AnotherOD

I gave the opening a bit of a listen. I will say what appears to be his first point, doesn't seem to be that wild of a take, that a lot of people predicting the game recently essentially have been doing so suggesting Georgia may be overlooking Oregon and might sleep walk into the game and get surprised. In a manner some have suggested took place to some degree in the tOSU/Oregon game last year. The podcaster apparently follows their program closely and sees no signs of Georgia players or staff doing this. So, his suggestion people making a prediction based on something he doesn't see happening seems ok enough. But then I kept listening and I believe he says at about the 9 minute mark he is on record picking Georgia to SHUT OUT Oregon in the game ("for a million factors I have explained before which I won't go into great detail now"). Which, if is the mindset around the Georgia fanbase and program, is sort of exactly what we were hearing from the tOSU side leading into the game. (And yes that is Georgia shutting out Oregon with 8 new starters on defense - playing their first game as 1st time starters) I even recall a thread on the tOSU site (Eleven Warriors) last year where one of their posters upon finding out Thibodeaux wasn't going to play was really upset because his plan was to create some sort of "Pancake Counter" for the tOSU OL against Thibodeaux on the day. I recall mentioning this around this time last year. 247 keeps a "blue chip ratio" that measures the overall talent of the scholarship players actually on the team heading into the season. Georgia's guys are rated #3 heading into the season (at 77%) and Oregon is tied for #10 (at 60%). That is pretty close to where tOSU/Oregon sat last year in the rankings. #3 (talent) in the nation should be expecting a game from #10 (talent) in the nation. 20+ point wins and shutouts by #3 in talent versus #10 in talent in an opener actually really does sound like a degree of overconfidence.

If there are going to be two "super conferences", I tend to think those schools aren't gonna want to play anyone too tough outside their conference going forward. If you have Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, etc. (or Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Michigan State, etc.) to deal with each year, are you gonna wanna add a home and home with Clemson, Miami, Oklahoma State, or Oregon? The ACC, Pac-12, Big-12 I think are going to have to try to play each other if they want to "soup-up" their schedules (and even if they can actually get those games scheduled), is gonna give one of the schools an extra loss, which is going to make it tough for many from the "remaining" P5 conferences to try and out-resume those at the top of the two "mega" conferences. With all the big games going on in the mega-conferences, is Oregon going to be making many waves nationally saying, "but yeah we beat Cal, WSU, ASU, Colorado, and Oregon State" we should be there too? It maybe makes sense as an argument to long time Pac-12 fans, but nationally I don't see it selling too well. Just as beating TCU, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Houston, and West Virginia won't register too well for the B12 either (fair or not). While not exactly a recipe for becoming irrelevant, it does look like a huge uphill battle - with a lot of things each year that would have to go right - that are outside a team's control. That and pretty much going undefeated each year.

It certainly will be a storyline people will be watching. I'd say maybe a bit too soon to press the panic button? A five star South Florida kid picking Alabama, about a 10 hour car ride from home (versus a 3,200 mile flight), shouldn't really be that surprising. I guess there was some buzz about a possible Duck surprise with Young, but he had already visited Alabama twice in 2022, including taking in their "A Day" game, and Young's high school (James Chaney) apparently even hosted Saben during a visit to Florida in January. At different points, I believe their was some momentum with Young to Ohio State then Georgia, much like Oregon. As for Banuelos, certain a guy who the staff apparently was high on, so that is all good (and I'm certainly not here at all to bang on the kid); but, he currently is #537 nationally on the 247 composite and #7 in the state of Washington. While certainly a fine prospect, generally I would say hits or misses on kids rated between 500 and 1000 nationally aren't seen as "sky is falling" moments. Last year the Ducks got Conerly (#16 nationally) and Luli (#191 nationally) for comparison (even read some buzz out in computer land the big bonus with landing versus losing Banuelos is his close relationship to 2024 five star Seattle OL prospect Isendre Ahfua. Interesting.). Now, if Jurrion Dickey ever appears to be less than solid, I could understand if some are reaching for that panic button. One would hope a strong Duck season on the field goes a long way to stabilize the 2023 class (and a springboard for 2024), despite this conference mess/madness.

