IntheBullseye.com

IntheBullseye.com (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/index.php)
-   The NFL Draft (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Official Senior Bowl Thread (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397)

jppaul 01-23-2009 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear (Post 7524)
Couple of things. WR is different than a defensive lineman for one main reasons. A WR will never make a bad team good. They can't do anything unless they have an offensive line that can protect the QB....and a QB to get them the ball. Same thing works on the other side of the line. We could throw out two pro bowl CB's, but if you can't get pressure on the QB or stop the run with some consistency you are still going to get picked apart at some point.

I will never have a problem picking a lineman on either side of the ball if the staff thinks they are worth it. It might not always be my favorite, and it's definitely not sexy, but the trenches are where game are won.

On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

Certainly, everybody is correct, we are not in fact the Lions. Thank you for clearing that up. All I was saying is that other teams follies may serve as educational, in the same way history is educational. A what not to do blue print, so to speak.

What teams does this saturation drafting, to the degree in which we have done, actually payoff. Didn't payoff for the Lions, didn't payoff for us, who did it pay off for? This is not a rhetorical question.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.

That is my question.

barrett 01-23-2009 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7526)
On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

Certainly, everybody is correct, we are not in fact the Lions. Thank you for clearing that up. All I was saying is that other teams follies may serve as educational, in the same way history is educational. A what not to do blue print, so to speak.

What teams does this saturation drafting, to the degree in which we have done, actually payoff. Didn't payoff for the Lions, didn't payoff for us, who did it pay off for? This is not a rhetorical question.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.
That is my question.

The amount of resources previously spent is not relevant to the argument. The relevant factor is do we need to improve on the DL right now. Clearly the answer is yes.

Otherwise you could say we have put fewer resources into WR than almost any position on the team the last 4 years so we should be looking to draft WRs. But this is not relevant. You draft on what you have and what you need, not on what you allocated. Your line of reasoning is the type that led Charlie Casserly to offer up Boselli as an excuse for why he never got a decent LT (We tried previously so we get to turn our attention elsewhere).

The DL is probably our worst or 2nd worst position group along with Secondary. Both have had first day draft picks and FA money thrown their way and we remain in need of upgrading in both areas far more so than at LB or anywhere on the offense. Hopefully a DT, FS, or DE is worthy of being drafted at 15 when we hit the clock.

papabear 01-23-2009 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7526)
On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

I have concerns about the cap implications as well. I'm not a Best player available or a need guy. It's always a mixture of both. I'm not saying we have to draft a DT, but to just make a decision that we are not taking a D-lineman in the first round before the draft is bad planning. The Texans didn't plan on drafting Okoye, but when their spot came up he was by far the highest rated guy on their board. You may not like the way it turned out, but at that time we got a guy that most people projected to go several slots higher than us and many considered it a steal. All you can do is balance need and BPA when your spot comes up and make a pick.


Quote:

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.
Well then we can just disagree. Although in my example I meant to imply that you didn't have a good O-line or QB. If you do, then yes you need to find that playmaker on the outside. If you don't you can sign all the WR's you want and it won't change a thing. My point was everything starts in the trenches, so if your going to spend a disproportionate amount of your resources on a single area....I would rather it be one of the lines.


Quote:

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.

That is my question.
I'm not advocating dedicating resources to the position necessarily. I'm saying you have to take the hand your dealt on draft day. Not considering a position is just as dangerous as reaching for a position based on need IMO.


On top of that, guys taken from the middle-late first round don't eat up near as much space as some people might think. TJ's cap number this year was 1.9 mill. Next year it will be 2.2. Far from a bargain, but not a cap killer by any means from a pickk that was around the same point in the draft as we will have this year. So taking the same position in the first round every year hurts a lot worse if all of the picks are top 5 than if you are a little farther back.

barrett 01-23-2009 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear (Post 7531)
I have concerns about the cap implications as well. I'm not a Best player available or a need guy. It's always a mixture of both. I'm not saying we have to draft a DT, but to just make a decision that we are not taking a D-lineman in the first round before the draft is bad planning. The Texans didn't plan on drafting Okoye, but when their spot came up he was by far the highest rated guy on their board. You may not like the way it turned out, but at that time we got a guy that most people projected to go several slots higher than us and many considered it a steal. All you can do is balance need and BPA when your spot comes up and make a pick.




Well then we can just disagree. Although in my example I meant to imply that you didn't have a good O-line or QB. If you do, then yes you need to find that playmaker on the outside. If you don't you can sign all the WR's you want and it won't change a thing. My point was everything starts in the trenches, so if your going to spend a disproportionate amount of your resources on a single area....I would rather it be one of the lines.




