Shaq Thompson
4.72 40 and 33inch vertical.
Shelton has been raved about though.
Comments
-
Maybe if he would have laid off the Dick's burgers
-
Da Fuq? Looks like Peters is a better prospect and Shaq drops to second or 3rd round. I'm not drafting a slow undersized WIL who should have played safety in college.
-
I was much more impressed with Shaq at runningback than at linebacker. A 4.72 isn't as big of a deal if you have great vision from a rb perspective, than when you are being asked to run sideline to sideline against a spread.
-
4.72 at RB is a big deal.
HTH -
I'm talking about his performance in college. Yes, that is slow as fuck in the NFL. There were times in college when defenses knew exactly who it was going to and what direction, and he could still get the yards and more.BallSacked said:4.72 at RB is a big deal.
HTH -
Myles Jack looked better on both sides of the ball. Would have given a left nut to have him and Budda in the backfield with Mora as the coach
-
-
I thought he'd run a little better than that but I didn't expect any 4.5 times out of him. There's a reason he was immediately moved to linebacker. Big safeties are great, but there are reasons they are rare, the main one being that people want fast safeties.
He does flash pretty damn good speed on the field when he needs to though. He'll be fine in the NFL but running slow at the combine is all it takes to hurt your draft position. -
Official time for Shaq was 4.64, .04 slower than Laveon Bell
-
4.6 is about where I thought he would be. I'm sure his pro day will be much better, 4.5-4.6. He may be a better athlete with cleats and pads, but that vertical is disturbing
-
LeVeon Bell was a fat fuck when he was at the combine.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Official time for Shaq was 4.64, .04 slower than Laveon Bell
His 40 is at least a tenth faster than that now, probably more.
-
I'd rather have someone quick with instincts than someone that can run a straight line ...
From what I saw from Shaq, looked fine to me. -
Actually he disappeared a lotTequilla said:I'd rather have someone quick with instincts than someone that can run a straight line ...
From what I saw from Shaq, looked fine to me.
-
I was busy watching hips ...
He looked like he had loose hips ...
Most of the guys looked like they had stiff hips -
4.64 isn't bad. He will probably run in the 4.5's at Pro Day.
Shaq's best defensive skill is being able to do something with the ball once he gets it. Other than that, he was a pretty average LB.
He will have a nice career, but I wouldn't want him as a first round pick and I don't think he will be a Pro Bowler. -
Agree on avg LB. At the time I said it was ridiculous that Shaq got 1st team LB over the Butkus winner and so many vaginas here got sandy.
I think his best position is actually RB. -
Something doesn't look right with him on his combine video's besides the obvious weight gain making him slow. A thumper Strong Safety and Dime LB playing at 220lb in a great defense he could excel
-
Ehhhh I wouldn't look too hard into combine results.
-
Shaq had like 4 or 5 defensive TD's. He deserved first team solely from that.BallSacked said:Agree on avg LB. At the time I said it was ridiculous that Shaq got 1st team LB over the Butkus winner and so many vaginas here got sandy.
I think his best position is actually RB. -
You might give up a little bit with Shaq on a down by down situation ... but what you give up you get back in his ability to make big plays and create turnovers.
As the game moves more in the direction of requiring LBs to be able to play in space and defend athletic WRs and TEs in space, the more you need the skillset that Shaq has playing the LB position than you need his ability to scrape off of blockers in the 3-4 yard and a cloud of dust type offenses. -
Actually, 6'0" 228 4.64 33" probably rate as pretty typical measurables for a Power Five Conf WIL. I would agree that straight-line speed has never been Shaq's strength. But if he's a "slow" linebacker, why would you ever want to play him at safety?NeGgaPlEaSe said:...a slow undersized WIL who should have played safety in college...
-
He seemed faster than that to me with his closing speed.
-
I'm not sure who "Budda" is. I'm guessing you meant Buttah.NeGgaPlEaSe said:Myles Jack looked better on both sides of the ball. Would have given a left nut to have him and Budda in the backfield with Mora as the coach
-
Lazy. Like every other one of Snarkeisian's players
-
@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.