2007 is interesting. Looking at it, perhaps what stands out is the number of "key" players ranked nationally from 300 to 800. One wonders if those numbers reflect less developed player rankings at the time, or just the staff turning over rocks and stones and developing kids? The team did have a fair amount of highly rated kids. Far from "blue blood/blue chip" program level, but still, some dudes. Interesting to look at 2007 to 2022: National Ranking: Dixon #53 Stewart #12 Colvin #16 Jones #114 Dickson #332 J.Williams #425 Strong #773 Tupou #14 (JC) Schwartz #389 Unger #616 So'oulo #635 Tschirgi #878 Lewis UR Faaeteete #140 Reed #225 Tukuafu #32 (JC) Gibbs #159 (JC) Linehan #419 Boyd #192 Agyeman #285 Bacon #449 Mathews #347 Tuitele #410 Harper #42 (JC) Thurmond #671 Byrd #969 Chung UR Glasper #121 Nix #33 Cardwell #190 Irving #348 Franklin #41 Thornton #57 McGee #151 Hutson #229 Ferguson #231 Aumavae-Laulu #5 (JC) Bass #21 (JC) Jones #246 Forsyth #465 Walk UR Johnson #74 Funa #68 Ware-Hudson #259 Aumavae #391 Dorlus #836 Flowe #6 Sewell #13 Swinson #509 Manning #31 Addison #98 Williams #14 (JC) Gonzales #326 Stevens #137 Bridges #421 Hill #576

I haven't followed the numbers that closely but I believe prior to USC/UCLA joining the conference (this from LA Times July 3, 2022): "Initial reports indicate the Big Ten’s new deal that starts in 2024 could be worth a whopping $1 billion a year. That before UCLA and USC signed on and brought the second-largest media market in the country. Splitting $1 billion of annual TV revenue among 16 Big Ten schools yields an average of $62.5 million per school." If Oregon joins with ND, the pot would continue to grow but now it is an 18 way split, with some new members possibly not getting full shares (like Rutgers and Maryland haven't). $37 million is getting closer to what maybe $50 million as a new member of the 18 team B10 (and that is assuming not a bigger short-tenured reduction in share). As well, that allows Oregon to go tell the B10 to go pound sand for slow playing the Ducks.

More ACC/P12/ESPN Twitter rumors (this from Greg Flugar), saw this: "RUMOR: Pac12 offer from ESPN: $220 million per year, no expansion. Transfer ownership of Pac12 networks to espn. Yearly scheduling of 1 ACC team per school. Clash of Champioms “Bowl”.Also as part of this deal ESPN would pay Oregon and Washington an additional $15 million per year for the trade off of playing 2 ACC teams per year."

I think that may be two ways of saying the same thing. Rules in the NFL exist to generate a competitive product or rules in the NFL exist to generate a playing field where no owner is allowed to run the sport by being in a major market and outspending others. Very similar outcome. College football needs to generate rules that don't allow boosters in traditional power schools the ability to run the sport simply by (massively) outspending others. At this stage, NIL would appear hard to "cap" in the same manner in the same way the NFL cannot "cap" how many State Farm commercials Rodgers or Mahomes can do. It is supposed to be actual $ paid outside the sport due to calculations of true celebrity endorsement, rather than mostly pay-for-play. But that is sort of hard to "prove" when it comes to private "NIL" transactions. I can only see one short term solution that likely won't happen. Hard cap rosters at like 65. No secretly compensated walk-ons. The NFL manages to survive a 17 game regular season with a roster limit of 53. That way a program can raise as much private NIL it wants, it can only "buy" so many guys. Some will have to be left over for programs that will still have decent cash deals. If the portal is going to stay, it likely needs to be open so long. Something like 1 transfer for free open for 2 months after the season and 2 months after spring ball. Other transfers are allowed and second transfers allowed (with scholarship), only the one year penalty for playing applies.

I can see the comparison between the NFL and college -- becoming a more of a short-term/rental type situation with many players. The immediate thought is that at least the NFL has rules to protect the competitiveness of the game, even as players are bouncing around. Players move all around. No NFL team is allowed by rule to get all the top players to start, and have essentially unlimited capacity to portal in guys on top of that. In the NFL, I think the salary cap is like $210 million. Imagine if the rules allowed the Dallas Cowboys to have a $500 million salary cap and the Philadelphia Eagles we're limited to a $40 million salary cap. That is after Dallas was allowed to select all the best players they liked before Philadelphia in the first place? Good players leave an NFL team but at least: (1). there were safeguards put in place to make sure that player was available to that team in the first place, (2) the team is generally given advantages to hold onto that player early in their career into the middle of their career (all sorts of league rules like: structured rookie deals, restricted FA/right of first refusal, franchise tags, Bird rights in the NBA, etc.); and, (3). if a team loses good players, generally they are left with the tools to attract back equal assets (that other teams can't match because eventually they use all their assets).

