Honey Badger kicked off Tigers. So what does he do, and how does it impact his

[buchead]

Okay finally went to youtube and checked him out(I understand it doesnt show his mistakes duh) But this kid can play free safety in the NFL. What I saw was a ball hawk in every sense of the meaning.  This kid can tackle pretty good for a small guy. Remember Bob Sanders was the best safety in football at one point at 5 foot 8. At the very least he will be a 3rd or 4th corner and a elite return man. Have you guys seen his returns? Thats part of why his draft status is that high,
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8KBPaoS6odk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ISg51HwZ_Q0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

College highlight tapes are poor indicators of future success.

And Bob Sanders was the opposite of ball hawk.  He was a pure run-stopper and spent most of his career in an ice bath because his small body couldn't hold up to an NFL beating.  Seriously.  Most of his career.  He played in only 50 of 128 games.  And he outweighed Mathieu by 20+ pounds.

I wouldn't have a problem deploying Mathieu as a nickle or dimeback, or a roaming safety.  I think his versatility would really shine from that position.  But how high do you draft a guy to be a full time kick returner and a sometimes defender?

My only point was that he could play in this league. Look at who Im replying to and whats been said. To sum it up, he cant play in this league because he is small and cant cover. I think he can. He doesnt just get turn overs. He creates them. literally, watch the highlights. And like you said he plays completely opposite of Bob so he shouldnt have to worry about being injured as much.

He didn't create many turnovers in the National Championship game when he was completely neutralized by deep smash concepts.  If his height wouldn't allow him to cover Kevin Norwood or Darius Hanks on the deep ball, what's he gonna do when Matt Ryan chunks it down the seam to Julio Jones?

Well he would get moss'd. Offensive coordinators take advantage of miss matches all the time. But if he is a roaming safety like we have been discussing, the presumably Talib would be underneath in coverage and he would be on top. If he os a 3rd or 4th corner and return man like i suggested, then ideally he wouldnt be covering Julio on a seam route. But if he is then it wouldnt be the first or last rime a defensive player is caught in a mismatch and taken advantage of. ..... And again I never said the bucs should draft him, or that he would be an elite player. I said he can play in this league.

 And he didnt create any turn overs in that one particular game but how many TD passes did he give up in that game because of his height?

[Blaze688]

Okay finally went to youtube and checked him out(I understand it doesnt show his mistakes duh) But this kid can play free safety in the NFL. What I saw was a ball hawk in every sense of the meaning.  This kid can tackle pretty good for a small guy. Remember Bob Sanders was the best safety in football at one point at 5 foot 8. At the very least he will be a 3rd or 4th corner and a elite return man. Have you guys seen his returns? Thats part of why his draft status is that high,
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8KBPaoS6odk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ISg51HwZ_Q0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

College highlight tapes are poor indicators of future success.

And Bob Sanders was the opposite of ball hawk.  He was a pure run-stopper and spent most of his career in an ice bath because his small body couldn't hold up to an NFL beating.  Seriously.  Most of his career.  He played in only 50 of 128 games.  And he outweighed Mathieu by 20+ pounds.

I wouldn't have a problem deploying Mathieu as a nickle or dimeback, or a roaming safety.  I think his versatility would really shine from that position.  But how high do you draft a guy to be a full time kick returner and a sometimes defender?

My only point was that he could play in this league. Look at who Im replying to and whats been said. To sum it up, he cant play in this league because he is small and cant cover. I think he can. He doesnt just get turn overs. He creates them. literally, watch the highlights. And like you said he plays completely opposite of Bob so he shouldnt have to worry about being injured as much.

He didn't create many turnovers in the National Championship game when he was completely neutralized by deep smash concepts.  If his height wouldn't allow him to cover Kevin Norwood or Darius Hanks on the deep ball, what's he gonna do when Matt Ryan chunks it down the seam to Julio Jones?

Well he would get moss'd. Offensive coordinators take advantage of miss matches all the time. But if he is a roaming safety like we have been discussing, the presumably Talib would be underneath in coverage and he would be on top. If he os a 3rd or 4th corner and return man like i suggested, then ideally he wouldnt be covering Julio on a seam route. But if he is then it wouldnt be the first or last rime a defensive player is caught in a mismatch and taken advantage of. ..... And again I never said the bucs should draft him, or that he would be an elite player. I said he can play in this league.

