- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Daniel Jeremiah: "Based on what I've heard, Will Fuller will be 1st WR drafted".
Posted on 4/7/16 at 11:01 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
Posted on 4/7/16 at 11:01 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
And was a dominant WR, against several NFL caliber corners.
This is the argument I have. He put up GREAT stats against zone defenses, small schools, and bad defenses. Against those top CBs in the SEC he would only get a few catches. Every now and then he would break one or get a TD; but he definitely struggled.
If we were drafting in the late 20s and Coleman & Docston were already off the board I think he would be a goodvalue pick. At 12, I think there will be a handful of other players that the team will get more value from.
0
Posted on 4/7/16 at 1:52 pm to L.A.
quote:
nobody is saying that Treadwell won't be a good pro. The discussion is about WHERE you draft him. Late in round 1 he's a good value. At #12 where the Saints select, he isn't.
I hate this time of year.... Everyone just regurgitates the same shite they hear on ESPN and NFL network without seeing any of these dudes play...
IDGAF about measurables, Treadwell is a beast and will make the pro bowl by his third year
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:26 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:
Treadwell will make the pro bowl by his third year if he gets to play opposite a true #1
FIFY
He had a decent game against Bama, struggled against FL & Miss St, and outside of the TD struggled against LSU. For the most part, when facing good defenses, he 4/5 receptions, 50 yards & 1/2 TD. Against everyone else he averaged 7 receptions, 105 yds, & 1 TD.
I watched the Bama, LSU & most of the UF game; he was more of an after thought in those games and was often shutdown in 1-on-1 coverage.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:46 pm to Weekend Warrior79
I hate to use him as an example again, because they are two different WRs, and I'm also not a huge Treadwell fan- But, looking at OBJ's gamelog from his last year at LSU:
The only games he scored at least one TD and/or broke 100 yards: TCU (finished 4-8),UAB, Kentucky, UGA (finished 8-5), Mississippi State (finished 7-6), Furman. Against everyone else (Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Bama, A&M, Arkansas, Iowa) he averaged 3.3 receptions, 46 yards, and 0 TDs.
My point isn't to make a case for Treadwell at 12. I'm just trying to add more substance the debate, and play devil's advocate.
The only games he scored at least one TD and/or broke 100 yards: TCU (finished 4-8),UAB, Kentucky, UGA (finished 8-5), Mississippi State (finished 7-6), Furman. Against everyone else (Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Bama, A&M, Arkansas, Iowa) he averaged 3.3 receptions, 46 yards, and 0 TDs.
My point isn't to make a case for Treadwell at 12. I'm just trying to add more substance the debate, and play devil's advocate.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:47 pm to Weekend Warrior79
Over-analyze all you want.. I want Treadwell, and would be happy with him as the twelfth pick
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:48 pm to mm2316
Thanks mm, solid post.. While you may not agree with me, you gave me the example that I just couldn't put together while on the can at work 
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:54 pm to Mr. Hangover
While I favor defense at 12, I would still be ecstatic with Treadwell at that spot. I think he's the perfect WR to compliment Cooks, and they would be one of the top WR duos in the league before long.
You want players that can help you win, and Treadwell can do that. No denying our offense was very good last year, but with Treadwell, I think we could be much more efficient, especially early in games where we can avoid outings like the ones against Philly, Houston and the first Tampa game last season.
You want players that can help you win, and Treadwell can do that. No denying our offense was very good last year, but with Treadwell, I think we could be much more efficient, especially early in games where we can avoid outings like the ones against Philly, Houston and the first Tampa game last season.
This post was edited on 4/7/16 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:54 pm to Mr. Hangover
No problem. I always enjoy a good debate, even sometimes playing both sides of the coin, as long as it doesn't get personal. Especially over what draft pick another fan likes better.
Out of my realistic options at 12 (assuming Buckner and Jack are long gone), Lawson and Rankins are my top two. There's always a good chance that only one OT (Lunsil), one QB (Goff), and no RB (Elliott), goes top 11, and teams take Lawson and Rankins ahead of us. In that case, I'd be fine with Treadwell or Doctson.
This post was edited on 4/7/16 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:59 pm to mm2316
quote:
Lawson and Rankins are my top two choices at 12. There's always a good chance that only one OT (Lunsil), one QB (Goff), and no RB (Elliott), goes top 11, and teams take Lawson and Rankins ahead of us. In that case, I'd be fine with Treadwell or Doctson.
This is pretty much my exact thought process.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 5:06 pm to mm2316
I like Jones the DT from State more than any of the other tackles listed based solely on game film...
