Stoopsy: Gresham To Go Pro
This afternoon, Bob Stoops told the media at his weekly press conference that Jermaine Gresham will not return to school next season. Unless, of course, Stoops can convince him to stay another year in another selfish move. No doubt Stoops is working on that as we speak.
h/t: Barking Carnival
Email
PrintComments
Mack Brown convinced Ricky Williams to return for his senior season, and I did not consider that a selfish move at all. I really don’t get what’s supposed to be selfish about a coach’s attempt to keep a player around to help the team.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 29, 2009 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
The difference is that Stoops probably lies to keep his players and Brown probably doesn't
Stoops said, “In the end, it’s not my job to force a guy to come out. It’s my job to educate my players on all the possibilities and then it’s up to the individual and his family to make that decision.” He also said,“his role in advising players who consider entering the NFL draft early is focused on providing them with the most accurate information possible…To me, our job is to make sure that we educate our guys and know exactly what you’re capable of, where you’re at and what are the possibilities of you being picked at this position?” “Accurate information” indeed. UGH
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4517344
I believe that Stoops would tell his players whateve he thinks is best for Stoops. I do not believe that Mack Brown would purposely misinform a player. I believe Coach Brown is honest in his assesments, and doesn’t put his desire to keep a player ahead of his honest assesment of the players. Stoops probably misinforms them to put doubt in their mind about their draft pick status.
Coach Brown is more honest to players in the beginning of their career at Texas as is seen in the recruiting process (Russell Shepher you are not a qb) and I have to believe that he is also much more truthful to his players in the end of their career as they prepare to jump to the NFL. That said, we are not a JUCO.
All right, this is a bit much.
Mack Brown says the exact same thing about what he does for his players.
What are you basing that on?
It’s a serious question. Is this a general belief you have about Stoops’ character or do you have some evidence of this?
I do recall Mack saying something like
“If we know a guy is going to go in the first round, we tell him to go…”
Not that this proves anything about anything.
The swine flu takes a Will Muschamp shot every September.
by pleaseplaykindle on Sep 29, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions
same reason fans don't want players to leave early
we want to field the best possible team we can and proven players sticking around helps.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
Hmmm
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4517344
Stoops doesn’t seem to realize that the main criticism of him is not that he didn’t “force” Sam Bradford to go pro, but that he didn’t truly “educate” Bradford on his draft status by snapping at anyone who suggested Bradford was a first round pick (and possibly #1 at that). Obviously, coach, you can’t and shouldn’t make that decision for a player. You also shouldn’t pretend that he was not considered one of the top QB prospects, if not THE top QB prospect. If he still wanted to come back, that’s great. If not, great. That’s on him. But this is telling:
"I think they all see the value in another year’s experience improving their draft position," Stoops said. "Every time you improved five spots, eight spots, ten spots, if you improve a round, you have three or four times your money. That’s a factor."
(http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=1304)
You can also go backwards a few spots and lose the type of money you’re talking about. For Bradford, frankly, the odds are he would go backwards rather than forwards because he was rated highly in the first place. Gresham, too, could not really have expected to go that much higher by waiting a year unless he really thought he could crack the Top 10 at the TE position (he most certainly will not now).
I’m all for players valuing their college experience and staying put if they so wish it. Money isn’t everything in life. But Stoops just flat missed the point of the criticisms. Again.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 29, 2009 6:27 PM CDT reply actions
Agree
And, I bet he was telling the Bradford family just how fabulously talented the young OL was while they were deciding Sam’s future. But after Bradford bit and passed on the draft he probably started re-setting those evaluations. Innocent bad assesments, I’m sure.
And, Stoops is just a jerk in how he handles media questions. He only says what he wants you to hear and then when he is quesioned he gets all pissy and defensive. I can’t imagine my kid playing for that guy or being around that lack of character.
Compare Gresham and Bradford to Kindle
Kindle wanted to enter the draft last year, but he was legitimately a late 1st to early 2nd round draft pick. Playing an extra year of college ball was obviously going to raise his draft stock. Meanwhile, it was rather shocking that Bradford and Gresham came back at all. There was some debate as to who the top QB after last season, but I know for sure that Bradford would have been in the top 2. And Gresham without question would have been the top TE in the draft. Coming back to college for another year was nothing but a risk for them. McCoy and Williams probably did have a little room to improve, but not very much, as I believe both of them were in the top 5 of their respective positions after last year as well. The only logical reason for all four of them to return was if somebody (I wonder who) had convinced them that 1) their draft stock was lower than it actually was and 2) their return would guarantee a national championship.
