r1 - Best Pick

[HairOnFire]

....How can anyone not love that?

4.72

And I guess you were probably a Chris Houston fan or a Ernest Shazor follower?

Couldn't stand either of them, and said so often. In fact, I fear I may have punked Houston so badly it prompted a draft guru named Schweiny to commit ritual suicide.

As for the 4.72? I mention it only because it speaks directly to issues like explosion, and the ability to stretch defenses deep.

[Kazkal]

We should have drafted Dickerson instead he ran a 4.4....even though Dez Byrant was Heavier & taller then him...

PS,He can't have that bad of ingame speed he was constantly out running the entire other team.

[BengalPimp]

....How can anyone not love that?

4.72

And I guess you were probably a Chris Houston fan or a Ernest Shazor follower?

Couldn't stand either of them, and said so often. In fact, I fear I may have punked Houston so badly it prompted a draft guru named Schweiny to commit ritual suicide.

As for the 4.72? I mention it only because it speaks directly to issues like explosion, and the ability to stretch defenses deep.

http://sports.espn.g...playerId=188942

Do me a small favor. Click on this link, and just look at the game stats from his Junior year. Look at the section where it states "Long" you know, for longest reception of the game?

Gimme a TE who has the ability to make 38, 42, 52...hell even 64 and 73 yard catches.......Please explain to me Hair, How the heck are 50,60, and 70 yard plays not stretching the field ?

You say 4.72.....I say 38,42,52,64,73 yds.

I like my numbers better.

Oh yeah, and he had a Reception of at least 20 yards in 10 out of 13 games that year!

[HairOnFire]

....How can anyone not love that?

4.72

Yep. And I still don't think the Bengals have anyone to force safeties to respect the Bengals deep. Not saying Gresham won't be effective, but the problem with the Bengals passing game was that they couldn't stretch the field. Gresham doesn't solve that problem.

Exactly.

I haven't heard anyone even hint that Gresham isn't solid or can't be effective, especially myself. But when I read glowing reports of his explosion and ability to stretch the field...the first thing that pops into my mind is 4.72.

Just saying...

[HairOnFire]

I like my numbers better.

More likely, you like some of your numbers better. But how about these?

Receptions-8 Total Yards-62 Average YPC-7.8 Longest - 11yards

[BengalPimp]

I like my numbers better.

More likely, you like some of your numbers better. But how about these?

Receptions-8 Total Yards-62 Average YPC-7.8 Longest - 11yards

lol....Hair, you conveniently left out the 2 TD's he scored in that same National Championship game.

So, I still like the 8 for 62 and 2 TD's #'s

[TJJackson]

I read, year after year, that there is track speed and football speed, and the two are somehow only slightly related

The poster child on our team for track speed is Caldwell. He was a 4.3 guy at the combine, but with the pads on, he doesn't seem nearly the burner that a 4.3 timed 40 would suggest. Several posters here have said as much.

Those who have analyzed Gresham are putting him in the opposite camp - that his effective football speed is much higher than his timed speed. The label is "Plays faster than he times"

That said, 4.7 is really not too shabby for a 260 pound load of a guy.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with the whole "there are two types of speed" concept, tho I am warming to it a bit, particularly when I think of how few players (Chris Henry excepted) run 40 yards in a straight line on even one play a game.

I'm also not saying I believe those who say Gresham is faster in pads - I've already admitted I've done far less research this year than in previous due to other commitments - but I have read this from multiple sources that I have found to be generally reliable.

I also wonder if having Gresham running the underneath patterns will free up our starters to run fewer short-to-intermediate routes and more long routes. Particularly if Gresham proves to be good enough to warrant double (S behind, LB underneath) coverage.

[HairOnFire]

I like my numbers better.

More likely, you like some of your numbers better. But how about these?

Receptions-8 Total Yards-62 Average YPC-7.8 Longest - 11yards

lol....Hair, you conveniently left out the 2 TD's he scored in that same National Championship game.

So, I still like the 8 for 62 and 2 TD's #'s

Yeah, I guess I do to.

Let's just say I'm unable to sweep 4.72 away with a wave of the hand, as so many of you seem willing to do. Beyond that I'll let things go until another day when we've got more to comment on than numbers on a screen.

[ArmyBengal]

What's the average timed 40 for a guy who's 6'6 and weighs 260-270 range ??

I don't know for sure, but I imagine it's right where Gresham is. I could be wrong...

[Sea Ray]

who says 4.72 is a number that's set in stone? Pro football weekly lists him as the #1 TE and has his 40 time at 4.6.

They also say:

"...possesses the vertical speed to threaten the seam and make plays down the field"

[Kazkal]

nm didn't post right

[HairOnFire]

What's the average timed 40 for a guy who's 6'6 and weighs 260-270 range ??

I don't know for sure, but I imagine it's right where Gresham is. I could be wrong...

I'm guessing you're right as Gresham's timed speed probaly fits rather neatly amongst the big bastards. Then again, you don't often hear how bigger players with that sort of marginal speed can stretch the field both wide and deep.

[jjakq27]

He'll also have a 6 to 8 inch vertical advantage over most of the DBs or LBs that might be covering him. I like the fade to the corner route myself.