I'm not advocating dedicating resources to the position necessarily. I'm saying you have to take the hand your dealt on draft day. Not considering a position is just as dangerous as reaching for a position based on need IMO.


On top of that, guys taken from the middle-late first round don't eat up near as much space as some people might think. TJ's cap number this year was 1.9 mill. Next year it will be 2.2. Far from a bargain, but not a cap killer by any means from a pickk that was around the same point in the draft as we will have this year. So taking the same position in the first round every year hurts a lot worse if all of the picks are top 5 than if you are a little farther back.

I agree it is a bad idea to go into a draft either locking on or eliminating positions. QB is an exception since only 1 plays, but everywhere else it is a balancing act between need and BPA.

sinnister 01-23-2009 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7526)


The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

That is my question.

I think the Giants had the best DL the year before the draft, and they certainly made up for a porous secondary.......and they won the Super Bowl

Roy P 01-23-2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 7510)
If that's a question, my reply is "yes". More & more teams are going 3-4 and these tweeners are becoming a more valuable commodity every year.
I wish we had never left the 3-4, but it's typical of Kubiak being inflexible and reluctant to confront change.

Yeah, those tweeners are so easy to come by. Most people around here long for the days of Jason Babin and Antwan Peek. :o

jppaul 01-24-2009 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett (Post 7528)
The amount of resources previously spent is not relevant to the argument. The relevant factor is do we need to improve on the DL right now. Clearly the answer is yes.

Otherwise you could say we have put fewer resources into WR than almost any position on the team the last 4 years so we should be looking to draft WRs. But this is not relevant. You draft on what you have and what you need, not on what you allocated. Your line of reasoning is the type that led Charlie Casserly to offer up Boselli as an excuse for why he never got a decent LT (We tried previously so we get to turn our attention elsewhere).

You are obviously a believer in the sunk cost rule. Since you took my argument out of context, lets do the same with yours:

That team has taken 15 straight first round d-linemen. DL is still the greatest need for that team. By your line of reasoning, keep taking the DL. Basically your line of reasoning is advocating for beating your head against a concrete wall.

Personally I'll pass, but maybe someone else is interested.

jppaul 01-24-2009 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinnister (Post 7535)
I think the Giants had the best DL the year before the draft, and they certainly made up for a porous secondary.......and they won the Super Bowl

Different types of DL. Giants was a penetrating DL and the Vikings was a brick wall.

nunusguy 01-24-2009 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7537)
Yeah, those tweeners are so easy to come by. Most people around here long for the days of Jason Babin and Antwan Peek. :o

Seriously that raises an question that always puzzled me ? Why did Capers have so much trouble finding a really effective, stud pass-rush OLB for
his 3-4 ?
Watching this weeks Senior-Bowl practice, there were gobs of those prospects out there in the 235-255 lb range who had the kinda quicks off the edge to play the position. And that's not even counting all of the prospects that were absent like FSUs Brown, UTs Orakpo, and undercalssmen Maybin,
and many others. It just seems to me that the front 7 in the 3-4 is easier to populate than the 4-3, and of course that's always been an argument for the scheme.
BTW, did you see that Capers is taking his 3-4 to the NFC North ?
http://www.studyofsports.com/?p=1028
We all knew big things were in store for the Packers when Mike McCarthy summarily dismissed most of his defensive staff after a disappointing 6-10 season. What few were expecting was for McCarthy to stake his, and the team’s, future on the installation of the 3-4 scheme with the hiring of Dom Capers as Defensive Coordinator.

Most younger Packers fans, myself included, have only seen the 4-3 defense played in Green Bay. This sudden change, and McCarthy’s words on the matter, are somewhat surprising considering that McCarthy will no doubt be facing pressure to take the division back next season after the collapse of the defense and special teams this season.

barrett 01-24-2009 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7542)
You are obviously a believer in the sunk cost rule. Since you took my argument out of context, lets do the same with yours:

That team has taken 15 straight first round d-linemen. DL is still the greatest need for that team. By your line of reasoning, keep taking the DL. Basically your line of reasoning is advocating for beating your head against a concrete wall.

Personally I'll pass, but maybe someone else is interested.

If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team, then DL would still clearly be in play for the 16th draft. You don't play draft slots and contracts. You evaluate how your team plays on the field and look where you need to get better.