 And he didnt create any turn overs in that one particular game but how many TD passes did he give up in that game because of his height?

Touchdowns aren't the only measure of failure for a defensive back.  Alabama had him running all over the field in frivolous pursuit.  And yes, he has the ability to make an NFL roster.  No question there.  But I don't know if he'd ever get a shot to be anything more than a second- or third-string return man.

[buchead]

Okay finally went to youtube and checked him out(I understand it doesnt show his mistakes duh) But this kid can play free safety in the NFL. What I saw was a ball hawk in every sense of the meaning.  This kid can tackle pretty good for a small guy. Remember Bob Sanders was the best safety in football at one point at 5 foot 8. At the very least he will be a 3rd or 4th corner and a elite return man. Have you guys seen his returns? Thats part of why his draft status is that high,
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8KBPaoS6odk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ISg51HwZ_Q0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

College highlight tapes are poor indicators of future success.

And Bob Sanders was the opposite of ball hawk.  He was a pure run-stopper and spent most of his career in an ice bath because his small body couldn't hold up to an NFL beating.  Seriously.  Most of his career.  He played in only 50 of 128 games.  And he outweighed Mathieu by 20+ pounds.

I wouldn't have a problem deploying Mathieu as a nickle or dimeback, or a roaming safety.  I think his versatility would really shine from that position.  But how high do you draft a guy to be a full time kick returner and a sometimes defender?

My only point was that he could play in this league. Look at who Im replying to and whats been said. To sum it up, he cant play in this league because he is small and cant cover. I think he can. He doesnt just get turn overs. He creates them. literally, watch the highlights. And like you said he plays completely opposite of Bob so he shouldnt have to worry about being injured as much.

He didn't create many turnovers in the National Championship game when he was completely neutralized by deep smash concepts.  If his height wouldn't allow him to cover Kevin Norwood or Darius Hanks on the deep ball, what's he gonna do when Matt Ryan chunks it down the seam to Julio Jones?

Well he would get moss'd. Offensive coordinators take advantage of miss matches all the time. But if he is a roaming safety like we have been discussing, the presumably Talib would be underneath in coverage and he would be on top. If he os a 3rd or 4th corner and return man like i suggested, then ideally he wouldnt be covering Julio on a seam route. But if he is then it wouldnt be the first or last rime a defensive player is caught in a mismatch and taken advantage of. ..... And again I never said the bucs should draft him, or that he would be an elite player. I said he can play in this league.

 And he didnt create any turn overs in that one particular game but how many TD passes did he give up in that game because of his height?

Touchdowns aren't the only measure of failure for a defensive back.  Alabama had him running all over the field in frivolous pursuit.  And yes, he has the ability to make an NFL roster.  No question there.  But I don't know if he'd ever get a shot to be anything more than a second- or third-string return man.

Turn overs aren't the only measure of success either. You see I can play that game to. Your talking out 2 sides of your mouth. One minute he is a ball Hawking roaming free safety the next he is a 3rd string return man but he can make a team. Show me one player on an NFL rooster that made the team solely because he is 3rd string return guy.

[Blaze688]

Touchdowns aren't the only measure of failure for a defensive back.  Alabama had him running all over the field in frivolous pursuit.  And yes, he has the ability to make an NFL roster.  No question there.  But I don't know if he'd ever get a shot to be anything more than a second- or third-string return man.

Turn overs aren't the only measure of success either. You see I can play that game to. Your talking out 2 sides of your mouth. One minute he is a ball Hawking roaming free safety the next he is a 3rd string return man but he can make a team. Show me one player on an NFL rooster that made the team solely because he is 3rd string return guy.

Who implied that they were?  If anything, that hurts your case.  At any rate, let me specify my position here:

- I think Tyrann Mathieu is an awesome athlete.
- I think Tyrann Mathieu is a ball hawk.
- I think Tyrann Mathieu is bad in man-to-man coverage and deep coverage, because he's too short to cover a lot of legitimate receivers.

He'd make a terrible corner, in my opinion.  His skills translate better to safety, but he's too damn tiny to take advantage of a lot of his instincts.  If a team wanted to exploit those ball hawking skills and natural instincts of his, they'd have to allow him to roam the intermediate field like he did at LSU.  He'd be more linebacker than anything else, and he probably wouldn't have much of an impact against the run.

