The 2010 BGSU NFL rookies

[footballguy51]

What was everybody's take on the most recent draft regarding BG players? I was quite disappointed that Freddie was not drafted, especially after he showcased how productive he can be. At least he was signed almost immediately after the draft by the Bears, giving him the chance to be close to home. Also, Sheehan was signed by the Texans, where he stands a pretty decent chance of making the 53-man roster.

[daspollak]

Sheehan won't survive the first round of cuts in Houston. Love the kid, but he just doesn't have the NFL intangibles to be a warranted a roster spot. Freddie on the other hand is walking into a pretty good situation. Chicago is not known for their receivers, and he has a great shot at making the team.

[footballguy51]

Did we seriously only have 2 players that were worthy of NFL interest? I looked at the list of undrafted free agents, and Brown University had 3 players signed.

Other players that could have deserved a look:

Nick Iovinelli
Roger Williams
Shane Steffy
Brady Minturn
Jimmy Scheidler

[Tricky_Falcon]

http://tinyurl.com/24smd56


Haven't heard much about Freddie Barnes in the rookie camp. Does he have any chance of making the team? He had great hands at Bowling Green and was a player you could count on.
Mike, Columbus, Ohio

Barnes is a long shot. He showed great hands but otherwise looked pretty ordinary in rookie camp. He could be the type of player who makes a name for himself in games, though. It seems all he does well is catch the ball and makes plays, if you know what I mean.

[kdog27]

"It seems all he does well is catch the ball and makes plays, if you know what I mean."


Not sure what is so ordinary about that.

[Redwingtom]

This has perplexed me for several years. The NFL has several regular players from perennial doormats like Kent and Akron, yet we have next to nobody who contribute anything outside of Suisham.

[Falconboy]

This has perplexed me for several years. The NFL has several regular players from perennial doormats like Kent and Akron, yet we have next to nobody who contribute anything outside of Suisham.

This has boggled my mind as well.

[hammb]

This has perplexed me for several years. The NFL has several regular players from perennial doormats like Kent and Akron, yet we have next to nobody who contribute anything outside of Suisham.

This has boggled my mind as well.

For years our coaching staff has failed to develop talent. We recruit better than others but once the talent gets in here it doesn't get better.

I'm hopeful that this will change under the new regime.

[FalconTurf]

Ok, my mind is boggled now too. How do perennial bottom dwellers do a better job of developing lesser talent to get players better prepared for the next level while maintaining a poor team record?

[hammb]

Ok, my mind is boggled now too. How do perennial bottom dwellers do a better job of developing lesser talent to get players better prepared for the next level while maintaining a poor team record?

Two other things that I think play into it are the fact that our systems are not conducive to developing players for the next level, and I also don't feel as though we have done a good job recruiting speed across the board.

Defensively we have consistently recruited smaller, undersized athletes. The only way for these types of guys to make it on the next level is if they also have elite speed/athleticism, and we really haven't seen that much of that. Briggs is about the only guy I can think of who had the speed to make up for his lack of size on the defensive side...and he is at least getting a look at the next level.

Offensively the spread offense that we've used for the past decade or so is horrible for getting players ready to play professional football. RBs don't have to make the same reads, QBs don't make the right throws, and WRs don't run the right route tree. We've had some success putting OL into the NFL, but other than that we haven't seen much. We had 2 QBs drafted but they were both immediate flameouts.

Our systems just don't get guys ready for the next level, IMO. More importantly though we just don't produce speed. Whether we're doing a poor job of recruiting speed or a poor job of developing it once it gets here, I'm not sure, but we clearly have NOT been a fast team over the past few years. We haven't had a true deep threat speed WR in a long time. We haven't had a RB that can outrun the defense. We haven't had an elite speed guy in the secondary either. Briggs is really the only guy I can think of that would have speed as a strength on an NFL scouting report. No matter how good guys play on the field on Saturdays if they're going to be drafted from the MAC or some other crap team they have to back it up with good workout numbers. We really haven't had guys that put up good workout numbers...we just haven't produced any athletes.

