What mistakes were made in drafting Vern Gholston?

I just put this in the JESTS thread, but one thing that REALLY stood out to me was how drastically his physique had changed.

Coming out, he looked almost like a Body-Builder, he is rather...well, not nearly so cut now.
He had incredible speed coming out as well, and I often stated that was his ONLY tool. He often over persued, and I mentioned on the other site, the way to take that guy out of the play is to run two consequtive plays directly at him, then run a counter against him. He will not have any idea what is going on.

If he still fails with the talent and scheme around him now, he will never make it IMO.

 

I'm not saying the kid was ever juiced, maybe/maybe not. Lots of pressure on kids now adays to get ahead however you can.

The only think I know for certain is his physique is dramatically different, and that really quick surge he had wasnt there against the Gints.

I will certainly be watching more footage of him, if he sees the field anymore that is.

 

You need technique to play in the NFL b/c most everybody has great measureables. When you see a player who in college gets by primarily on athletic ability and uses very little technique then you have a very high bust probability.

That's why I didn't feel that Gholston was worthy of his selection. IMO he was worth a late first rounder due to his potential. But if were in a position to draft him then I would have spoken to him and his coaches and tried to ascertain why he wasn't technically proficient. Did the coaches teach it well? Does he have the desire/ability to take the coaching? Those questions and others of that ilk would have raised or lowered my late first round grade or even taken him off my board.

 

Gholston never really had the heart in Football.

He got into football because you could lift. Gholston is a bodybuilder and does not roid up or rather hasn't tested positive.

At OSU he got by because he was superior athletically and could get by with his explosiveness.


At the PRO level you can't get away with that because your not playing chumps. Now from what I saw still he is just as lost out there as he was his rookie year.


IMO I believe Gholston will take quite some time to develop but if his heart isnt in football then this isnt the sport for him.

 

Parcells acted like he wanted him so the jets HAD to take him... we faked them into a blunder

 

I don't know what your alluding too Zeke but the Jet shot is further away, and different pose while Ohio St shot is High Def, Closer and the shot is concentrating on his upperbody.

Gholston did drop like 20-25 pounds since with the Jets but I'm not 100% if the coaching staff asked him too.

 

Bro, I watched that replay today. The kid has lost LOTS of tone. It is night and day, and I really had a tough time picking him out at first.

 

does Destroying David Carr amount to anything?

He also caught Ahmad Bradshaw from behind.

but he really is a none factor.


btw AZ the reason you have trouble spotting Gholston because he is around other players either bigger or same size as a Gholston. In College he was easy to spot because there might have been 2-3 players that compared to him.

 

I thought Jets moved up because New England was going after him and Tannenbuam diddn't want the Pats to get him.

 

yeah I agree that Gholston was the definition of boom or bust as opposed to Chris Long who was all technique but less raw athletic ability. Gholston had a sack tonight and he's improved from last year but we wont know whether he's boom or bust until next year because he still has a long way to go. Its really up to his willingness to learn and improve and work

 

It's very obvious that's all water weight...ie steroids.
If he were a fatty, then losing that much weight could be possible....but not when you have 3% body fat. Notice he's also not as vascular (veiney) at OSU....clear cut sign of roids, and you're supposed to be getting bigger and stronger in the NFL, not the opposite. LOL. He's smaller bc he quit juicing due to fear of random drug testing with the huge bullseye he had on him coming into the league.

 

Padre, as a Phins fan, I can't say the Jets made any mistakes with that pick. I'm quite happy with the "2nd coming" of Lawrence Taylor so far.

 

Yup Gholston is a roid user from your facts.

 

The mistake, IMO, was they looked to deeply into his measureables. It seems like they didn't care about how good he was technique wise.

 

people disagree but in my book athleticism is more important then technique when you're talking about drafting. i would always draft a better athlete with poor technique over a prospect with great technique but limited athleticism. the key thing when doing that is you have to make sure they are coachable. if they arent you get a bust.

 

Biggest mistake was that they didn't take into account the "makeup". Ireland, Sparano, and Parcells are always talking about to the point its almost cliche, but it still holds true. The players they draft LOVE the game of football. The eat, sleep, and breathe the stuff. Gholston just has always seem disinterested in it. The only reason he got into it was because of the body building aspect. I just don't think football is ever going to be a priority in Gholston's life.

