Stanback vs Ogletree for 5th Receiver Spot *Merge*

[Texan_Eph89]

ROFL!
I keep on laughing every time someone makes a joke on Stanback's name.
Although it's amazing the first few people somehow managed to get it wrong...
It's not like his name is:
Chris **'amatu'ma'afala
Gene Mruczkowski
Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila

 

[dcfanatic]

The misspellings are driving me crazy.

Cannot understand how folks can do that to such a simple name.

Whitten.

Worst of all time.

:bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[dcfanatic]

If he does it would mean 3 of our WRs are UDFAs and another one is a 7th round pick who converted positions. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

We never draft WR's in the early rounds.

But guess who was the last WR we drafted that has come up with a 1,000 yard season?

AB in Cleveland in 2005.

I would love to get Dez next April...

[youtube]-TEzgttLQbY[/youtube]

 

[igtmfo]

Ogletree:

Super quick start off the line (everybody remarks).

"So smooth in and out of his routes" says Hurd of Ogletree.

Good-to-great hands in OTA and camp, except for the ball he should have got against da Raiders. He dropped maybe one ball in camp workouts accd. to Tim MacMahon. I'm sure this is an exaggeration.

The comparison is: Crayton. He's a little smaller guy than Crayton, but faster. Probably 5-10 or 5-11, and not too many successful receivers in the NFL are as short. He ran a notch below a 4.4 40 at the combine (4.37 ?). He had about the very best shuttle run, maybe tied for the very best shuttle of any WR at the combine. This translates to great change of direction = he doesn't lose much speed in his cuts. That's why his routes are so "smooth" as Sam Hurd says.

-------

Stanback:

Great in the open field, which is why we drafted him. Fast. Explosive, dynamic runner. Great kick return potential.

Can fight for the ball and come down with it. You would think he can make some separation on routes with his upper body strength. Powerful guy who can make a few extra yards when he's tackled.

Hands, OK, but not proven to be "good" yet.

------

And here comes the problem according to me with Stanback: as I've always said (in my thread years ago when I got my nads cut off courtesy of kind posters here): he doesn't have the best change of direction and loses speed in his routes. He runs (and is built like) like a sprinter ... leaning forward, kinda topheavy guy (well, like Barber), but when you do this you have to slow down a little to make your cuts.

Ogletree is a notch below 4.4 speed and Stanback a notch above 4.4.

"I always say": Stanback is like Barber, if Barber was playing WR. Which is why I always say yet again, maybe try Stanback at RB. Except there is no time left for this experiment ... Stanback is a real good guy and I hope he makes it, here or somewhere, but not at the expense of Ogletree.

 

[zeroburrito]

stanback as a rb? he would snap in half ruining the turf on the first play.

 

[Woods]

Ogletree:

Super quick start off the line (everybody remarks).

"So smooth in and out of his routes" says Hurd of Ogletree.

Good-to-great hands in OTA and camp, except for the ball he should have got against da Raiders. He dropped maybe one ball in camp workouts accd. to Tim MacMahon. I'm sure this is an exaggeration.

The comparison is: Crayton. He's a little smaller guy than Crayton, but faster. Probably 5-10 or 5-11, and not too many successful receivers in the NFL are as short. He ran a notch below a 4.4 40 at the combine (4.37 ?). He had about the very best shuttle run, maybe tied for the very best shuttle of any WR at the combine. This translates to great change of direction = he doesn't lose much speed in his cuts. That's why his routes are so "smooth" as Sam Hurd says.

-------

Stanback:

Great in the open field, which is why we drafted him. Fast. Explosive, dynamic runner. Great kick return potential.

Can fight for the ball and come down with it. You would think he can make some separation on routes with his upper body strength. Powerful guy who can make a few extra yards when he's tackled.

Hands, OK, but not proven to be "good" yet.

------

And here comes the problem according to me with Stanback: as I've always said (in my thread years ago when I got my nads cut off courtesy of kind posters here): he doesn't have the best change of direction and loses speed in his routes. He runs (and is built like) like a sprinter ... leaning forward, kinda topheavy guy (well, like Barber), but when you do this you have to slow down a little to make your cuts.