With NIL, even the 85 player scholarship rule now looks sort of out in the new college football (one decision that actually is often credited with helping competitive balance). Even MLB baseball, with no salary cap, still has the draft, which does allow less competitive teams at least a decent shot at acquiring some assets. Recruiting -- not much like a draft. Imagine at the NBA season if there was a pool of say 20 top players, and Golden State was allowed to get like 4 of the very top guys, the Lakers 4 of the very top guys, 3 to Boston, 3 to Milwaukee, 3 to Dallas, 2 to Miami, and 1 to Chicago. All the rest of the NBA could do was fight among each other to grab a few of the guys rated 20-40? If a team does actually pull the rabbit out of hat on an underrated kid who pops, it gonna be hard to hang onto to him. Leave Oregon State, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Texas Tech and help Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, and have a chunk of cash too.

I can't help but wonder if this isn't an early sign of the writing is on the wall for major college sports? Attendence down (and arguably not likely to return to previous highs), TV ratings stale, predictability inside the sport never higher, NIL and the portal fundamentally changing the sport in ways we are still attempting to grasp, and on, and on. If this the beginning of a huge money grab by those in a position to benefit the most? Loot the thing now, while there is still a chance to make some real windfall; and, get yours well ahead of the thing eventually collapsing? I mean, it's not like these stakeholders (necessarily) want it to fail, if somehow the longshot comes through and the sport doesn't collapse, that's fine as well; but, those in positions to make major bank off the thing -- making the short term steps to maximize that bank -- before they are out, and it eventually becomes something way different (or gone for good) -- seems like a good bet. Interesting times for the sport indeed.

I must admit, after years of paying close attention, the Portal has pulled me away from day-to-day it even week-to-week pouring over recruiting. You follow the ups and downs with a guy like Suamataia (#36 player overall, #6 OT), and the Ducks get the call, as a Duck fan you get pumped, and he comes to the UO for a cup of Gatorade and is out the door in the portal. Or you follow a recruit you really think may take a bit of time but could be an exceptional college player, like a Jayson Jones, and it looks like he actually is going to be a serious player, only mostly for Auburn. However, a transfer like Christian Gonzalez or Bo Nix does even that out some, just less so for emphasis on high school recruiting. Overall, I imagine most of us are still looking/hoping for another shot at that NC. To that point, to really be a player, I would say a program needs a "blue chip" ratio of about 66% (last time I looked Oregon was about 58%-59%) and at least a dozen top 60 players in the rankings composite (I think Oregon has about 7). I think reaching that level is at least in the window of possibility.

Well, obviously we see athletes in all professional sports wanting guaranteed money; and, why not? Phil and DJ can show up out of shape, skip practice, party all week, shoot 80, and make $150 million to $200 million for working 50 days out of the year for a couple years, why not? You not only don't have to win, you don't even have to play well. PGA guys do make something in the majors if they miss the cut (like $10,000). For the Masters, for example, the winner gets $2.7 million, $1.6 million to second, $1.02 million to 3rd, all the way down to $37,800 to 50th place. Again, not for a season, for 5-6 days and about 25 hours of work (and that is if you consider playing a round of golf work). That isn't to mention just about any golfer who carries a PGA card will have a minimum of 3 to 5 corporate sponsors: shirt, hat, clubs, golf ball, which provides a nice chunk of change for very little obligation. The PGA is now paying millions per year to guys for participating in golf related social media, the Player Impact Program, of which Phil took out a $6 million dollar payout in its first year. Not even golf, the power of the product built underneath it that allows successful players to walk in the door and cash checks. In the case of Phil, a guy who has won 3 tournaments in the last 9 years. It isn't about protecting owners or businesses at the expense of their workers; and, I am sure there is a fair argument out there to be made the players' current share might be out-of-balance; but, generally major sports are long term enterprises that produce a product for profit and sustainability. Much of today's success is built on the history of the game. It easy if you are an enterprise that can stuff $5 to $10 billion down the tubes, lose it all if it fails, and go out a couple years later for a beer and laugh about it, but that isn't the PGA, the NBA, the NFL, MLB. Which is sort of the point many people seem to be making, it isn't golf they are trying to be successful at, they are trying to buy goodwill, or positive press, or invest in having a more positive profile on the world stage, or something such (it's been called "sportswashing" bad press), not actually making a profitable business that produces a product that people really enjoy and support. The rules are different if your business model is whatever you want it to be it doesn't matter because you have the ability to pump more natural resources out of the ground to cover all losses (and what else can you do when your garage won't hold a 21st McLaren Speedtail or Bugatti Veyron).