 

Thanks, I know thats tough to admit as an OSU fan.

When Vern was bigger he could bench a Buick, hurdle a mini van, and outrun a Porsche....so I don't think losing weight was a priority considering his other pressing needs. When you stop juicing, you lose the water weight/ puffiness, plain and simple. No one needs to get stoned, eat some shrooms, or drop some acid to hypothesize all the different reasons he shrunk.

Body builders have been linked to steroid use from what I've heard. I know that sounds preposterous, but I'm just sayin.

 

So because Vernon likes to Weight lift and has been doing it his whole life he is a roid user?

Sorry but he has never been linked to Roids so until then you can believe what you want to believe.

 

Keep in mind brother, I have very decisively kept Roids out of the equation. I did mention IF he did it....

The only thing that MIGHTbe an indicator is the veins as it that is indeed a usual sign.

For his own sake, I certainly hope he never used them!

For our sake, I hope he never lives up to his possible potential

 

I sort of agree. A player with freakish like measureables can be coached, and produce. But, It is too risky draft a player like that in the first round. Maybe in the second round or later, but not in the first. I would rather have the sure player like a Jake or Chris Long than Vernon Gholston.

 

I just don't understand the argument.

In College and the pro's your tested ALL THE TIME and not once did he test positive.

His Cousin William Gholston has similar genetics.

Gholston has been lifting since he was a kid so your talking 12-13 years of Weightlifting. Seems like no one wants to give him the benefit of the doubt and discount his hardwork.


I know most people think he juices but like I said hasn't tested positive yet.

I'll just continue to give Gholston the benefit of the doubt.

 

I'm on your side brother, really.

Football players lift TOTALLY different than Body Builders. The only similarity is they are both in the gym.

What bothers me though, is that with his new lifting routine, speed and endurance should be attributes. He shows neither...well, Endurance isnt fair cause he hasnt been on the field enough to measure that.

It could be part of their plan. Strip those pretty muscles and build football muscles and we are seeing the 1/2 way there project....just without the speed.

 

I think like a Jason Allen, he doesnt have the smarts to play in this league.

 

well i would definitely go with Jake Long but I would take Vernon Gholston over a Chris Long if I thought he was coachable. Before the draft I actually didnt like either Gholston or Chris Long. I personally feel Chris Long will never be great. At best he'll be decent. I think he's as good as he'll ever be and right now I dont think thats saying much. He came in with perfect technique and with almost zero upside IMO. Maybe he would be better suited for 3-4 OLB but as a 4-3 DE he is nothing to write home about. I thought the best DE propsect was the DE out of Florida (name escapes me right now). He was another guy with great measurables but poor technique. The key is coachability and you really need to interview these guys one on one to get a feel for that. I wouldnt write off Gholston just yet. I think he has this year and next to prove himself. After that time though you can call him a bust if he doesnt improve

 

Harvey from Florida. i totally agree with your philosophy on drafting. i share the same thoughts. a big problem with us fans as far as scouting these draft picks, is unless we know them, someone that does, or just have a good inside on info on them, we have no clue of their true desire is...

 

The question should probably be: What mistakes DIDN'T the Jets make in drafting Gholston?

 

he was 21 and 265 pounds of muscle...and now he's not. He was bigger than virtually every professional "natural" bodybuilder with 10 year of lifting on him....and now he's not. His legs are skinnier, his body looks "softer", and his face is less puffy. I hope no one is naive enough to think that came only from hard work in the gym and lots of creatine.

 

Well writing his name down on the card was Mistake #1

Turning it in to be read by the Commisioner was the point of no return!

 

exactly. well said

 

That's the problem. If you don't have any other information you have to assume that there is a reason they don't have technique. Most of the time it will end up being that either they weren't coached or that they were coached and it didn't take. Most of the big schools have pretty good staffs now so it probably isn't a great bet to assume they are coachable.

 

I think that's a bit tough to agree on. The reason is because it all depends on where I or we are slotted to draft and how much confidence I have in my coaching staff.

