Ziggy Hood- Bust?

As James Harrison will very soon find out!

 

Exactly, there are different expectations with 1st rounders, and I totally agree with Ziggy probably not being the best fit here. Also comparing his stats to Keisel's last year is assuming Keisel did have a great year. I don't think he did. Towards the end he was playing well, but the first quarter of season he was coming off that injury was playing below average. Not getting into all the stats I can't say this was one of Keisel's better years.

 

maybe. depends how they use him.

my hope is that it works here for rolle. philly tried to make him fit as an OLB in their 4-3. at ohio st. he was a good ILB in more of a 3-4 set.

 

Who do you hold responsible for this Mac?

 

not to point fingers but mike tomlin is the head coach. he's responsible for everything this team does or doesn't do. thats why he gets the big bucks.

 

SteelByDesign, I agree with you. Move Ziggy to NT and move McClendon out to DE. Ziggy as a DE is a bust, but he is so strong, he may be a real player at NT.

 

We will have two soon Mac. I think Williams is going to be something

Bman

 

i think rolle or mcfadden will have the best chance this year. williams may take alot longer with the pass responsibilities he'll have to learn. if he's better then sly it's a win for us. who knows maybe the light finally comes on for sly this year?

mcfadden showed me something last preseason. if he's worked hard he'll be a good one too. don't forget the kid from northern ill. and kion wilson are yet to be seen. the cupboard isn't bare just young, well except for foote.

 

In my opinion, this is all about two things: how people view draft status and the definition of a bust.

If Hood was a 7th rounder he'd be praised by the same people calling him a bust. Some really do say that he flat out sucks, that he gets dominated every play (diehardsteel), but plenty admit he's a quality starter, and simply demand more than quality starts from a first round pick. To me it's just like the complaints about Timmons from before. The idea was that even though he may be a good player on our defense, that's simply not enough and therefore he is a bust, or at least bust-ish. We've gotten used to some straight up awesome first round picks. Hampton, Troy, Ben, Heath, Holmes (while it lasted), Timmons, Pouncey... Some people think all 1st round picks need to be big splash impact game changers, not just good players. I say it's downright impossible for that to happen every year, especially for every team, so take what you can get. Instead of comparing him to some of the best draft picks of the decade, compare him to who else was drafted around that point in that draft at positions we needed, and look at the strength of the draft class, and keep in mind he was #32, not #16.

When I look back on that draft and who was available and what our needs were, I'm not sure who would have been a better pick. Most of the guys who turned out to be the best players to come out of round 2 from that year were either at positions we had no business drafting in the first round, or guys whose value didn't match the spot at the time. There were three safeties (Delmas, Byrd, William Moore), a RB (McCoy), an ILB (Laurinaitis), two OLBs (Barwin, Kruger), two interior linemen (Unger, Levitre), and a CB (Sean Smith). In 2009 Clark and Polamalu were locked down as starters and both still in their 20s, so any safety pick would have been a complete waste. We'd just taken Rashard Mendenhall the year before, so McCoy would have been stupid. Harrison and Woodley make Barwin and Kruger bad picks. Unger and Levitre were positions of need, but at the time the consensus was that #32 was too high for them. Both were seen as mid 2nd round guys, which is where they went. They have since outperformed that status. I actually quite wanted Levitre, and was hoping we'd trade up for him in the 2nd. In retrospect, Laurinaitis might have worked out. 2009 was the year Foote left, and Laurinaitis would have been the heir to Farrior. But then again, Foote was supposed to be the heir to Farrior, but Potsie wasn't slowing down with age the way he was supposed to. They were probably feeling at the time like it wasn't as urgent a need as DE, which had Aaron Smith aging and could use Hood rotationally (and it often takes forever for guys to learn that position, especially since so few play it in college). Sean Smith would have been seen as a big reach at #32, and plus at the time the coaches thought Gay was going to be awesome. And Hood's value was right around where we took him. He was considered a #25-#35 guy, if I'm remembering correctly.