If you look at actual play on the field, DL is one of our worst 2 position groups so it should be one of our priorities to upgrade (along with secondary). This does NOT mean we should draft a DL in the first round. It DOES mean we should not rule out drafting a DL in the first round. If it comes to our pick and a DL is the best player on our board, I would expect us to take him. If not I would expect to see a DE in the 2nd or 3rd round.

You said you had a serious question asking why we would take a DL again and this is a serious answer. Why don't you tell us a few positions that are more in need of an upgrade on our team and what direction we should be going in round 1. I'll accept safety, but I don't see anywhere else where we need help more.

TexanJedi 01-24-2009 10:01 AM

According to NFLDraftCountdown, the Texans were spotted with Clay Matthews (LB USC), Mohamed Massaquoi (WR Georgia), and Coye Francies (CB/KR San Jose St.) at the Senior Bowl. Make of that what you will.

barrett 01-24-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7526)
On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

Certainly, everybody is correct, we are not in fact the Lions. Thank you for clearing that up. All I was saying is that other teams follies may serve as educational, in the same way history is educational. A what not to do blue print, so to speak.

What teams does this saturation drafting, to the degree in which we have done, actually payoff. Didn't payoff for the Lions, didn't payoff for us, who did it pay off for? This is not a rhetorical question.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.

That is my question.

Another serious question you have, so here is another serious answer. We have currently spent 3 first round picks in the last 4 years. Another 1st would be 4 in 5 years. We've also spent a 5th during that time (okam).

The patriots in the building of their defense from 2001-2004 (4 years) spent three 1st, one 2nd, and two 4th round picks on DL. And take into account that they play a 3-4 and are only filing 3 spots. So 6 players picked in 4 years to fill 4 spots. And it payed off big time. Half a decade later those guys still make up the top 4 spots on one of the best 3-4 lines in football.

So the problem is not with over-investing in one position. The problem is with doing a bad job of it (like we have on some of these picks). And I think that's where your argument comes from. The frustration that comes from these guys blowing picks is doubled when they keep blowing them in the same area. Well remember this staff has only had 2 drafts and they have only taken ONE DL in those 2 drafts. You can't expect them to ignore team needs based on who Casserly drafted in 2005.

jppaul 01-24-2009 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett (Post 7548)
If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team, then DL would still clearly be in play for the 16th draft. You don't play draft slots and contracts. You evaluate how your team plays on the field and look where you need to get better.

you don't? Seriously, Barrett? Give me a break. Another Hypo you have had the first overall selection 4 times and youve drafted all DL. Can you imagine the cap ramifications?

That is a bit extreme obviously, but you are lying to yourself if you think, that cap ramifications don't factor in.

Nconroe 01-24-2009 11:04 AM

where to draft, I am also some combination of BPA tempered within the top few needs, so trade downs are often good.

our defense was overall 23rd last year, DL like 30th in least sacks and DBs like 28th in fewest turnover/interceptions. seems draft should focus on defense since offense was third ranked overall.

But these are young guys, some injuries, some player and coach turnover. And what was their ranking say last 5 games when seemed to have better defensive results.

So, maybe our DL picks are skilled guys who just need the right coaching and some maturity and health overall.

Anyways, lots of fun this time of the year speculating on how new coaches and draft will do this coming year.

I think if a Raji were there at 15 its a no brainer , draft him. if gone, not sure, see who's BPA.

So far, I don't like what I've seen of Will Moore for safety.

painekiller 01-24-2009 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 7515)
Fair point.
Lot of guys went gah-gah eyed over Okoyes Senior Bowl performance a couple years ago (apparently including Smith & Kubiak),
and 2 years out in the NFL he's been a definite flop for a #10 overall.

Okoye played hurt this season, high ankle sprain, so he played on one leg. Plus he was being used to as a read react DT, he is a shot the gap and find the ball type. So IMO judging him a bust is unfair.

As for Raji suspension, my understanding is the school mismanaged his credits and he became ineligible. While he was away, he found out how much he missed the game and rededicated himself. Had he played last year, we would have know of him.

painekiller 01-24-2009 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett (Post 7548)
If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team,


Then you have a problem with scouts, GM, the draft in general.

barrett 01-24-2009 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 7555)
Then you have a problem with scouts, GM, the draft in general.

agreed. That was my point. The problem is not "over-drafting" the DL. It's picking the wrong players. This has nothing to do with what position you take.

This current staff has picked one DL (okoye) and the jury is still out. This one pick does not disqualify them from attempting to fix an obvious problem area.

nunusguy 01-24-2009 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanJedi (Post 7549)
According to NFLDraftCountdown, the Texans were spotted with Clay Matthews (LB USC), Mohamed Massaquoi (WR Georgia), and Coye Francies (CB/KR San Jose St.) at the Senior Bowl. Make of that what you will.