I think the breakdown in communication stems from the term "ball hawk." That idiom, to me, doesn't necessarily denote a talented football player.  It's an instinctive guy who takes advantage of offensive imprecision when a loose ball enters his jurisdiction.  It's far from a bad trait, but it shouldn't be the first thing you search for in a starting defensive back.  Antonio Cromartie, for example, is a ball hawk.  And his ass gets beaten up and down the field.  Ditto Dre' Bly.  DeAngelo Hall.  Samari Rolle. "Ball hawk" doesn't always mean Darren Sharper or Ed Reed, you know what I mean?

[buchead]

Touchdowns aren't the only measure of failure for a defensive back.  Alabama had him running all over the field in frivolous pursuit.  And yes, he has the ability to make an NFL roster.  No question there.  But I don't know if he'd ever get a shot to be anything more than a second- or third-string return man.

Turn overs aren't the only measure of success either. You see I can play that game to. Your talking out 2 sides of your mouth. One minute he is a ball Hawking roaming free safety the next he is a 3rd string return man but he can make a team. Show me one player on an NFL rooster that made the team solely because he is 3rd string return guy.

Who implied that they were?  If anything, that hurts your case.  At any rate, let me specify my position here

You dont get sarcasm huh. Let me explain, you said he didnt get any turnovers in the championship game.I respond by saying he didnt give up any touchdowns in that game. You replied "Touchdowns arent the only measure of failure. So I replied by simply saying turnovers arent the only measure to success. You get it? You acted as if I said Touchdowns are the only measure of success in judging a CB. Thats why i said you see I can play that game too. You took one sentence i said and acted as if it was much broader so I did the same. And I know exactly what a ballhawk is. And every cornerback you just compared him to have probowls. Just because a corner cant lock a guy down for 4 quarters(name a cb who can besides revis?) doesnt mean he cant be a really good corner. Just look at the guys you just named.
 Lastly go read all the post Ive made in this thread. Everything you just put on your little list has already been said..... by me!

[Blaze688]

Let me explain, you said he didnt get any turnovers in the championship game.I respond by saying he didnt give up any touchdowns in that game. You replied "Touchdowns arent the only measure of failure. So I replied by simply saying turnovers arent the only measure to success. You get it?

Bro, you said, "I think he can play in this league.  He doesn't just get turnovers.  He creates them.  Watch the highlights." You're the one that introduced turnovers as the end-all, citing them as your only evidence that he could play in the NFL.  And I pointed out that, against an NFL-caliber game plan specifically concocted to exploit his limited physical talent, he didn't do ****.  Then you respond with some nonsense about not surrendering touchdowns, like it makes up for the ass-whooping that AJ McCarron delivered while throwing to Mathieu's receiver.

You acted as if I said Touchdowns are the only measure of success in judging a CB. Thats why i said you see I can play that game too. You took one sentence i said and acted as if it was much broader so I did the same.

You cite his picks.  You cite his forced fumbles.  You cite his ball-hawking skills.  You're all about his playmaking potential, but you haven't said a word about his coverage ability -- which is the only thing being disputed in this topic.

And I know exactly what a ballhawk is.

Buchead: "He's probably even a better ball hawk if you can quantify precisely what ball hawking is."

And every cornerback you just compared him to have probowls.

There's also two other things they have in common.  They all got passed around the league because of their inconsistency in pass defense, and despite the holes in their game, they entered the league with better coverage skills than Mathieu.

Just because a corner cant lock a guy down for 4 quarters(name a cb who can besides revis?) doesnt mean he cant be a really good corner. Just look at the guys you just named.

I don't think any of the guys I mentioned (who, again, are all better in coverage than Mathieu) are candidates for the "really good corner" title.  And it's beside the point.  Stop using straw men to support your convoluted argument.

Lastly go read all the post Ive made in this thread. Everything you just put on your little list has already been said..... by me!

You say he's better than Ahmad Black, like I'm in disagreement.  You're comparing him to Bob Sanders (but then you say, oh, but it's cool, because he's nothing like Bob Sanders).  You cite Tampa Bay's unproven and grossly undersized safeties like they're some indirect credibility.  You're all over the place.  Figure out what it is you want to debate, then get back to me.

EDIT: And for the record (and in the name of clarification), I should've said "third string corner and return man." No one makes an NFL roster as a third string kick returner.

[buchead]

Let me explain, you said he didnt get any turnovers in the championship game.I respond by saying he didnt give up any touchdowns in that game. You replied "Touchdowns arent the only measure of failure. So I replied by simply saying turnovers arent the only measure to success. You get it?