Selfish.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
although they would have both gone to the Lions...
Bradford 1st overall and Gresham 20th in place of Pettigrew
I really don’t buy Bradford as the #1-overall pick, in 2009 or 2010. Probably not 2011, should he wait that long.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 29, 2009 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions
What is that opinion based on?
by Hookem4life84 on Sep 29, 2009 8:44 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
The fact that he’s pretty weak on the fundamentals that are necessary at the pro level. He’s weak on technique and delivery, and his arm isn’t so amazing that scouts should forget about those weaknesses. He’s also immobile, and I would argue that he’s very much a product of the system that also produced Jason White and Josh Heupel, not to mention a system that is derivative of the offensive scheme that produced Tim Couch, Dusty Bonner, Jared Lorenzon, Kliff Kingsbury, B.J. Symons, Graham Harrell, etc.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 29, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions
While I appreciate you actually have an educated opinion on the matter, personally I would have to lean towards the so called draft experts who said he would have been picked by Detroit if he entered last year. Depending on how serious the injury is many project him to be the first QB taken this year, which is hard to argue with. Not that those guys are the end all be all on the matter, but their projections are often based on information from scouts inside the league, and of course their own personel opinion.
by Hookem4life84 on Sep 29, 2009 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions
As Leinart headed into his senior year at USC, draft experts also said he would have gone #1 had he gone pro, but the fact is that when the guy was finally in the draft pool, scouts took a look at him and found him lacking. It’s the same story with a number of quarterbacks. The same thing, only to a more extreme level, will happen with Bradford.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 29, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I think this is a non-issue.
All college coaches want to keep their best players. But, we all know it is not the coaches decision. Matt Leinart chose to come back, and he got burned. Bradford, I believe, will not go #1 and will lose several million dollars by not going pro. But, he wanted to stay in college! He made the choice and I respect him for taking that chance and having the confidence to believe that if he did come back he could keep his stock high. If he had gone pro, we couldn’t have blamed him. If someone offered me $60 million guaranteed to drop out of law school today I wouldn’t think twice.
This is a non-issue. Let’s focus on beating Stoops on the field… and mocking OU for losing to BYU.
I agree
While I think it is legit to criticize Stoops’ handling of the situation (he really acted like a baby when questioned about Bradford’s draft status during the uncertain period), the decision was and is still ultimately Bradford’s. He came back because he said he loved playing college ball and the life at OU. Fine. Power to him. Peyton Manning also said that he came back to Tennessee for purely selfish reasons; he just wanted to return. Money can get many things, but it can’t buy back your college experience. Perhaps Stoops wasn’t the greatest of advisers, but it’s not like Bradford didn’t have other sources to look at.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 29, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I must concur
I think Bob Stoops is a first-rate douchebag, but this was ultimately Bradford’s decision. Something, God only knows what, pulled him back to Norman for another year. My guess: some dynamite p he couldn’t shake from.
by TexasGarcia37 on Sep 29, 2009 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Hmm
I am pretty sure Bradford can read and was aware of his where his draft pick would have been…maybe he wanted to stay.
My two cents
Bradford, Gresham and McCoy are all Oklahoma kids. They were raised in Oklahoma, maybe even born in Oklahoma, and probably grew up dreaming of playing in crimson and cream.
They all seem like really good kids that really liked college, and they just so happened to be awesome football players that played for a team with a legitimate shot at a National Championship. That’s a big deal for some people; you don’t think Vince Young, in retrospect, would consider staying that last year of college and gun for a second national title?
Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, and at this point in time, it looks like Bradford and Gresham made the wrong career move. But who really knows? Maybe next year Bradford goes 10 to a team like the Broncos and gets tutelage under Josh McDaniels and becomes a hall of fame quarterback. Anything’s still possible for them.
Maybe Stoops gave them a nudge in one direction, but I’ve gotta believe he has their interests in mind as well. Even if Bradford had entered the draft, there’s still absolutely no guarantee he’s going 1 or 2. Heck, Aaron Rodgers and Brady Quinn looked like surefire top 2 picks at one point, and both somehow slid to the 20’s.
From an OU fan....