I've always liked going with the safer pick because I like to be comfortable with what I'm getting. By using the word comfortable, I personally define it in football terms as knowing that if I take a young player, I know that he may not have a higher ceiling than the other guy on my board but I know that he's less likely to end up being a flop under me. I'm fine with taking a player who has limited athleticism but I know can get the job done because he's done some of the things I'm going to ask him to do for me. When it comes to drafting on athleticism, I think its a higher probability of being a flop because the guy is most likely going to be a raw player who depended on his athleticism at the college level. That scares me because I know that I have an incredible amount to teach him and I don't know how much time I have under the current regime.

Also, I know that it may be a bit ridiculous to question my coaching staff but when you've had players come and go in the past and they didn't take their game to the next level then you've got to think about technique a bit more. Coaches nowadays may have too much of a bond with a member of their coaching staff and are reluctant to let them go.

That's tough to project. Here's the way I look at it: if he's still getting by his athleticism three or four years into college, what does that say about his willingness or ability to learn the game of football? I know some programs don't look into teaching their pass rushers, for example, technique, instead having them wreck havoc by simply going to their explosiveness but if your coach doesn't want to teach you, why don't you learn it yourself? Ask the prospect if he wants to be the best player at his position and if he responds with a "yes", then ask him why hasn't he developed technique in his three or four years? That should quiet him because he knows that he's going to need it at the next level. I'm curious to hear a players response to that question because I think if he's honest, his answer will speak on his learning skills.

I think there a lot of factors that play into you taking a player who has athleticism over techinique, including the ones listed above as well as the draft slotting. I'm not going to take a high risk player when I'm slotted to pick sixth overall.

 

well its certainly safer to draft players who have learned great technique. What I'm talking about and why I value athleticism is because college players are basically kids. How many kids are so disciplined and dedicated? If you view them as kids, what you need to learn on the interviews is whether the kid is ready to grow up and dedicate himself to getting better. Remember in college, you can get away with pure athleticism. Alot of these kids are immature. In the pros you can't skate by. If the kid hates to lose and is ready to put away his childish ways and has off the charts athleticism then you're far better off drafting him then someone who's a great student but limited athletically. The reason is he's going to want to dominate again at the next level and will dedicate himself. Thats why I think competiveness is more important than intelligence to some degree. In the pros, its very tough to stand out without the athleticism. Sure you get the occasional Zach Thomas but generally you end up with solid depth and no playmakers if you're always going to be scared of drafting the super athletes who loafed through college. The key is how you screen them. Look at Vontae Davis. How many people were worried about his attitude? He comes to the NFL and realizes he cant get away with his athleticism alone, his competiveness kicks in and you're seeing a potential Pro Bowler develop. Granted if you screen wrong you'll end up busting some of your picks but no risk no reward

I agree btw about where you draft will help determine your level of risk. Really tough to roll the dice when you pick #1 overall but taking some chances a bit later can pay off tremendously. Look at Ryan Clady

 

Good point that they are kids but they still have a job to do and they still have to achieve their goals. They're also working like the rest of us teenagers, they just have a different occupation; one that involves them doing what they love.

Keywords being "in college". He can't get away with that at the next level. Also, if he's getting by at the college level with pure athleticism then why doesn't he also develop some pass rush skills and technique? If he does that, his stock goes up, his value goes up, he has a higher probability of panning out, he gets more money and he's even more dominant at the college level.

I agree with that but how often do you come by a guy who's mature, has great athleticism but no technique? Usually those are first overall picks, no?

I agree for the most part because competitiveness leads to more intelligence, I guess you can say.

Really good point. How much does the scheme factor in the drafting of the player though? A lot, IMO. I think I could get by with a more intelligent than athletic player on my team for example because he's often going to be in his zone and not out of place. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Clady may have benefited because of the philosophy in Denver. Cutler rolled out to the right flats often, I believe.

 

i agree they should but alot of elite athletes have been coddled since grade school and they have skated by. You want to avoid the ones that dont grasp that they're going to have to bust their aXX but draft the ones who you get a sense understand that now its a business and do or die

JAMARCUS rUSSEL? Darrius Heyward Bey? Brian Orakpo?

you need some force that will drive you to succeed and put in the hard work.

great point. scheme is everything. some teams need athletes some need scientists. If you were playing for Bill Walsh's offense you couldnt be a dummy. If ytou were playing for the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys you didnt need brains but speed

.[/QUOTE] I think he definitely benefitted but he would be good anywhere. the risk with him was the level of competition he faced. He shouldve been a top three pick but fell because GMs were scared of busting