Random Dorian O’Daniel thread...

[htismaqe]

So I’ve been stuck in a hotel all week for work and last night ESPNU was replaying the 2017 Syracuse upset over Clemson. Fun to see Mark Fields be Mark Fields but the guy I was really watching was Dorian O’Daniel.

I know it was only one game but the guy essentially played wide DE the entire game. He rushed the passer more than Clelland Ferrell and Ferrell was constantly dropping into zone while DOD was blitzing from the opposite side.

We all assumed the guy was going to play that hybrid LB/S role due to his speed but he really struggled last year in pass coverage and now he’s having trouble getting on the field at all. I watched that game and couldn’t help but ask myself “why did they draft this guy?”

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I think you're reading too much into one game, DOD was slated as a good tackling, good coverage LB that we picked up right when we cut DJ, he wasn't known as a pass rusher and we didn't draft him to have anything to do with pass rush.

O'Daniel was ST ace with Clemson too

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

I get part of being a great GM is being able to re-invent the wheel before everybody else gets a new wheel. If you're not inventing a trend, you damn well be in on the early stages or else you run the risk of fielding a team of largely unremarkable players that just can't seem to come together and be consistently successful.

But... good God, Brett. I'm glad you saw what you ****ed up on in 2018 and tended to make corrections in 2019, but what the HELL were you thinking with some of these picks?! Trading up in the 2nd round to take a DE that you originally wanted to move to rushbacker when most of his experience in high school and early college was as a NT? At least Dorian O'Daniel had some impressive speed and agility measurables that you hoped the coaches could work with.

That's fine if you want to draft athletes to play at different positions in the NFL. Take those guys in the mid to late rounds. For ****'s sake though... don't **** up your first three rounds by taking these tweeners who don't play one true position because they can just "play anywhere!" You STILL even in this day and age need good traditional LBs, DL, and DBs. Just ****ing take those guys with your first 3 rounds. Leave your pet projects be until much ****ing later.

And no, Mahomes doesn't count. Nobody ever thought Mahomes could or would play any other position in the NFL. He was a QB in college and he was going to be a QB in the NFL. You couldn't say the same for O'Daniel or Speaks.

This is one of my big issues with Veach. Just think about him drafting Thornhill and signing Matheiu. One of the big reasons I recall for getting them is "they could play CB!" I couldn't care less about that. How about you get me some REAL CBs that can actually play the position and stop using "versatility" as an excuse to ignore positions that SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BUT NEVER ARE!

I just get the feeling that Veach is going to end up vastly overrated because Mahomes.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I think you're reading too much into one game, DOD was slated as a good tackling, good coverage LB that we picked up right when we cut DJ, he wasn't known as a pass rusher and we didn't draft him to have anything to do with pass rush.

He was lost in pass coverage last year and now he can’t even crack the two deep.

[scho63]

Originally Posted by TinyEvel

Is that Boomer Grigsby and Jared Allen?

They look like 2 scary "bears"

[scho63]

Is Dorian doing special teams? Lot's of guys who don't break into the starting lineup stay by doing well on special teams.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by scho63

Is Dorian doing special teams? Lot's of guys who don't break into the starting lineup stay by doing well on special teams.

He was a 3rd round pick. You’d hope he could do more than that.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

He was lost in pass coverage last year and now he can’t even crack the two deep.

I agree, he had some good plays last year but he definitely looked lost at times. I'm not saying he's amazing coverage guy, I'm saying he was drafted in the hope he could be. He had plenty of PBUs and a couple INTs in college.

I mean, you have to remember as well if he was definitely going to be great he wouldn't have been there at pick 100.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I agree, he had some good plays last year but he definitely looked lost at times. I'm not saying he's amazing coverage guy, I'm saying he was drafted in the hope he could be. He had plenty of PBUs and a couple INTs in college.

I mean, you have to remember as well if he was definitely going to be great he wouldn't have been there at pick 100.

Like I said, it was only one game but to me, he looks like another guy that was drafted for what he might do, not what he actually could do. If Veach is going to be successful, he’s going to have to stop that. This year’s draft looked much better but last year’s draft looks like one of the worst in recent memory at this point.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Like I said, it was only one game but to me, he looks like another guy that was drafted for what he might do, not what he actually could do. If Veach is going to be successful, he’s going to have to stop that. This year’s draft looked much better but last year’s draft looks like one of the worst in recent memory at this point.

Drafting for floors vs. ceilings is always an interesting debate. I'm happier taking guys who might have a higher ceiling the later the round is. Stick to high floor guys in the first 2 rounds, in my opinion.