Ogletree is a notch below 4.4 speed and Stanback a notch above 4.4.

"I always say": Stanback is like Barber, if Barber was playing WR. Which is why I always say yet again, maybe try Stanback at RB. Except there is no time left for this experiment ... Stanback is a real good guy and I hope he makes it, here or somewhere, but not at the expense of Ogletree.

I was going through my Draft mags yesterday, and according to both Ourlads and Kiper, Ogletree is about 6' 0". Also, he did run a shade under 4.40 in the 40, like you said (about 4.37 sec), which stunned quite a few of the pundits.

While he led Virginia in receptions in soph and I think 3rd season as well (after 1 year redshirt due to injury), at least 1 draft mag said he would have done even better had the QB situation at Virgina been settled.

BOTH Ourlads and Kiper had Ogletree around a 4th-5th round draft pick. In fact, one of them had Ogletree rated well above WRs like J Knox, for what that's worth.

 

[jobberone]

Well, all I'm saying is UDFA status does not preclude one from having a great NFL career, often times better than those drafted ahead or deemed to have "better talent." If you agree to that, then we're all good.

As far as the shoulder, he has already had multiple injuries of that shoulder. That would be an indication that it could be a chronic issue. Maybe not, but I'd be willing to wager that he will have issues with it again. A dislocation, especially one requiring surgery to correct, most certainly weakens the shoulder and makes it more susceptible to repeat injuries. I've seen enough athletes and sports injuries to realize that I often have repeat customers. I could be wrong, and I don't know the extent of his injuries or seen the MRI's, but if I were a betting man...

Edit: "Generally, you don't allow someone at risk for chronic subluxation the opportunity to play football."

A surgically repaired shoulder is a higher risk than the native population. Also, players at risk for re-injury are allowed to play all the time. Romo with his hand. Witten with his jaw wired shut. Emmitt Smith after dislocating his shoulder.

Ok, we agree on the UDFA having a chance to make a team and even the HOF eventually. But they don't have the success rates drafted players do. There's exceptions in most everything.

As you noted earlier, I should know better about medical aspects. Someone with chronic subluxation can be repaired. He doesn't meet the criteria for chronic subluxation. Two shoulder injuries seem to have been repaired and doesn't make a diagnosis of a chronic subluxation problem that was repaired. Now if it continues to come out then he needs another surgery and the success rate for said repair isn't great. Right now he's at the same risk as the rest of the players. I don't know how to say that any different. You can either believe me or not. Emmitt had a shoulder separation which involves the AC joint. That is not the same thing as a dislocation or subluxation nor repeated dislocations of the shoulder. That's the glenohumeral joint.

So he looked unstoppable in practice? Wow, now i see why your so high on him. Of course Ogletree has more upside think about it, in the 3 years that Stanback has been here, do you ever remember him having a game like Ogletree had lastnight. He's a jag who after 3 years in the league still doesn't challenge anyone for a roster spot besides the rookies that are coming in.

The coaches are high on Stanback for a reason. He's looked very impressive at times and unstoppable on occasion. OTOH, he's looked mundane and even bad at times. Not surprising for a guy with his athletic talent but lack of experience at WR. This should be his year. This or next. Same with Austin. Stanback hasn't shown much in games but has had an occasional flash. The overall body of evidence favors Stanback so far but again neither he or Olgetree have really done squat. Two or three catches in a game doesn't cut it with me although again I noticed it as did everyone else. I'm not ready to cut Stanback or annoint Olgetree yet. And you can't call him a JAG. His talent elevates him above a JAG. Olgetree is a JAG at present.

Ogletree:

Super quick start off the line (everybody remarks).

"So smooth in and out of his routes" says Hurd of Ogletree.

Good-to-great hands in OTA and camp, except for the ball he should have got against da Raiders. He dropped maybe one ball in camp workouts accd. to Tim MacMahon. I'm sure this is an exaggeration.

The comparison is: Crayton. He's a little smaller guy than Crayton, but faster. Probably 5-10 or 5-11, and not too many successful receivers in the NFL are as short. He ran a notch below a 4.4 40 at the combine (4.37 ?). He had about the very best shuttle run, maybe tied for the very best shuttle of any WR at the combine. This translates to great change of direction = he doesn't lose much speed in his cuts. That's why his routes are so "smooth" as Sam Hurd says.