Bro, you said, "I think he can play in this league.  He doesn't just get turnovers.  He creates them.  Watch the highlights." You're the one that introduced turnovers as the end-all, citing them as your only evidence that he could play in the NFL.  And I pointed out that, against an NFL-caliber game plan specifically concocted to exploit his limited physical talent, he didn't do ****.  Then you respond with some nonsense about not surrendering touchdowns, like it makes up for the ass-whooping that AJ McCarron delivered while throwing to Mathieu's receiver.

You acted as if I said Touchdowns are the only measure of success in judging a CB. Thats why i said you see I can play that game too. You took one sentence i said and acted as if it was much broader so I did the same.

You cite his picks.  You cite his forced fumbles.  You cite his ball-hawking skills.  You're all about his playmaking potential, but you haven't said a word about his coverage ability -- which is the only thing being disputed in this topic.

And I know exactly what a ballhawk is.

Buchead: "He's probably even a better ball hawk if you can quantify precisely what ball hawking is."

And every cornerback you just compared him to have probowls.

There's also two other things they have in common.  They all got passed around the league because of their inconsistency in pass defense, and despite the holes in their game, they entered the league with better coverage skills than Mathieu.

Just because a corner cant lock a guy down for 4 quarters(name a cb who can besides revis?) doesnt mean he cant be a really good corner. Just look at the guys you just named.

I don't think any of the guys I mentioned (who, again, are all better in coverage than Mathieu) are candidates for the "really good corner" title.  And it's beside the point.  Stop using straw men to support your convoluted argument.

Lastly go read all the post Ive made in this thread. Everything you just put on your little list has already been said..... by me!

You say he's better than Ahmad Black, like I'm in disagreement.  You're comparing him to Bob Sanders (but then you say, oh, but it's cool, because he's nothing like Bob Sanders).  You cite Tampa Bay's unproven and grossly undersized safeties like they're some indirect credibility.  You're all over the place.  Figure out what it is you want to debate, then get back to me.

EDIT: And for the record (and in the name of clarification), I should've said "third string corner and return man." No one makes an NFL roster as a third string kick returner.

Im all over the place??? lol np you are. This "debate" started because you specifically said he couldnt play in this league. I never compared his play to Ahmad Blacks so lets not pretend this was me comparing his play to Blacks, or Bob Sanders for that matter. Those guys were only named because they are 5'8 safeties, and you said Tyrann is to short. You brought up Bob Sanders style of play. I said he is a better athelete than the 4.7 Ahmad Black and I think thats pretty obvious. You compared him to all those other corners I just replied. So dont tell me to stop comparing him to those guys when you are the only reason they were put in the conversation. You havent had one consistent argument since we started. My point has always been this kid can play in the league. Its never changed. Now in this very last post you said it was about him being better than Ahmad..... Oh wait you also said the only thing being disputed is his coverage ability..... Right. The whole reason we threw around the idea of him being a FS or 3rd corner is because he isnt good in man to man coverage. So lets not act like I said he can cover and you said he cant. To me it looks like I backed you off your original statement (he is 5'8 so he cant play in the NFL because TEs are tall lol) so now your picking out other things to pretend as if that was the main issue. When this back in forth started, you were saying he cant play. Since then you have said he is a roaming FS, and a nickel corner. If its someone not making a clear point here, its you bud. As I said at almost the end of every other post (mostly because you were making the argument about something else) I never said the bucs should draft him or even that he would be an elite safety. You flat out said he cant play his game wont translate and I said he can.

[GameTime]

If he was a 3rd or 4th corner and return man like i suggested,

where do you think a guy like this should be drafted?

[buchead]

If he was a 3rd or 4th corner and return man like i suggested,

where do you think a guy like this should be drafted?

Before the troubles I would say 2 round, but even with this its hard to imagine him slipping past the 4th. The thing that makes him more valuble is his return ability. Its one return where he actually looks like an antelope.

[Blaze688]

Im all over the place??? lol np you are. This "debate" started because you specifically said he couldnt play in this league.

LOL.

Blaze688: "I see him more as a safety than a corner in the NFL."

Blaze688: "I could totally picture him playing that 2008 Troy Polamalu "roam" position that the Steelers perfected."