Some of guys’ posts I agree with. And then there are some that are just plain stupid. I’m just curious as to why you all hate Stoops? Is it because he’s produced 2 Heisman trophy winners, 6 conference championships, 1 national championship? If thats not it, then why? On a serious note, Pete Carrol freaking criticized Mark Sanchez for going pro, he even said something to the effect that Sanchez’s decision was “stupid”, and then you have Urban Meyer and the University of Florida, where the stud Tim Tebow gets a freaking concussion (which is quite serious by the way) and the only thing on Urban Meyer’s mind it seems is if Tebow will be back by LSU. Give me a break……….BOOMER
I definitely don’t think you would have seen anyone in here praising Carroll for how he handled the Sanchez issue. I think Sanchez is an overrated stiff, but obviously he got good money and his heart wasn’t so wrapped up in USC football that winning a championship was more important than getting the cash.
I didn’t think I’d be in the minority in thinking that players are usually better served to return to school for their final seasons, but it appears I am.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 6:17 AM CDT up reply actions
I think NFL teams are usually better served by players returning to school
Players are usually best served, at least in terms of overall personal wealth, by exiting at the height of their stock and locking up as much guaranteed money as possible.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 30, 2009 6:38 AM CDT up reply actions
I don’t think that’s generally true, especially for quarterbacks. I guess they get that additional year of income, but quarterback success in the NFL correlates most strongly and directly with collegiate starting experience, and a more successful quarterback almost invariably gets better contract extensions and second contracts than less successful ones. As such, and especially in light of the likely higher draft status for waiting a year and the annual incremental increase in rookie salary pool, it’s debatable as to what, if any, financial advantage an early departure at QB will usually enjoy.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 7:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I think we're approaching causality differently
And I think you’re giving too much credence to a college football education. I’m aware of the correlation you mention, but it seems to me far more likely that the causation for success stems from better and more thorough opportunities for NFL scouts the players senior (or red shirt junior) year provides. NFL scouting, particularly for quarterbacks, is an inexact science but additional film offers an opportunity for rectitude some players like Mark Sanchez (potentially) and Ryan Leaf (undoubtedly) wisely denied them.
Another year of starting experience may aid the development of the player, however it certainly gives scouts another year to determine whether or not Ryan Leaf will become Ryan Leaf or if you prefer, whether Matt Leinart is a top five pick or the second quarterback taken in the draft.
On the same analytical theme, familiarity breeds contempt as they say, causing some scouts to talk themselves out of players like Matt Ryan, Peyton Manning and Brady Quinn (not that he’ll be very good, but compared to Jamarkus Russell?) because they have over-analyzed the players. That said, players who do stand up to the additional year of scrutiny like Manning and Ryan are more likely to succeed not because of the additional college experience but because they really were the players scouts thought they would be.
If you’re correct, and Bradford really is an overrated NFL prospect then he would be better off leaving for the NFL before he was fully exposed as such. Instead, he succumbed to injury and invited yet another level of scrutiny.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 30, 2009 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m not convinced that the microscope that would have been focused on Bradford, had he declared himself eligible following his sophomore season, wouldn’t have pushed him back in the draft. I think the fall would’ve been pretty noticeable from the #1 projection. Certainly he’s no Matthew Stafford, and Stafford’s certainly no Peyton Manning.
Nit-pick on Matt Ryan: I don’t think anyone talked himself out of Matt Ryan. Ryan wasn’t really a highly-touted prospect following his junior season at all.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions
True about Ryan, that was more of a wax and wane during the season
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 30, 2009 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Isnt the average career for an NFL player like 3 years?
Theres no guarantee that you will be a stud in the NFL based on what you did in College.
If you have the ticket to fortune you cash it in. Theres nothing to say you will succeed in the NFL, not get injured, not piss off a coach, not shoot yourself in the leg, or whatever.
Take the guaranteed money when its guaranteed. Thats whats best for the player and his family.
Theres a difference between whats best for the fans, whats best for the college, whats best for the players development as a player, and whats best for him and his family. I think everyone likes to gravitate to those first three categories, when to the individual, its the last one that really matters, and frankly, should be the only one that matters.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Sep 30, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
So you think Colt McCoy, Sergio Kindle, etc. should’ve gone pro last February? And you think Charles, Finley, and Young were wise to do so in their respective years? What about Earl Thomas? Should he declare right after the season? I don’t think guaranteed money is the best determinant at all.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions
If you are guaranteed a first round, or as close as you can be to having a guaranteed draft spot, then yes. Late first round maybe not.