Veeery interesting. And good to know. Thanks for the info TexanJedi.
Matthews is no surprise, nor is a corner but the GA WR is intriguing ? I dunno, but you gotta think that the Texans are getting a bit uneasy about
Jacobey J., so guess that could explain their interest in a WR plus another player they are talking to who has experience as a KR (Jacobeys main job up to now) ?
BTW, just how is Clay Matthews related to Oilers/Titans HOFer Bruce ? I'm thinkin Bruce had a brother named Clay who played for the Browns, and if so that would probably make the USC LB Bruces nephew ?

sinnister 01-24-2009 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7543)
Different types of DL. Giants was a penetrating DL and the Vikings was a brick wall.

I didn't say they weren't different, I said the Giants was better last year. Don't forget, Jared Allen was not on last years squad. Granted, they had 2 great DT's, so their inside was a brickwall, but the outside wasn't. The Giants were better across their front four with Tuck, Strahan, etc.

sinnister 01-24-2009 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 7557)
Veeery interesting. And good to know. Thanks for the info TexanJedi.
Matthews is no surprise, nor is a corner but the GA WR is intriguing ? I dunno, but you gotta think that the Texans are getting a bit uneasy about
Jacobey J., so guess that could explain their interest in a WR plus another player they are talking to who has experience as a KR (Jacobeys main job up to now) ?
BTW, just how is Clay Matthews related to Oilers/Titans HOFer Bruce ? I'm thinkin Bruce had a brother named Clay who played for the Browns, and if so that would probably make the USC LB Bruces nephew ?

Bruce and Clay Matthews were brothers. I was wondering about the connection myself. Both played at USC if I remember correctly.

sinnister 01-24-2009 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7552)
you don't? Seriously, Barrett? Give me a break. Another Hypo you have had the first overall selection 4 times and youve drafted all DL. Can you imagine the cap ramifications?

That is a bit extreme obviously, but you are lying to yourself if you think, that cap ramifications don't factor in.


Cap ramifications do factor in, and there is little doubt that NFL teams have players that are taken with low draft picks where they are making up where their cap dollars are invested; however, OL and DL are the 2 most important positions on the team. They are the building blocks of a franchise, so justifying cap space for 8-9 slots is warranted. Also, in Barretts example, although extreme, let's be real. If you took 15 straight DL, not all 15 would be there tying up cap space. The same is going to be true of us. Anthony Weaver will be gone in the near future, and possibly Travis Johnson as well. So, the future of the DL, if Raji is drafted, won't be like having all these guys plus him. Granted, it is frustrating drafting all these guys and seeing little results. I still have high hopes for Okoye......

Roy P 01-24-2009 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 7546)
Seriously that raises an question that always puzzled me ? Why did Capers have so much trouble finding a really effective, stud pass-rush OLB for
his 3-4 ?
Watching this weeks Senior-Bowl practice, there were gobs of those prospects out there in the 235-255 lb range who had the kinda quicks off the edge to play the position.

Gobs of prospects don't always translate into legitimate NFL players. Mike Mayock is intrigued by English from N. Illinois. However, Robert Brewster of Ball State shut him down. Therefore, I am not impressed by the level of competetion that he faced.

While I like Cody Brown, I'm not 100% sure that he would be the next Joey Porter, much less DeMarcus Ware. There are more Matt Roths and Dan Bazuins in the draft than Shawne Merrimans. Sidbury and Veikune could be more like Ken Pettway and Travis Laboy than Shaun Phillips.

Trying to project a college DE into a standup OLB is pretty tricky business.

jppaul 01-24-2009 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett (Post 7548)
If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team, then DL would still clearly be in play for the 16th draft. You don't play draft slots and contracts. You evaluate how your team plays on the field and look where you need to get better.

If you look at actual play on the field, DL is one of our worst 2 position groups so it should be one of our priorities to upgrade (along with secondary). This does NOT mean we should draft a DL in the first round. It DOES mean we should not rule out drafting a DL in the first round. If it comes to our pick and a DL is the best player on our board, I would expect us to take him. If not I would expect to see a DE in the 2nd or 3rd round.

You said you had a serious question asking why we would take a DL again and this is a serious answer. Why don't you tell us a few positions that are more in need of an upgrade on our team and what direction we should be going in round 1. I'll accept safety, but I don't see anywhere else where we need help more.

I am not saying that DL is not a need rather that you can find talent other places than the first round of the draft, and that given our track record, we would be well advised to look elsewhere.