[1987alum]

Being a glass half-full kinda guy ...

Another way to look at it would be to say that we built a system that played to our recruiting ability. That is, we know we're not going to recruit WRs that run a 4.3 or DLs that stand 6-5, 350 or other eye-popping numbers. Instead, we recognize that, as a MAC school, we're going to get the second-tier athlete. Sure, we'll get the sleeper every so often, but generally we're going to get kids that are a step to slow, a bit to small or in some other way don't attract Zero State and other BCS-conference teams.

That's not to say we haven't had shortcomings in developing talent - I believe we have.

[hammb]

Being a glass half-full kinda guy ...

Another way to look at it would be to say that we built a system that played to our recruiting ability. That is, we know we're not going to recruit WRs that run a 4.3 or DLs that stand 6-5, 350 or other eye-popping numbers. Instead, we recognize that, as a MAC school, we're going to get the second-tier athlete. Sure, we'll get the sleeper every so often, but generally we're going to get kids that are a step to slow, a bit to small or in some other way don't attract Zero State and other BCS-conference teams.

That's not to say we haven't had shortcomings in developing talent - I believe we have.

Oh there is certainly a good deal of that going on '87. I'm not even arguing, necessarily, that the way we've done things is BAD. We had some massive successes with that spread offense. It helped us win a lot of football games, even if it didn't help us produce NFL quality players. And clearly, winning football games for BGSU is the #1 goal. I do think it should be something of a goal to develop players for the next level as well (mainly as a great selling point in recruiting), but winning games for BG is by far the #1 goal.

Where BG has seemed to head is towards players that have an all around skillset, and this seems to be the case at a lot of positions. These are the guys who aren't going to play at the BCS schools, but can still be effective in the MAC. However, they aren't "high ceiling" players. Using the WR position for example, lots of MAC schools have brought in guys that ran in the 4.3 range. They've even brought in guys that are big and can run like that. The problem is that they're terrible route runners and/or have below average hands. They've got the athleticism to play in the Big10 but their polish/refinement has sent them to the MAC. If those guys develop they become NFL worthy players, because they had the raw athleticism to be there in the first place. Conversely, BG seems to take the guys who aren't big (but not small), aren't fast (but not slow), aren't great route runners (but not terrible). The total package gives you a better football player initially, and the chances of him being a lost cause are a lot smaller. However, even though that player could be a great MAC player, he's never going to have the raw athleticism to play in the NFL.

I think over the years BG has done a lot of bringing these "low ceiling" guys into the program. It's really a fine way to run a MAC program, you should be able to consistently win and make bowl games with this philosophy. However, its not the philosophy that will put players in the NFL. Nor is it the philosophy that will likely ever see you busting the BCS party. If your ultimate goal is to put together an undefeated season and play in January then you need to take (and hit on) some gambles with high ceiling athletes.

Personally, I'd like to see us gamble and bring in some higher tier athleticism, from a simply selfish point. I prefer to watch more athletic teams over those that are simply more polished. I also love the NFL and the NFL draft and I'd like to have some BG players to root for at the next level. I also place a pretty high value on busting that BCS party, or at least making that the ultimate goal.

[mmisbg]

"It seems all he does well is catch the ball and makes plays, if you know what I mean."


Not sure what is so ordinary about that.

You don't need those skills in the NFL.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3934 ... t-minicamp

[Tricky_Falcon]

Found this in the Chicago Sun-times.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/06 ... and_a.html

Q: How has rookie WR Freddie Barnes been performing? Do you think he'll make the team? --- Giskard
A: He has been the best of the rookie receivers. Whether or not he makes the team may come down to his ability to play special teams. Rashied Davis is a valuable special teams player and therefore likely has a better chance of keeping his roster spot.