Colt should not have gone, as he wasn’t a first rounder. Sergio I would not have begrudged him either way, he was the definitive tweener.
Charles and Finley I didn’t think were wise, I dont know what their evaluations were, but since they actually went in the third round I dont think they were projected as first rounders. VY would have been a complete idiot to come back to school.
ET should declare if hes a first rounder, if not then he shouldnt. Its not that hard of a criteria I put forward for my reasoning, you can apply it to any player just as easily as I can.
Its all about the money, always.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Sep 30, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
You do realize that far more than 32 players are told that they grade out as first-round picks, right?
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I don’t see your point though, or how it applies to anything Ive stated before. I said:
If you are guaranteed a first round, or as close as you can be to having a guaranteed draft spot,
I assume a player is rarely told a specific number, if you are told, late first round, early second. Then by all means go for it. Hell if you are told early to mid second, id probably still be fine with you going for it.
If you grade out as a top 20 pick, then its a no brainer. A top 3 pick, and your a moron not to take it.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Sep 30, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
My point is that it’s naive for a kid to take the draft report’s word for it that he’ll be a first rounder. The report is based on cursory surveys from scouts who haven’t gone very in-depth on prospects yet, when no post-season interviews, evaluations, workouts, etc. have happened yet, and if you were to add the number of juniors who request draft stock appraisals from the service to the number of seniors who end up going in the first, you’re going to come up with a number far greater than 32. Ergo, it’s naive to accept a first-round grade as anything close to a guarantee.
We don’t know how Sam Bradford graded out, so we don’t know whether he had a no-brainer decision. We don’t know if Vince received a top-three grade. We can be virtually assured that Jermaine Gresham didn’t receive a top-three grade, and as a one-dimensional tight end with limited starting experience, he might not have received a top-twenty grade either, so it’s hard to say whether he had a no-brainer decision either.
In other words, it’s a gamble to go, and it’s a gamble not to go. The difference is that the improved draft stock by sticking around an additional year will at least somewhat hedge the bets. Injuries happen, but are not nearly as prevalent as those who believe juniors should always take the money would have us believe.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I dont know how Sam or Jermaine got graded
And Im pretty sure that I never claimed anything about them specifically.
VY going in the top 3 was as much of a sure thing as you can get. Obviously theres some risk involved, and no one can accurately predict the future. But if you dont trust the grades you get to at least some degree, then yes I suppose staying in school as long as you can would be your best option.
Im operating from the assumption that you have to at least somewhat trust how you grade out, and if you grade out as a first rounder, you go.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Sep 30, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Hate Stoops?
I don’t care enough about him to hate him. And, I do think everything comes out in the end and Karma is bitch slapping OU and Stoops like they deserve.
Since you asked, let me just throw a few thoughts at you—Big Red Autos, Rhett Bomar, Josh Jarboe, Justin Chaisson, Jamarkus McFiction and his incredible tale of lies about Texas. Add a tad of Balogun -a 25 year old that played semi-pro ball after turning 21, simmer and mix in a little bit of Jarret Lake and a dirty Jenks, OK program.
I feel dirty just writing it…That really was a dumb question.
enrangedoufan
you’re seriously asking a bunch of longhorns on a longhorn sports blog why they hate Stoops?!
hate
Stoops beat our team year after year, which made us feel disappointed and upset. So we hate him for making us feel like that. And it’s fun to be able to target a guy like him. But it’s not a personal hatred. Noone says bad things about his family or his dog. If he had a personal crisis, you can be sure there would be waves of support coming from BON land.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
NFL Salary Cap??
Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but all signs point to the fact that next year, the NFL will have an uncapped year since the current CBA is going to expire (atleast the owners have opted out of it) and there isn’t a new one i place.
That being said, next year could really be a free for all with a lot of players hitting the jackpot in terms of contracts. I’m guessing teams like the Cowboys or NE or the Giants would not have a problem throwing insane amounts of cash at rookies well if they really wanted them.
I know it seems a little far fetched, but that could possibly be a reason someone like Gresham (who obviously did not need to increase his stock value) would chose to return to school for 1 more year and then cash in on the Bonanza next year.