-------

Stanback:

Great in the open field, which is why we drafted him. Fast. Explosive, dynamic runner. Great kick return potential.

Can fight for the ball and come down with it. You would think he can make some separation on routes with his upper body strength. Powerful guy who can make a few extra yards when he's tackled.

Hands, OK, but not proven to be "good" yet.

------

And here comes the problem according to me with Stanback: as I've always said (in my thread years ago when I got my nads cut off courtesy of kind posters here): he doesn't have the best change of direction and loses speed in his routes. He runs (and is built like) like a sprinter ... leaning forward, kinda topheavy guy (well, like Barber), but when you do this you have to slow down a little to make your cuts.

Ogletree is a notch below 4.4 speed and Stanback a notch above 4.4.

"I always say": Stanback is like Barber, if Barber was playing WR. Which is why I always say yet again, maybe try Stanback at RB. Except there is no time left for this experiment ... Stanback is a real good guy and I hope he makes it, here or somewhere, but not at the expense of Ogletree.

Stanback is much better now with his routes but he still needs to be more consistent. Again days he's unstoppable and days he looks like he needs to learn more. And Stanback is faster than Olgetree. Ok, Olgetree ran one 40 sub 4.4. Stanback is faster people. As fast as Austin. As fast as Newman maybe faster. Too much credence to an occasional 40 as usual. Look with your eyes and remember Stanback was a track guy, QB and WR in college. But that's not saying Olgetree isn't quick or fast. Way too much annointing here of Olgetree. Let's give him some time and hope he's as good as some people think. And hope he can play STs as well as Stanback. And stays healthy himself. Then they will be forced to look very hard at the WR numbers. My take is someone will be hurt between here and now and unless it's Stanback both will make the team. It's TOO EARLY to pontificate the roster.

stanback as a rb? he would snap in half ruining the turf on the first play.

He's not a RB but 'snap in half'??? He's not been hurt this year on KRs. Right now Austin and Jones are the best KRs on the squad. Neither Olgetree (so far) or Stanback are as good.

 

[Stash]

The coaches are high on Stanback for a reason. He's looked very impressive at times and unstoppable on occasion. OTOH, he's looked mundane and even bad at times. Not surprising for a guy with his athletic talent but lack of experience at WR. This should be his year. This or next. Same with Austin. Stanback hasn't shown much in games but has had an occasional flash. The overall body of evidence favors Stanback so far but again neither he or Olgetree have really done squat. Two or three catches in a game doesn't cut it with me although again I noticed it as did everyone else. I'm not ready to cut Stanback or annoint Olgetree yet. And you can't call him a JAG. His talent elevates him above a JAG. Olgetree is a JAG at present.

Please.

The love of Stanback's speed apparently blinds you to every other shortcoming he has.

"Ogletree is JAG"? Then Stanback's not even that yet, because the 'receiver' I saw Friday looks more polished and capable than Stanback has in three years and probably more than he ever will.

Stanback is much better now with his routes but he still needs to be more consistent. Again days he's unstoppable and days he looks like he needs to learn more. And Stanback is faster than Olgetree. Ok, Olgetree ran one 40 sub 4.4. Stanback is faster people. As fast as Austin. As fast as Newman maybe faster. Too much credence to an occasional 40 as usual. Look with your eyes and remember Stanback was a track guy, QB and WR in college. But that's not saying Olgetree isn't quick or fast. Way too much annointing here of Olgetree. Let's give him some time and hope he's as good as some people think. And hope he can play STs as well as Stanback. And stays healthy himself. Then they will be forced to look very hard at the WR numbers. My take is someone will be hurt between here and now and unless it's Stanback both will make the team. It's TOO EARLY to pontificate the roster.

Ogletree is somehow being prematurely 'annointed'? At least he's done something to earn praise, other than run fast.

One guy has shown he can contribute as a receiver, the other hasn't. Neither is a top option as a returner.