Yahoo sports came out with an article Tuesday suggesting if Phil gets his LIV payout, his career earnings will reach: 1.1 billion (Making him the 4th professional athlete to become a billionaire from their sport) In his roughly 30 years as a pro, the article reports Phil has earned a pretty staggering $830 million dollars in earnings OFF the course earnings: endorsements, corporate sponsorships, commercials, golf course design, made for TV events, and so on. His actual income from prize money is about $95 million, which still is great bank. There probably are a few things that the PGA could do better but these guys still are playing golf for a living after all -- and actually probably only on the course playing competitively (for about four hours a day) 100 days a year. No 280 pound DEs laying Justin Thomas on the turf after a tee shot either. They have to practice too? I wish 2/3 of my work week per year was "practicing golf". Phil and Dustin Johnson probably aren't the best guys to be complaining about it. Huge celebrities that lead lavish dollar soaked lives. As mentioned already in this thread, these start ups mostly are attempting to take away as big a share as possible from the entity that brought them prosperity -- an entity that has built itself up over time so that all someone has to do is show up and walk on the course and be talented no other work required (and that isn't to say I'm crying for that side either). Retail salesman, nurse and home healthcare workers, office clerks, cashiers, customer service reps, freight loaders and carriers, janitors, operations managers all are among the ten occupations employing the most people in the US, often 8+ hours a day, 230 to 250 days a year, typically with deadlines and a boss over their shoulder, for tiny fractions compared to what these guys often make in five days. A golfer can make double what many of these people do for a year's labor for wearing a hat and a logo on a shirt, and never winning a thing, and they want to talk to those same working people about how bad they have got it. I just must be getting old because I have a hard time getting too worked up. When will a guy finally step up and say "It's a ton of easy money and I'm blessed to have the opportunity and I'm gonna take it", that would be awesome.

GeotechDuck beat me to it. I guess it is a long time ago now, but Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Kellen Clemens all completed roughly 55% to 59% of their passes in a more traditional pro-style down field pocket passing game. Actually, Clemens did hit 64% his senior year, 2005, the first season in a different offense (Gary Crowton's spread). If the Duck offense is going to be dropping back and attacking the intermediate and deep portions of the field more regularly, something like 58%-62% should be plenty fine. As great a season as Bryce Young had in Alabama's current vertical/attacking offense, in Alabama's six closes games, he was 165-268 which was 61.5%.

It likely does need to happen, and soon. I doubt overall interest in any non-college football playoff bowl game has been lower in decades, even if it still is a "Peach", "Sugar", "Fiesta" or "Rose". With the NFL playoff now up to having 13 meaningful games in it's postseason, college football can't continue to have only 3 such games. The shine has just worn off anything not related to the playoff; and, if people don't care much about a Cotton or Peach Bowl if it isn't part of the playoff, what is the hope for games like the Citrus, Outback, or Alamo bowls (that at one time often were compelling matchups that got eyeballs). Oregon playing Oklahoma in the Alamo Bowl probably SHOULD have been a fairly interesting game, and probably would have been reasonably so -- if it had occurred 15 years ago. Instead, both head coaches, a bunch of the coaching staffs, and just about any decent draft eligible player, all took a pass on the game. As well, as fans, it almost is like they are daring us to NOT pay attention when they trot out things like the "Jimmy Kimmel Bowl", "Guaranteed Rate Bowl", "Famous Potatoes Bowl", or "Duke's Mayo Bowl". A 12-team playoff gets the sport back to 11 games that mean something instead of 3. I'm not sure the other bowls survive, or really even badly need to (something like 82 out of 130 FBS teams went bowling last year). I think 16 still makes sense. The NCAA basketball tournament allows 66 out of 358 FBS schools into the tournament, so about 18%. 16 spots out of 130 FBS football schools is 12%. That also gives you 15 games that count to build your post season around. What sounds better? 42 games where 39 don't actually matter toward the championship, or only 15 games where they all matter?