Yeah, if you scour the picks after ours, you're bound to find a couple that might have worked out better. But unless you have the very best pick in the draft, that's how it always goes. And if you take away everything we've learned about everyone over the last 4 years, and put yourself in the shoes of the GM at the time of the pick, it's easy to see why Ziggy was the pick. It might have been nice to trade down and still nab Unger or Levitre, but who knows how possible that was? And let's not forget that for all of Ziggy's underachieving, he has already paid dividends that not everyone sees. When Aaron Smith went down in 2007, our entire defense fell apart. Nick Eason and Travis Kirschke replaced Smith. Our run defense went from it's usual best to terrible by our standards, and sometimes terrible by anyone's standards.

2007
Aaron Smith: 72 rush ypg, 229 total ypg
Eason/Kirschke: 111 rush ypg, 306 total ypg

And that was no bad defense. The very next season they were one of the greatest defenses of all time, with mostly the same players. Smith went down again in 2010, this time replaced by Ziggy Hood.

2010
Aaron Smith: 63 rush ypg, 297 total ypg
Ziggy Hood: 63 rush ypg, 260 total ypg

2010 was the year we went to the Super Bowl, and - laugh all you want - if we didn't have Ziggy Hood, we may not have gotten there. And on the list of guys whose fault it is we didn't win that Super Bowl, Ziggy's name isn't on it. Had we won, I don't care if he quit football the next day - he'd have been worth the draft pick. You don't have to be a playmaker to make a difference. Being a good, solid player that isn't a gaping hole on the field is a good thing, especially for defenders. The comparisons to Nick Eason kill me. He and Ziggy are not close. Eason was a hole. I heard the same stuff last preseason about Corbin Bryant being better. It's ludicrous.


Now let's look at what a bust is. All I hear is that 1st round picks are supposed to be dynamic, game changing play makers. That a good, solid, durable player is nice to have, but getting one of those in the 1st round means he's a bust of a pick. To me, if what you get is good, then that's good, and that's it. If your 1st rounder that hasn't reached his potential plays like a 2nd or 3rd rounder that has, that's not as good as you'd like, but consider the alternative. Plenty of picks from all of those rounds turn out to be just plain awful. If in 5 years it's apparent that Markus Wheaton should have been our 2nd round pick and Bell should have been our 3rd round pick, who cares? Should we ride Bell about how he didn't live up to his status? Or be happy we got a player that's doing good things for us? When I look back at our 1st round picks all the way to 2000, I see amazing players and I see good players (and some TBD). I don't see any busts. And Cajun, your definition of a bust includes failing to reach your potential. I just totally disagree with that. If you have HOF potential, but you only make 1 Pro Bowl and play well for 12 seasons, are you a bust? A player failing to reach his potential is always disappointing, but let the performances stand for themselves for what they are, good or bad, instead of imagining what could have been. Ike Taylor still doesn't play to his potential. He never has. But even if we'd taken him in the 1st round, I wouldn't call him a bust.

For fun, I made a list of all the #32 overall picks from 2000-2010. The ones left in black are what I'd call good, solid starters (some of them are a mixed bag of highs and lows). The ones in blue are more than solid starters, and the ones in red are less.

It should be noted that this is rough and there's a lot of leeway here, and you could make arguments for guys to go up or down, but I think this is more or less accurate...ish.

2000 Trung Canidate
2001 Todd Heap
2002 Patrick Ramsey
2003 Tyler Brayton
2004 Ben Watson
2005 Logan Mankins
2006 Mathias Kiwanuka LB NYG
2007 Anthony Gonzalez WR IND
2008 Phillip Merling DE MIA
2009 Ziggy Hood DE PIT
2010 Patrick Robinson CB NO

And for fun, here are the #16 overall picks from the same years:

2000 Julian Peterson LB SF
2001 Santana Moss WR NYJ
2002 William Green RB CLE
2003 Troy Polamalu S PIT (#15 Jerome McDougle DE PHI, #17 Bryant Johnson WR ARI)
2004 Shawn Andrews OG PHI
2005 Travis Johnson DT HOU
2006 Jason Allen S MIA
2007 Justin Harrell DT GB
2008 Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie CB ARI
2009 Larry English LB SD
2010 Derrick Morgan DE TEN