I would also point out that we were trotting out Terrence Smith for meaningful snaps at this time last year, so the LB core looks a lot improved and the bank hasn't been broken. Seems like success by Veach, even if DOD is a bust in the end?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chargem

Drafting for floors vs. ceilings is always an interesting debate. I'm happier taking guys who might have a higher ceiling the later the round is. Stick to high floor guys in the first 2 rounds, in my opinion.

I would also point out that we were trotting out Terrence Smith for meaningful snaps at this time last year, so the LB core looks a lot improved and the bank hasn't been broken. Seems like success by Veach, even if DOD is a bust in the end?

I think it’s always a balancing act - ideally you want guys with both high floors and high ceilings but last year Veach seemed to be only focused on the latter. Watts has been injured, just like we thought he would be. Speaks has been played everywhere but where he actually has experience. O’Daniel is non-existent. Smith was actually a decent returner but since he has no further utility, he’s now gone. And then there’s Mackenzie.

[FAX]

I should like to present a kind of "devil's advocate" idea ... and, in defense of my sanity, please be advised that I currently have Veach at Minus 394 (-394) in total Veach Power Points (and that includes Mahomes).

Here's the concept, though; when your choices at any given point in the draft (when you're on the clock) are limited to guys you may or may not absolutely love, doesn't it make sense to draft the best overall athlete? At least you can hope to develop the player as you get him into the system and exposed to good coaching (and training).

One of the things that "I think is true" about Veach is that he consults closely with the coaches as he works the draft and free agency. I also tend to think his relationship with Spaggyboots is better than his past relationship with Sutton (at least, that's my clear impression).

In the olden days, the Chiefs had a terrible record of developing players. Either a guy came in "ready to play" or "self-motivated" or they washed out. This happened over and over for years (decades, really). At this point, we have a coaching staff with an established track record of bringing guys along. Surely, that should be a consideration. You select an outstanding athlete and teach him how to maximize his gifts. Of course, it doesn't always work, but when your options (during the draft) are limited due to lack of draft capital, that kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Of course, I'm no draftabulator.

FAX

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I think it’s always a balancing act - ideally you want guys with both high floors and high ceilings but last year Veach seemed to be only focused on the latter. Watts has been injured, just like we thought he would be. Speaks has been played everywhere but where he actually has experience. O’Daniel is non-existent. Smith was actually a decent returner but since he has no further utility, he’s now gone. And then there’s Mackenzie.

I agree it's shaping up to be a pretty poor draft, but guys with high floors and high ceilings are called first rounders. You at some point have to pick your poison. I can't think of any guys who were drafted after DOD who have proven to be much better in retrospect, never mind at the time?

The Breeland Speaks pick is the black mark for me, but I'm still not too harsh on it. I've posted before about the specific circumstances which make it not seem as bad in context (Ford being constantly injured and likely only still being on the team because his salary was guaranteed for injury, Houston being injured a lot, Kpass not playing any meaningful snaps in a game at that point). I don't really remember any pass rushers that were options to take at that pick instead, but boy there sure were a lot of non pass rushing players I wish they had taken in retrospect. It was a mistake made staring down the barrel of a season of Zombo playing meaningful snaps.

Originally Posted by FAX

I should like to present a kind of "devil's advocate" idea ... and, in defense of my sanity, please be advised that I currently have Veach at Minus 394 (-394) in total Veach Power Points (and that includes Mahomes).

Here's the concept, though; when your choices at any given point in the draft (when you're on the clock) are limited to guys you may or may not absolutely love, doesn't it make sense to draft the best overall athlete? At least you can hope to develop the player as you get him into the system and exposed to good coaching (and training).

One of the things that "I think is true" about Veach is that he consults closely with the coaches as he works the draft and free agency. I also tend to think his relationship with Spaggyboots is better than his past relationship with Sutton (at least, that's my clear impression).

In the olden days, the Chiefs had a terrible record of developing players. Either a guy came in "ready to play" or "self-motivated" or they washed out. This happened over and over for years (decades, really). At this point, we have a coaching staff with an established track record of bringing guys along. Surely, that should be a consideration. You select an outstanding athlete and teach him how to maximize his gifts. Of course, it doesn't always work, but when your options (during the draft) are limited due to lack of draft capital, that kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Of course, I'm no draftabulator.

FAX

I really disagree with this philosophy. I think production is far better indicator of future success than athleticism. I also don't think it makes any sense to think you can find great athletes and teach them football but you don't think you can find great football players and teach them to be better athletes.