Blaze688: "I wouldn't have a problem deploying Mathieu as a nickle or dimeback, or a roaming safety."

Blaze688: "He has the ability to make an NFL roster.  No question there."

I said he couldn't hold man-to-man coverage on receivers or tight ends in the NFL.  I never once "specifically said he couldn't play in this league." That's a load of bull**** and another straw man.  Keep em coming, I guess.  They're easy to deflect.

I never compared his play to Ahmad Blacks so lets not pretend this was me comparing his play to Blacks, or Bob Sanders for that matter. Those guys were only named because they are 5'8 safeties, and you said Tyrann is to short. You brought up Bob Sanders style of play.

I say that Tyrann is too short to cover receivers deep, and you cite a similarly sized linebacking run-stopper who had zero coverage skills?  What the **** does Bob Sanders have to do with anything?  It's like saying, "Yeah, Tyrann weighs 300 pounds, but look at the damage Warren Sapp inflicted at that weight!" Mathieu and Sanders are polar opposites.  They have different skill sets.  They'd be doing completely different jobs.  And you acknowledge that fact, but maintain the metaphor!

Why??

I said he is a better athelete than the 4.7 Ahmad Black and I think thats pretty obvious. You compared him to all those other corners I just replied. So dont tell me to stop comparing him to those guys when you are the only reason they were put in the conversation.

Put on your reading glasses.  Mathieu is a ball hawk.  Cromartie, Bly, Hall, and Rolle are ball hawks.  That's where the similarities end.  I never compared careers, physiologies, or physical talent; those players were merely evidence to support my personal definition of an abstract term.  Your erroneous comparisons are weak "if / then" constructs -- if Ahmad Black can do it (which he hasn't), then why can't Mathieu?

Good try though.

Now in this very last post you said it was about him being better than Ahmad..... Oh wait you also said the only thing being disputed is his coverage ability..... Right.

First of all... what?

Second of all...

Buchead: "Guys on here was saying, [Ahmad] is a ball hawk he is a playmaker bla bla bla give him a chance. But the honey badger is to small even though he is obviously a better athlete, better blitzer, and probably even a better l ball hawk..."

You brought up Ahmad (for some reason), and started making claims that Tyrann Mathieu was a better athlete and blitzer... like anyone was going to disagree with you.

The whole reason we threw around the idea of him being a FS or 3rd corner is because he isnt good in man to man coverage. So lets not act like I said he can cover and you said he cant. To me it looks like I backed you off your original statement (he is 5'8 so he cant play in the NFL because TEs are tall lol) so now your picking out other things to pretend as if that was the main issue.

Dude.  For the love of God.  The reason he isn't good in man-to-man coverage is because of his height.

Blaze688: "Mathieu is an elite blitzer and ballhawk, but he's a liability in coverage."

Blaze688: " [Alabama] forced him out of his zone and into man-to-man coverage, throwing deep and outside over his head.  He doesn't have the height or the length to make up lost ground."

Blaze688: "Can you imagine him on an Antonio Gates or Jimmy Graham?"

Blaze688:  "His height wouldn't allow him to cover Kevin Norwood or Darius Hanks on the deep ball..."

Blaze688: "... he's too damn tiny to take advantage of a lot of his instincts."

Those are quotes from every post in this topic in which I addressed Mathieu's ability to play football.  But quick, tell me what other things I'm "picking out to pretend as if that was the main issue."

When this back in forth started, you were saying he cant play.

I said he can't play?  Go ahead and find that quote.

I did say his skill set doesn't translate well to the NFL (it doesn't), and I probably wouldn't draft him in the first or second day, because he can't play man-to-man (he can't).  Then I spend the rest of this topic supporting those claims with actual evidence and logical projections stemming from his greatest failure as a collegiate athlete... and you accuse me of presenting a sloppy argument.  But it's cool, because you checked out eight minutes worth of highlights.

LOL.

Since then you have said he is a roaming FS, and a nickel corner.

"Since then?" I called him a safety in my second post.  And the first post was only three sentences long.  You act like I pulled some mid-debate flip flop or something.

If its someone not making a clear point here, its you bud. As I said at almost the end of every other post (mostly because you were making the argument about something else) I never said the bucs should draft him or even that he would be an elite safety. You flat out said he cant play.

Yeah, except that never happened.

Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't make my point unclear.

[Skull and Bones]

Who cares if this guy can play in the NFL.  This druggie ain't coming here.