And, for more fun, the #10 picks from those years:

2000 Travis Taylor WR BAL
2001 Jamal Reynolds DE GB
2002 Levi Jones OT CIN
2003 Terrell Suggs LB BAL
2004 Dunta Robinson CB HOU
2005 Mike Williams WR DET
2006 Matt Leinart QB ARI
2007 Amobi Okoye DT HOU
2008 Jerod Mayo LB NE
2009 Michael Crabtree WR SF
2010 Tyson Alualu DT JAC


...And Ziggy Hood is a bust? Looks to me like we should be relieved we picked a player that's still in the league. I'm happy to admit that he has not played up to his potential, and I'm happy to admit that I was hoping for more than we've gotten so far. You could even call him the worst 1st round pick of ours since 1999. But to say "he hasn't played like a 1st rounder", or "he hasn't played like ___ overall"... If you look at the evidence above you can see that there is no "way" that these guys play. They're all over the map, and it's that way all over the whole draft. Troy Polamalu played like a 1st rounder. So did Jerome McDougle. Because that's how first rounders play, clearly, given how many of these guys turn out to be terrible. So I think a better way to say it might be, "He hasn't played up to my/our standards of what we all hope to get from #32 overall" And that might be true, and that's a bummer, but it doesn't make him a bust. Just thought this might add some perspective.

By the way, has anyone here ever had their car detailed? It's been over three hours already.

 

yea snack they have been out joy riding in it for about 2 hrs. LOL

good read.

 

Nice post Snack

 

That would be even worse of an idea. Technique wise a NT in a 3-4 needs the best. Not saying a DE is less important but it is a bit more "free" especially on a 2nd and long.

Ziggy still has work but it was the wrong pick. I knew it then and now he is a 1 tech not a 3. Either way has done well enough to start on DL's defense.
Sorry but that means something to me.

 

I think you mean 5-tech. I don't think Ziggy's a NT. And I think McLendon is. So don't move anyone. Ziggy's most naturally suited to play 3-tech in a 4-3. Sadly, he'd probably have had a better career if he'd been drafted elsewhere. But I agree, he's done well enough as a starter on DL's defense, and that is something.

 

Well mine is a Prius, so I hope they like a quiet interior and driving 35 mph.

 

Spot on sir. Thank you for your correction. Phone posting rules!!

 

i'd just hope he'd learn one tech.

 

But to be fair, eyeballing the quarterback until he throws it and then raising your hand and hoping he throws it into your hand is technically a technique.

 

i think it's all the practicing against ben. they aren't allowed to hit him in practice and nobody told them it's OK in a game. besides that if they try to tackle ben , he won't go down anyway so whats the use.

 

I don't care what round you're taken, a 1 rounder can be as good or bad as a 7th rounder. That's why there's a draft. It's all a gamble.

Hood is decent, and that's far from a bust.

Now Sweed, Whom I thought was a worthy gamble for our #2, that's a bust for us.

 

He'll be fine this year knowing that it's his to have. I think that;s what most players need to know is if they play lights out they are the man. At least I hope

 

My longtime longwinded antagonist has returned. I'm glad in a way because at least you don't spout off at the mouth, you put forth researched effort. Though we often disagree I must remind you I didn't call ziggy a bust, in fact in a response to another post I said I don't believe him to be the classic bust. I do think as I said he has underperformed. My main point in creating this thread was I've heard many call him a bust, I think he's been a decent player that has underperformed and as I mentioned in that original post was this question, " why does he still have technique issues" at this point in his career. I guess the mention of the word bust overshadowed what I really was concerned about,tech issues.

PS- I've always thought ziggy to be a better 3-tech than 5-tech- I also don't think a move to zero-tech would help this team at all.

Cajun-

 

i don't remember who was left on the board to say we completely miss the pick

 

Well that wasn't directed just at you. Plenty of people call him a bust all the time, including some in this thread. The only part of your post I was specifically talking about was when you said failing to reach your potential defines you as a bust.