles stating the exact opposite opinion. Who's opinion do we trust more: a teammate and coach who see JW on a daily basis or a legend in his own mind who watches games on TV and plays Madden? Calling Pouha the most under rated player on our defense a fact is again a huge reach. The entire defense changes to cater to Pouha. When Jenkins played he did not need Scott or a Safety on every play. When Sione plays, he takes one man out of the spread to watch his back. He is an adequate hold the fort guy at best. Mr E its not my fault you can't find the forest because of all those pesky trees blocking your view. This is my last post to you since you don't deserve give and take. Have a nice life and I hope you lose your virginity soon.
I stopped reading when you claimed the ACC is better than the PAC-10. ...and what the hell is the SWC? It's always funny to see someone back up "facts" ... Bart Scott has played the exact same role in this defense since he's been here. It doesn't matter who's lining up at nose tackle. Scott's a battering ram - it's his job to take on lead blockers. It has nothing to do with Sione Pouha. ...and if you honestly think it's a safety's job to back up a nose tackle, then you know less about football than I originally thought.
Because some people don't accept provable facts and think their opinions are facts I decided to provide proof. In this case I claimed the ACC was a tougher football conference than the PAC10. In forming my opinion I based this on the level of competition starting with the fact that most every ACC school plays at least one or two SEC schools as non conference games as well as the number of teams from both the ACC and PAC to reach the final top 25. PAC ACC 2010 Ore VATech Stan FSU Maryland NCState 2009 Ore VaTech GaTech Clem Miami 2008 USC VaTech Ore FSU OreSt GaTech 2007 USC VaTech ArizSt BC Ore Clem 2006 USC Wake Ore St VaTech BC 2005 USC VaTech Ore Miami UCLA BC Clem FSU 2004 USC VaTech ArizSt Miami FSU BC 2003 USC Miami WashSt FSU Maryland Clem Clearly the level of competition for the conference is higher in the ACC.
i live in acc country, and i can tell you that the acc is easily the worst conferrence of the big six conferences and has been for quite a few years now ... using how many teams are ranked at the end of the season is flawed because 1) the acc has more teams, and 2) there is always an east coast bias in rankings becasue a lot of voters do not actually watch those late west coast games (in both football and basketball) you explicitly called ayers gholston part 2, then tried to redefine what is means to call someone that ... youre reaching now, jonky
I do believe Ayers will be Gholston part 2 and I never redefined anything. I explained why I did when someone tried to put words in my mouth. As for calling the ACC the worst of the six conferenses because it has more teams is beyond ludicrous. As I said they annually place more teams in the top 25, they have greater strength of schedule and they have a superior head to head recoed in bowl games. LOL East Coast bias. Beyond absurd. If anything east coast writers see more west coast games then the other way around. Which seems more likely a west coast writer getting up early to see a game or an east coast writer watching during prime time? Thats why the NFL calls Sunday and Monday NIGHT games prime! This statement alone tells me what type of poster you are!
you suck at reading comprehension i said the reason that they have more teams in the top 25 is because they have more teams in their conferece than the pac 10 ... and just because a few teams play a few sec schools (not even the good ones), doesnt mean that the entire conference has a higher strength of schedule i was referring to the local primetime west coast games, which would be anywhere from 9-11 pm eastern kickoff ... thats not even considering their reg start time games that have to compete with the east coast primetime games
Lets see you think the reason the ACC annually has more teams in the top 25 is because it has two more teams in the conference. The fact that all teams played 11 or 12 games and the ACC opponants had a tougher schedule means nothing. Thats interesting and the type of logic I would expect from Me Insult. I'm so glad you've adapted his style. My reading comprehension sucks because I couldn't interpret things you didn't say or write, but I should have known that anyway. LOL. Lets see: so you expect us to believe a person that makes his living solely watching and reporting on college football games wont stay up on a Saturday night to watch a game. RIGHT! Pig headed illogical arguements lead by insults and totally intolerant of anyone that proves you wrong. Who do you remind me of?
The ACC is 2-11 in BCS bowls. 5 out 12 schools have played in these games - less than half has participated in a BCS bowl. The Pac-10 is 9-5 in BCS bowls. 7 out of 10 schools have played in these games - 70% of that league in a BCS bowl. What's the better conference now? I've proven you wrong multiple times in the past few days and you've disappeared every time. Who do you remind me of? This guy:
the point is that your argument is a manipulation of stats ... if you were trying to make a legit point, you wouldve used the percentage of teams that are ranked whats so hard to interpret about this statement? ... glass house
Like when you said Akeem Ayers was Vernon Gholston part 2 and expected us to know you meant because only he'd be a bust and an ineffective passrusher, and not based on an actual comparison of the two players overall skills?
Actually it originated in a different thread and I didn't expect anyone to know why I said it until I explained it. I don't expect anyone to know what I'm thinking without sharing those thoughts. I'm not the poster that accused anyone else of having difficulty with reading comprehension. I'm not the poster that insults others when they dare to disagree. Shame on me for having and expressing my opinions and actually following the posting guidelines.