If this team drops a receiver to keep their perpetual project, they're fools and deserve every bit of criticism they get. I think Ogletree earned his place on the roster Friday night.

 

[newlander]

only on this board w/Cowboys fans can you get a 6 page thread on a 5th WR....................gotta love the passion. (seriously)

 

[starfrombirth]

I think Ogletree has made the team, personally. But while I'm down on Stanback, I also think he slides onto the roster and we keep six wideouts.

Stanback's still not as developed as you'd hope, but he has started to show more signs that he's understanding what being a wide receiver is about -- which is light years ahead of where he's been. He's still more of a quarterback/track guy than a wide receiver in my opinion, but I do see some development if his injuries don't keep precluding it.

How come when the situation was the other way around, there was no way we would keep 6 wr's because we were too thin at other positions? Now that Ogletree has taken a step ahead of Stanbac, we will suddenly keep 6 wr's after all? Hmmmmm.

 

[starfrombirth]

Well Olgetree has not realized anything except to get noticed. That's it so far. It's not worth arguing subjectively about talent even if its defined which this has not been. Again the entire league thought Olgetree was so talented he went undrafted. That doesn't mean he won't make it but the cards are stacked against him.

You've used this argument a couple of times so I felt compelled to address it. Sometimes the league is enamored with numbers and body of work yada, yada, yada. And sometimes a player is just in a bad situation (as was Ogletree's situation). This means that when all the nfl evaluators look at film of players, they don't see anything and thus "miss" a players talent. Your argument, if I understand correctly, is that Ogletree can't be talented because no one in the nfl drafted him. See my above argument and as proof I offer our own beloved qb, Tony Romo. No one in the nfl drafted him. Are you saying that he is untalented as well? The history of the NFL is littered with people who went undrafted and became H.O.F. players. I'm not a historian so I'm not going to go back and pull names but we both know that it's true. So in summary, I say that your argument that Stanback has more talent than Ogletree because the entire nfl passed on Ogletree and we chose to make Stanback a project is based on a series of fallacies.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You've used this argument a couple of times so I felt compelled to address it. Sometimes the league is enamored with numbers and body of work yada, yada, yada. And sometimes a player is just in a bad situation (as was Ogletree's situation). This means that when all the nfl evaluators look at film of players, they don't see anything and thus "miss" a players talent. Your argument, if I understand correctly, is that Ogletree can't be talented because no one in the nfl drafted him. See my above argument and as proof I offer our own beloved qb, Tony Romo. No one in the nfl drafted him. Are you saying that he is untalented as well? The history of the NFL is littered with people who went undrafted and became H.O.F. players. I'm not a historian so I'm not going to go back and pull names but we both know that it's true. So in summary, I say that your argument that Stanback has more talent than Ogletree because the entire nfl passed on Ogletree and we chose to make Stanback a project is based on a series of fallacies.

I'm not comparing this guy to Drew Pearson, but Drew was a free agent in a time when there was a 17-round draft... 17 rounds and no one drafted this guy.

Gem's do fall through the cracks.

 

[starfrombirth]

I'm not comparing this guy to Drew Pearson, but Drew was a free agent in a time when there was a 17-round draft... 17 rounds and no one drafted this guy.

Gem's do fall through the cracks.

I thought he was great as well. Granted, I was still a young kid but I was a Cowboy fan and he constantly produced for us. I thought about making the point about the past drafts where players were selected so far back that they wouldn't even be thought of now but I thought that would just be piling on. Also how about walk-on's like Everson Walls? He wasn't even invited to camp and look at what he did. He probably didn't have any talent at all because no one in the nfl drafted him and the draft was what, 52 rounds back then?

 

[PBJTime]

As you noted earlier, I should know better about medical aspects. Someone with chronic subluxation can be repaired. He doesn't meet the criteria for chronic subluxation. Two shoulder injuries seem to have been repaired and doesn't make a diagnosis of a chronic subluxation problem that was repaired. Now if it continues to come out then he needs another surgery and the success rate for said repair isn't great. Right now he's at the same risk as the rest of the players. I don't know how to say that any different. You can either believe me or not. Emmitt had a shoulder separation which involves the AC joint. That is not the same thing as a dislocation or subluxation nor repeated dislocations of the shoulder. That's the glenohumeral joint.