Any thoughts?
by LonghornForLife on Sep 30, 2009 10:13 AM CDT reply actions
I’ve brought it up a couple of times, and I maintain that an owner-originated lockout is far more likely than an uncapped year.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks Burntorangehorn!
You might be right about that. Although it would be a hell of a lot of fun it we had an uncapped year. Can you imagine the the complete chaos?
Also, God knows football season doesn’t last long enough. I would completely go into depression if I didnt get my fix of football atleast 4 days a week during the Fall!
by LonghornForLife on Sep 30, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions
It’d be interesting to see if some college games might end up moving to Sundays and Mondays to capitalize on what would otherwise be a void.
The chaos would be interesting, but in my opinion, disastrous for the gains in parity over the years. Those committed to spending big and with deep pockets, like Paul Allen’s Seahawks, would be able to buy up a lot of players, and then cry foul or demand grandfather clauses on pre-existing contracts when the NFL tried to re-institute a salary cap.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Even if there is an owner-originated
lockout, it won’t be until 2011, meaning 2010 will be an uncapped year. The prospect of that has me worried that players such as Earl Thomas will come out this year with possibility of a lockout looming after his junior season.
What gives you the impression that 2010 will be an uncapped year? That’s just completely wrong, as far as I know. Did I miss something?
NFL owners opt out of CBANational Football League
The NFL issued the following release this morning:
The current Collective Bargaining Agreement, initially negotiated in 1993, has been extended on several occasions, most recently in March 2006. The 2006 extension, which could have continued through the 2012 season, gave both the NFL and the NFLPA an option to shorten the deal by one or two years.
NFL clubs today voted unanimously to exercise that option and to continue negotiating a new agreement for the 2011 season and beyond that will work better for both the clubs and the players.
What does this mean to fans and games on the field?
Even without another agreement, NFL football will be played without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons. The 2008 and 2009 seasons will be played with a salary cap. If there is no new agreement before the 2010 season, that season will be played without a salary cap under rules that also limit the free agency rights of the players. If not extended, the agreement would expire at the end of the 2010 league year.
We are resolved to do our best to achieve a fair agreement that will allow labor peace to continue through and beyond the 2011 season.
If there’s an uncapped year, it would be no earlier than 2011, unless the NFL and NFLPA were to mutually agree to void the remaining year of the CBA, which cannot be done other than through mutual agreement. And I strongly suspect the owners would lock the players out before they’d allow an uncapped year. Why would there be an uncapped season in 2010 when the CBA is still in effect until the end of that year?
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Ugh, quote fail.
SB nation has the worst thread tools ever.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Read carefully. The current CBA ends at the end of the 2010 season, so the 2010 season WILL HAVE A SALARY CAP.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I see the confusion. You’re talking about the limitation of free agent movement. That’s different.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Gotcha! Thanks for looking it up.
I was basing my posts on an OTL report I saw a couple of Sundays ago, where it was saying that if an agreement is not reached by March of 2010, then that season would be an uncapped year and 2011 would be a lockout.
Oh, I guess that makes sense. Well, either way, the owners can choose to lock out the players at any time, although it’s certainly unlikely unless not doing so would cause significant financial harm. The reason I consider a lockout for ANY uncapped year to be likely is because an uncapped season, even just one, has the potential to be very financially damaging to the owners.
I personally think the revenue ratio (60% of revenues were to go toward player salaries) was the right one, but owners do need to be afforded some protections that the NFLPA has ridiculously resisted, like allowing an avenue to recoup signing bonus money from players who do not fulfill their contracts. Holdouts who are under contract and crybabies who demand to be cut should not be rewarded with keeping their money. Also, the rookie salary pool needs to be tighter.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Definitely on the rookies.
Makes no sense how much these guys are getting that haven’t ever produced in the league. Need to have a rookie cap like the NBA has.
They do have a rookie cap, in the form of the rookie pool that is allotted to teams based on the draft position of each of their picks. The trouble is that it’s far too generous for players who haven’t played a down in the league yet. No way Tyson Jackson should be getting 1/2 what he’s making now, and not just because he’s a clumsy ox.
by burntorangehorn on Sep 30, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Very true
I didn’t see it from that perspective. The NFL today is so entertaining because it has soo much parity. It would be a shame if the uncapped year produced more teams like the Lions.
by LonghornForLife on Sep 30, 2009 10:32 AM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