I'm not an underwear warrior guy... Game film does more for me than anything that is measured while not playing
ETA: I also play both sides of the coin IRL because sometimes it gives me a chance to see things from a different perspective which in return offers up a better understanding of the WHOLE situation... And this isn't just football conversations either
And btw, I would be fine with any of the following WRs: Coleman, Treadwell, and Doctson (in no particular order)
I'm not an underwear warrior guy... Game film does more for me than anything that is measured while not playing
ETA: I also play both sides of the coin IRL because sometimes it gives me a chance to see things from a different perspective which in return offers up a better understanding of the WHOLE situation... And this isn't just football conversations either
And btw, I would be fine with any of the following WRs: Coleman, Treadwell, and Doctson (in no particular order)
This post was edited on 4/7/16 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 4/7/16 at 10:22 pm to PurpleDrank18
quote:
Also another counter to the Colston = 7th so Treadwell =! mid-ish 1st argument. If they went back and did a re-draft of 2006, do you think Colston would be taken in the first round by some team. Knowing what you know now, do you think he'd be worth a 1st? If your answer is yes (and it should be), then Treadwell should most definitely be.
Your reasoning here--and I use that word loosely--is beyond flawed. But I don't think anyone is saying Treadwell shouldn't be a 1st rounder, we are just saying he's not good value at 12. For anybody imo, but certainly not for us with the holes on our defense. If we buck the trend and trade back and pick up another 2nd, I wouldn't mind taking him in the 20-25 range. Assuming the other top 2 or 3 WRs are off the board. He may wind up being a very nice player for a long time, but I'm not sure he has a HOF ceiling. Which is what I'd want at number 12. Somebody who could potentially be great, rather than very good.
But back to your ridiculously irrelevant hypothetical about redrafting Colston's draft knowing what we do now, without looking at that draft at all, it wouldn't surprise me if Colston snuck in the back half of the 1st round. But I'd bet almost anything he still wouldn't be number 12.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 10:38 pm to Hot Carl
Doctson and Coleman are the best WR's in this draft for an offense that passes more than average. Treadwell may be a better fit for a run heavy team as he is a great blocker. I've been hoping that we would have a chance to get Doctson in the 2nd (even though we desperately need an OG and two DL), but that's looking less likely to occur.
I've been on the Doctson bandwagon for a while, but didn't know that he was 24 until listening to Patty O's podcast (good job barely speaking bro!). That does knock him down a bit, but he's still the best WR in the draft IMO, and I wouldn't lose my shite if we drafted him at 12. Wouldn't be thrilled, but not upset either.
I've been on the Doctson bandwagon for a while, but didn't know that he was 24 until listening to Patty O's podcast (good job barely speaking bro!). That does knock him down a bit, but he's still the best WR in the draft IMO, and I wouldn't lose my shite if we drafted him at 12. Wouldn't be thrilled, but not upset either.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 10:48 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
Doctson and Coleman are the best WR's in this draft for an offense that passes more than average. Treadwell may be a better fit for a run heavy team as he is a great blocker
This is a great point. With our offense, we'd be basically taking away one of the biggest advantages he has over the other receivers. He seems like a better fit for the Vikings, Steelers, Seahawks, or Packers, all of whom pick in the 20s.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 11:33 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
we are just saying he's not good value at 12. For anybody imo
We'll just disagree then.
quote:
Your reasoning here--and I use that word loosely--is beyond flawed.
Care to elaborate? I think it's fine. If you would have taken a guy like Colston and his career ising himdsight in the first, and a guy like Treadwell projects to be just as good, if not better, does that not mean he warrants a first or mid-first? It's a pretty far conclusion and hypothetical to play IMO.
quote:
without looking at that draft at all, it wouldn't surprise me if Colston snuck in the back half of the 1st round. But I'd bet almost anything he still wouldn't be number 12.
I've gone and looked at it. He's arguably the 2nd best WR out of that class, only behind Brandon Marshall. He'd easily be fighting for a top-20 spot in a re-draft. People just have differing opinions on positions and players so that's where it would vary.
Posted on 4/8/16 at 12:05 am to PurpleDrank18
quote:
We'll just disagree then.
Fair enough.
quote:
Care to elaborate? I think it's fine. If you would have taken a guy like Colston and his career ising himdsight in the first, and a guy like Treadwell projects to be just as good, if not better, does that not mean he warrants a first or mid-first?
No, cause every draft is completely different. You can't compare where someone went 10 years ago to the draft today. There are completely different players, different teams with different needs, picking in different spots. It's all about your value relative to the other players in YOUR draft, no other draft matters at all, unless you're just analyzing trends. Some drafts are deep at QB, others like this year seem to be deep at DT. You just can't reasonably say that since Colston would have gone 1st round in '06 that Treadwell should go #12 in '16. The "logic" is unsound.
Besides, when did we decide that Colston and Treadwell were the same players? They don't seem similar at all to me, really. Colston is 6'4", faster, and seemed to kinda glide. Treadwell is only 6'2", a bit slower, but more physical. I don't see this slam dunk comparison.
quote:
I've gone and looked at it. He's arguably the 2nd best WR out of that class, only behind Brandon Marshall. He'd easily be fighting for a top-20 spot in a re-draft.
Exactly. I concede he'd probably wind up around 20 or so--he had a helluva career. I just still don't think he'd be a good pick at 12 if we redid the draft knowing what we know now. And I think this draft may wind up being better than the '06 one.
quote:
People just have differing opinions on positions and players so that's where it would vary.
No doubt.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News