Robert Gallery

hawkfarmer said:
So is AJ Hawk a bust then? He was what the 4th overall pick, pretty high for a LB who I would say didn't live up to expectations of the 4th overall pick, and I am a Packers fan saying this. I don't think he was a bust at all, though he nearly got cut a few years ago. Maybe cause his team won the superbowl he gets a pass?
Click to expand...

I don't want to rabbit trail on Hawk too much, but he was first team all-rookie and he's made a pro-bowl. If you're saying he's under-achieved I am not going argue that, but he's definitely less of a case for being a bust than Gallery by a substantial margin.
 
hogeye said:
Either you live up to the pick or you don't. That defines bust.
Click to expand...

You never responded to the data I presented. Define "live up to the pick" for me. Is it All Pro where only 20% of the top 5 picks reach or is it being picked to play in the Pro Bowl which is about 50%?
 
Section136 said:
Please provide statements from the Raiders front office personnel saying that they are happy with the ROI they got with their #2 overall pick in the 2003 draft.
Click to expand...

Nice job moving the goalposts. I am certain they were unhappy with the ROI; never argued otherwise. But I do not agree that every NFL GM would equate "unhappy with ROI" with "bust". Bust is an extreme term.

Some people just like hyperbole. Bush = Hitler; Obama = Stalin; Iraq War = genocide; Revolt Shaving System = innovation; and so forth.
 
hogeye said:
Either you live up to the pick or you don't. That defines bust.
Click to expand...

Not really. Unless you define bust to mean not living up to your pick. In that case there are a lot of busts. But that is not the definition of a bust. A bust is a failure or a flop. A player can fail to live up to their pick and not be a failure or a flop.
 
Billso said:
Obviously 80% of Top 5 picks are busts.

Sincerely,

Hogeye
Click to expand...

There are a lot of busts...this shouldn't come as a surprise. You perpetually have the worst teams drafting at the top of the draft over the years. Just having Oakland up there annually guarantees a bust a year when they don't squander the pick in some stupid trade.

Some busts are bigger than others and when you're talking #1 and #2 in the draft it's much more heightened than other slots.
 
ssckelley said:
You never responded to the data I presented. Define "live up to the pick" for me. Is it All Pro where only 20% of the top 5 picks reach or is it being picked to play in the Pro Bowl which is about 50%?
Click to expand...

I've already defined why Gallery was a bust. I am not going to keep reiterating it.
 
hogeye said:
I've already defined why Gallery was a bust. I am not going to keep reiterating it.
Click to expand...

This:

hogeye said:
The problem is that you don't draft a guy #2 overall because you need an everyday starter for 10 years. You can get those guys in rounds 3 and 4.

I understand you perspective that he isn't a total bust like JaMarcus Russell, but few players bust like that. That's an extreme example.

NFL teams draft guys in #1 and #2 because they expect, at minimum, All-Pro level of play. Guys that can be plugged in day one and be franchise guys. Not guys that come in day one and then by year two have to be moved into another position because they can't handle it where they were drafted.
Click to expand...

Fine, so I take it you are standing by this post even after I presented you with data.

Here is more:

Between 2000 and 2010 drafts there has only been Four All Pro's drafted with the top 2 picks. By your definition "at minimum, All-Pro level of play" all the other players chosen in the top 2 picks are busts.

Also, I want to point out your last sentence is incorrect. Gallery was playing well at the position he was drafted to play, Art Shell got the wild idea to move him to the other side of the line. Perhaps you did not read the article I posted.

Gallery did not play up to his #2 draft position, which I have said many times. But he is not a bust.
 
I would say if you did a number scale 1 through 10 (where exactly meeting expectations compared to where you are drafted is a 5) RG is around a 2 or 3. I would also say the only ones who should be labeled busts are 1's.
 
hogeye said:
You practically defined bust and acknowledged it in one sentence.
Click to expand...

No I didn't..."under performed" doesn't mean "bust"...A bust is Akili Smith...Ryan Leaf...Reggie Bush...Ron Powlus...not 10 year veterans who've started every game they've been physically able to...

Edit: Said "Powlus" meant Rick Mirer.
 
Last edited:
I also think if you consider any more then 10% of draft picks busts, it really waters down the term. It should probably be more around 5% of all picks.
 
hogeye said:
I am not debating where he was projected to go or where he should have gone. He was, at the time, a can't miss prospect. That's indisputable for the most part. The problem is he was a miss.
Click to expand...

Was he really the "miss" or was the hype machine that labeled him as a "can't miss" the miss?
 
Billso said:
Nice job moving the goalposts. I am certain they were unhappy with the ROI; never argued otherwise. But I do not agree that every NFL GM would equate "unhappy with ROI" with "bust". Bust is an extreme term.

Some people just like hyperbole. Bush = Hitler; Obama = Stalin; Iraq War = genocide; Revolt Shaving System = innovation; and so forth.
Click to expand...


Once again I said he was a bust as the #2 pick, not as an overall football player.
 
ssckelley said:
Also, I want to point out your last sentence is incorrect. Gallery was playing well at the position he was drafted to play, Art Shell got the wild idea to move him to the other side of the line. Perhaps you did not read the article I posted.

Gallery did not play up to his #2 draft position, which I have said many times. But he is not a bust.
Click to expand...

That seems clear. It's surprising how many Iowa fans, even, forget the full story.

In his first season, he started 15 games, and gave up only three sacks.

In his second season, he started 16 games, and gave up only 3.5 sacks.

Do these numbers look like a bust?

In the third season, also known as Hell in Oakland, Gallery was subjected to the coaching "genius" of Art Shell and company, that moved him from Right Tackle to Left Tackle.
Click to expand...

That 3rd season was a disaster, with 10.5 sacks given up in 10 games, then injury. But then Gallery came back and played well at left guard.

But the question is, for a No. 2 pick to go from two solid seasons, put up with a coach who should have stayed out of football, and then getting back to a good caliber player, is it justified to classify him alongside players like Ryan Leaf, Peter Warrick or Todd Marinovich?
Click to expand...

No.
 
HawkeyeShane said:
Was he really the "miss" or was the hype machine that labeled him as a "can't miss" the miss?
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters. He was selected high and didn't live up to it. Also, I don't think it was ever questioned that multiple teams had him rated that high on their boards at the time, so regardless of what the hype machine thought the professionals were all generally on board as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top