First of all, I have no doubt in your knowledge and highly respect what you bring to this forum. I'm simply giving my opinion based on clinical experience from a physical therapy standpoint.

In any case, a post surgically repaired shoulder has a higher risk for re-injury than a normal shoulder. I don't know how to say that any different, either. Any piece of medical literature I find tells me that. In fact, depending on the type of repair, the probability of recurring episodes of instability or dislocation reaches 50% (though it's generally in the 20-30% range.) Since we both don't know the specifics of the his medical history (seen his MRI's, witnessed arthroscopic examination), we are both going on assumptions. I did not know Smith's shoulder injury was an AC separation, but my point was that players at high risk for re-injury play all the time.

I'm actually starting to wonder if he has some degree of ligamentous laxity as most, if not all of his injuries, could potentially be attributed to problems with connective tissue. Of course, that is just conjecture, but I wouldn't be surprised. I have lax ligaments and I've had various injuries resulting from it as well as chronic instability of my shoulders.

 

[fortdick]

In one thread, we have "Stanbach," "Steinbach," and "Staback."



It's a good thing T.J. Houshmandzadeh isn't on this team.

Admit it, you cut and pasted TJ's name!

 

[jobberone]

Please.

The love of Stanback's speed apparently blinds you to every other shortcoming he has.

"Ogletree is JAG"? Then Stanback's not even that yet, because the 'receiver' I saw Friday looks more polished and capable than Stanback has in three years and probably more than he ever will.




Ogletree is somehow being prematurely 'annointed'? At least he's done something to earn praise, other than run fast.

One guy has shown he can contribute as a receiver, the other hasn't. Neither is a top option as a returner.

If this team drops a receiver to keep their perpetual project, they're fools and deserve every bit of criticism they get. I think Ogletree earned his place on the roster Friday night.

Give me a break. Much of my discussion is based on Ogletree and his one game. He hasn't earned anything but more opportunities to make plays which is significant enough.

Nobody yet has answered me about how many catches this dude had Friday night.

If people took the time to read all that I've written they'll see I'm not a big fan of either of them because neither has done enough to get me excited. But to blast Stanback for lack of production while granting Olgetree a roster spot based on a few catches is ridiculous. And if you think all I've said is Stanback is fast then you need lessons in reading comprehension.

They both deserve watchful waiting for that 5th roster spot. Whoopee.

 

[jobberone]

You've used this argument a couple of times so I felt compelled to address it. Sometimes the league is enamored with numbers and body of work yada, yada, yada. And sometimes a player is just in a bad situation (as was Ogletree's situation). This means that when all the nfl evaluators look at film of players, they don't see anything and thus "miss" a players talent. Your argument, if I understand correctly, is that Ogletree can't be talented because no one in the nfl drafted him. See my above argument and as proof I offer our own beloved qb, Tony Romo. No one in the nfl drafted him. Are you saying that he is untalented as well? The history of the NFL is littered with people who went undrafted and became H.O.F. players. I'm not a historian so I'm not going to go back and pull names but we both know that it's true. So in summary, I say that your argument that Stanback has more talent than Ogletree because the entire nfl passed on Ogletree and we chose to make Stanback a project is based on a series of fallacies.

Go back and read all my thoughts then get back to me. You clearly don't understand what I've said.

 

[big dog cowboy]

only on this board w/Cowboys fans can you get a 6 page thread on a 5th WR....................gotta love the passion. (seriously)

Reset your setting to allow 40 posts on one page. It makes these long threads so much easier to read (seriously).

 

[Bizwah]

Terrell Davis was a player that fell through the cracks.

Colston was another one.

It happens....now, I'm not a believer that Ogletree will be the next Colston. But he's played well enough to earn a roster spot.

He has great speed, runs nice routes, and has good hands.

 

[tyke1doe]

Terrell Davis was a player that fell through the cracks.

Colston was another one.

It happens....now, I'm not a believer that Ogletree will be the next Colston. But he's played well enough to earn a roster spot.

He has great speed, runs nice routes, and has good hands.

Add Rod Smith, former Broncos WR, to that list.