You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone. -
At 228lbs he looks slow, it's my opinion. He's trying to stick to the "I'm a linebacker" and gained weight for the combines. He looks far from a chiseled machine that he should be. At 219-220lbs he may have the quicks to play strong safety and dime backer.TTJ said:
Actually, 6'0" 228 4.64 33" probably rate as pretty typical measurables for a Power Five Conf WIL. I would agree that straight-line speed has never been Shaq's strength. But if he's a "slow" linebacker, why would you ever want to play him at safety?NeGgaPlEaSe said:...a slow undersized WIL who should have played safety in college...
-
@BallSacked you just got got.RoadDawg55 said:@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.
You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
Also Shaq was 1st team all-purpose, so he didn't really take a LB position. -
Nah you're wrong on both points. @RoadDoog55 is just fucktardly abundant in his logic, or lack thereof. And Shaq was not All-Purpose by the conference voters, he was LB.Doogles said:
@BallSacked you just got got.RoadDawg55 said:@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.
You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
Also Shaq was 1st team all-purpose, so he didn't really take a LB position.
1. UCLA & UW allowed the same amount of yards per play last season. And that is without the Bruins getting the pleasure of going against coogs, beavs, or that FCS bullshit UW took on. And fuck off with selective data snooping on a single game in which UCLA was up by 5 TDs in the 4th. They gave up 600 yards in a 40 pt victory on the road that was never in doubt. Your team gave up nearly 600 yards to a FCS team in a one score win at home.
Moreover who the fuck cares? Does this then invalidate Kendricks getting selected to the all-conference teams? If it does then I guess no Doogs or Broons deserve because they gave up 600 yards one time and both averaged the same yards per play the entire season.
2. On the total number of players selected, I agree UCLA had too many I'd say entirely in the secondary...I don't think Ishmael Adams is first team worthy. He's average, but he did score 3 defensive TDs. So according to your own fucktarded logic in this very thread - that warrants first team selection. Or does it not? Or does that special case logic only apply to Washington because you have a Shaq Thompson fathead next to your racecar bed? Get your logic straight or go watch NBC sitcoms and shut the fuck up.
Bottom line: The Butkus award winner should be first team all-conference, and none of Roaddoog's points have any merit, and actually counter his own argument. -
I haven't seen this kind of butthurt since Cockus was buried. Lol at selective data. UCLA was tied for 6th in points allowed. .2 away from being 8th. They have up 30+ to three of the worst offenses in the PAC 12.BallSacked said:
Nah you're wrong on both points. @RoadDoog55 is just fucktardly abundant in his logic, or lack thereof.Doogles said:
@BallSacked you just got got.RoadDawg55 said:@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.
You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
Also Shaq was 1st team all-purpose, so he didn't really take a LB position.
1. UCLA & UW allowed the same amount of yards per play last season. And that is without the Bruins getting the pleasure of going against coogs, beavs, or that FCS bullshit UW took on. And fuck off with selective data snooping on a single game in which UCLA was up by 5 TDs in the 4th. They gave up 600 yards in a 40 pt victory on the road that was never in doubt. Your team gave up nearly 600 yards to a FCS team in a one score win at home.
Moreover who the fuck cares? Does this then invalidate Kendricks getting selected to the all-conference teams? If it does then I guess no Doogs or Broons deserve because they gave up 600 yards one time and both averaged the same yards per play the entire season.
2. On the total number of players selected, I agree UCLA had too many I'd say entirely in the secondary...I don't think Ishmael Adams is first team worthy. He's average, but he did score 3 defensive TDs. So according to your own fucktarded logic in this very thread - that warrants first team selection. Or does it not? Or does that special case logic only apply to Washington because you have a Shaq Thompson fathead next to your racecar bed? Get your logic straight or go watch NBC sitcoms and shut the fuck up.
Bottom line: The Butkus award winner should be first team all-conference, and none of Roaddoog's points have any merit, and actually counter his own argument.
But keep crying about a guy who racked up a ton of tackles not making 1st team behind three All Americans including the defensive player of the year (undeserving, but still), the leader in defensive TD's, and the nation's sack leader. -
And I haven't seen this type of fucktarded data-based arguments since AubburnDoog.
In this thread you call 'Shaq average as a LB'. I agree and say the butkus award winner should have been selected over him for first team all-conf. Then, for some reason, you try to argue against yourself with a bunch of garbage that you think is smart, but really is FS.
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/c26c4815317acbf73c44f7f5506b1b56_100.png)