It is sort of interesting. Back over those last few days before Mario made his decision official, I recall commenting in some discussion about how people were feeling: and sort of reluctantly agreeing that "yes" you probably do stick with Mario rather than roll the dice with a new coach and staff. BUT, the thing Mario had to do was actually RECRUIT BETTER if Oregon was going to make any steps forward. Not that his recruiting was there -- and he just needed to coach, scheme, and develop better. The only avenue I saw Mario ever consistently doing better with what he brought to the table was to get in even better talent. He had gotten Oregon close to the often referenced 60% "blue chip" ratio, which generally opens the door to a top 10-12 program each year. BUT, in terms of what national championship squads look like, he wasn't getting enough top 70 recruits. There were some (Sewell, Flowe, KT, etc.) but by in large Mario was making his "buzz" on the recruiting scene with kids ranked maybe 150 to 400 nationally, while your Alabamas, LSUs, tOSUs, and Clemsons generally had something like 3 to 4 times as many top 70 kids. 150 to 400 nationally produces plenty of players and the top teams all have guys from those spots, they just don't particularly make a living there. Running out there with talent like Sewell, Flowe, KT, Manning great? Yes. Imagine if instead of having 4 of those guys at that level on your roster, you had 17? That is where Mario needed to go, and at the time, I think his class only had one top 70 kid committed (Banks). Because he just was never going to get there on scheme, development, and coaching. Shoot, I'm sure there was zero chance Miami was gonna let Mario consider either his prior OC or DC for the same jobs at his new school, yet those guys were gonna get Oregon to that next step of beating more talented teams regularly? I didn't know much about Moorhead (but sort of went along with the consensus it was a grand-slam hire); but, I must say, I never "got it". When Oregon's offense was just regularly blah, I looked back at some of his other teams at the D1 level and kinda mostly what I saw was a big running QB and some short read-option passing; and, really other than one strong season with a loaded Penn State roster, not exactly gangbusters. Maybe it was Mario and not Joe but let's just say I'll be happy if 80% of Oregon's offensive playbook has found a garbage receptical somewhere. DeRuyter only got one year and really was dealt a bad hand with injuries, so I can't see giving him a ton of criticism; but, I think we were expecting a bit more? Maybe something of a more aggressive plan than the same old "bend-but-don't-break" that seems to be recycled ever Duck season? Again, injuries, but 75th in points allowed, 72nd in yards allowed, 95th in red zone defense, and 41st in sacks? Don't we all feel a bit more comfortable with Lanning and Lupoi heading things? Doesn't Texas Tech seem like a good spot for DeRuyter (where I am sure he probably does fine); but, not exactly where Oregon is looking to go? Really jazzed about the shake-ups on both sides of the ball. I find it strange to be saying this but the last couple years Oregon has just been boring, both sides of the ball.

It was a while back, so I can't recall the exact details, but the year Oregon played Auburn for the NC, they lost some (almost surprisingly) small number of starts from projected starters on the year due to injury. Don't quote me on this, but my recollection is it was somewhere around 16-18 starts from the projected 22 for the year. Flowe by himself almost hit that in 2021. Somebody can correct that if in error.

Three years isn't long enough to really question the general narrative; but, the scorecard the last 3 NFL drafts IS interesting: Draft Picks by state (2020-2022): Oregon: 13 Washington: 9 Arizona: 7 2020: Oregon (3): Ben Bartch (Blanchet), Blake Brandel (Central Ca), Justin Herbert (Sheldon) Washington (5): Ezra Cleveland (Bethel), Evan Weaver (Gonz), Jacob Eason (Lake St), Jake Luton (Marys-Pil), Shane Lemieux (W Valley) Arizona (3): Dustin Woodard (Chandler), Kyle Hinton (Liberty), Austin Jackson (N Canyon) 2021: Oregon (6): Marlon Tuipulotu (Central), Brady Breeze (Central Ca), Talanoa Hufanga (Crescent V), Osa Odighizuwa (D Douglas), John Bates (Lebanon), Elijah Molden (West L) Washington (1): Joe Tryon (Hazen) Arizona (1): Roy Lopez (Mesquite) 2022: Oregon (4): Cole Turner (Clack), Teagan Quitoriano (Sprague), Daniel Hardy (Valley Ca), Samori Toure (Westview) Washington (3): Kyler Gordon (Ar Murphy), Abraham Lucas (Ar Murphy), Cade Otton (Tum) Arizona (3): Chase Lucas (Chandler), DJ Davidson (Desert Ridge), Brock Purdy (Perry)

I did notice some pretty blazing 200 meter times listed for the incoming Ducks: Khamari Terrell: 21.06 Harrison Taggart: 21.57 Christian Gonzalez: 21.65 Devon Jackson: 21.82 Jahlil Florence: 21.93 Jahlil Tucker: 22.55

I think obviously a lot of times it has to be bad advice. That said, I sometime wonder if some guys are just ready to take their shot, and if it doesn't work, ready to get on with the next step of their lives? Not everyone is gonna like school the same; and, I would imagine some people get to the point they are happy with their "college experience" and don't always want to sign up for another year of the same experience. Maybe they feel like they have gotten what they want to out of college ball, and mostly feel ready to take that NFL shot (even if it is as an URFA). Some may even feel another year isn't likely to greatly improve their chances. Not saying I would agree, just it must happen.

I think the OL is pretty much as should be expected. While I think the expression gets a touch of overuse, "high floor/low ceiling" seems to be a fair way to put it. An OL that may not dominate the Arizona's and Eastern Washington's of the college football world, but also won't be dominated by the Ohio State's or Georgia's either. Maybe not a lock future NFL guy in the current top six. At the same time, a big, experienced, mature group with a bunch of solid and successful college players. I sorta see it mostly as a "known commodity" rather than a question. With I believe 3 starters finishing their eligibility and 2 starters in their 5th season, next year may be one of those "five new starters" kinda deals.

I think Justin Herbert, as a top 10 pick, is going to average about $6.6 million per year over his first four year contract. Imagine paying a high school kid $8 million to just show up on campus? We may also see a kid like Bryce Young (Alabama), who should be off to the pros after this next season, get an NIL offer to come back to Alabama for another additional year, because as a top 5 NFL pick, he might be slotted at about 8 million, when Alabama's NIL group might offer him 10 million. Go to a bottom feeder NFL club or stay and make a couple extra million playing for (another) national championship? He still would be getting his first NFL contract going at a young age if he stayed for a 4th (or maybe even 5th) year. Take less money and go get beat up over 17 games in Detroit, or in Carolina, or with the Jets, on take more money and stay and play for national championships with all the best talent in Alabama?

If I'm remembering correctly, the ducks had adopted "the shield" punt formation (which had just hit the football world in a major way in 2002 in place of the "spread" punt formation - any special teams experts in the house?). Haloti was part of the three person group directly blocking in front of the punter. The punt gets away and Haloti gets hit chasing the play. I don't think the hit ever shows up on any replay angle but indeed it was either first quarter (or first half).

I always think back to "what might have been" 2003, when the Ducks opened the season up from with: 6-6 310 Igor Olshansky 6-5 345 Haloti Ngata 6-5 340 Junior Siavii 6-4 262 Devan Long I think 6-1 310 pound Robby Valenzuela was in the DT rotation (and the "little guy" in the group, Long, I believe still is 4th all-time in Duck football career sacks and 3rd all-time in career tackles for loss). These many years, it has stuck with me the TV analyst, in the pregame, prior to the kickoff at Mississippi State, saying he walked past the Duck DL warming up and thought he was walking past an NFL DL. Of course Haloti gets knocked out for the year in the first half, and the Ducks end up with an up-and-down 8-5 year, and that monster front never gets to completely show itself off. Igor goes on to be a second round NFL draft pick and is a multi-year starter over 8 NFL seasons, Haloti of course goes first round and plays 13 seasons including five Pro Bowls, Siavii battles injuries but plays five NFL seasons; and, I believe Long even has a cup of coffee as an UDFA and his career ends in injury while trying to make his way back to the NFL playing in NFL Europe.