Which is why I have been advocating for Michael Johnson in the second.

Additionally, I think our biggest need this year transcends any one position. We need an impact player, someone that comes in and makes a big splash, and the easiest area to do that is LB, which is why Vilma, Willis and Demeco were all DROY.

The value in the draft would also lie in LB at 15. I like either Maluluaga or Cushing personally. Cushing could play strongside, with Malualaga you might have to make some moves.

Roy P 01-24-2009 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7563)
The value in the draft would also lie in LB at 15. I like either Maluluaga or Cushing personally. Cushing could play strongside, with Malualaga you might have to make some moves.

Drafting a SAM in the 1st round is a mistake. Try to name a "difference maker" who plays that position in the NFL. I would like to add some talent at the position, but wouldn't use higher than a 3rd round pick for it.

Malualaga might add something to the defense. However, since we have Ryans, that makes even less sense than drafting a NT. Sure, you could move DeMeco to the WILL, but the GM just drafted Adibi, so why keep adding to the LB corps?

NBT 01-24-2009 01:27 PM

Because it might just work! As you say it's hard to tell this time of year. All we can do is speculate. So speculate on.

painekiller 01-24-2009 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinnister (Post 7559)
Bruce and Clay Matthews were brothers. I was wondering about the connection myself. Both played at USC if I remember correctly.

Clay Matthews Sr played for 49ers.
His two sons Clay Jr. and Bruce both played at USC and then in the NFL.

Clay's son Clay III, was a walk on at USC and this season became a starter, and difference maker.

BTW Bruce has a son playing OC at Texas A&M.

painekiller 01-24-2009 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7564)
Drafting a SAM in the 1st round is a mistake. Try to name a "difference maker" who plays that position in the NFL. I would like to add some talent at the position, but wouldn't use higher than a 3rd round pick for it.

Malualaga might add something to the defense. However, since we have Ryans, that makes even less sense than drafting a NT. Sure, you could move DeMeco to the WILL, but the GM just drafted Adibi, so why keep adding to the LB corps?

The evolution of positions in the NFL game is interesting, remember when the FB was the best runner in the backfield? Guys like Czonka, Harris. But the salary cap has changed everything, now the FB is a throwaway position, heck most cannot even run a pass route.

An interesting trend in college is the spread offense. And college defenses are getting smaller to deal with the spread. Now if 80% of the colleges go with the smaller quicker defense, how will that effect the drafting of defensive players? Also remember the 3-4 usually is about putting bigger guys on the field. Plus sized NTs, Plus sized DEs, plus sized Lbs. Where is the NFL going to find that player when the college go to speed defenses?

I am tired of our team following the trends, become a trail blazer, develop something unique. Make the other team react to you.

Why not bring back the 2 back sets where both guys carry the ball? Why not have two 3-gap DTs playing at the same time and both attaching the ball.

Roy P 01-24-2009 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 7567)
I am tired of our team following the trends, become a trail blazer, develop something unique. Make the other team react to you.

.

Here's my idea. I call it the 5-1-5. The anchor is like the 3-4 in that I put a 320lb bull right on the C. I have him flanked by two 3-Techniques that are required to fire into the backfield. On the left of the line is where I have a large pass rusher that would be like Mario or Julius Peppers. On the other side, I would have a tweener who would be similar to an OLB in that he would sometimes be asked to drop in coverage on a TE or a RB. The LB is a large fellow that can play in space. Perhaps a guy who had played SS at some point before becoming 245lbs. Having 5 DL in front of him, should allow him to attack sideline to sideline. Considering the lack of LBs on the field, I'll need strong tacklers in the secondary. Since they probably won't have elite quickness to play man all day, they have to have good zone awareness and ball skills to boot. My FS will need to roam Centerfield to pick up anything that gets through. I'll have one FS who is almost a CB while the SS is almost a WLB.

Mario Williams------Amobi Okoye------BJ Raji------Darryl Richard------Cody Brown

--------------------------------------Brian Cushing
Fred Bennett -----------------------------------------------------------------Keenan Lewis
-------------------- Keith Fitzhugh------------------------Antwaun Molden
---------------------------------------C.J. Spillman

I'm not advocating that we trade DeMeco, just an idea of what a new defense would look like that was built to play against passing offenses, while still being effective vs. the run.

Nconroe 01-24-2009 07:37 PM

interesting ideas for changing up the defenses, I was thinking CB's should all have man-man skills, hard to find the speed and size combo, I realize that. I guess with our new coaches we will see some changes for sure this year. Seems Baltimore, a few others put 8 in the box to get a lot of their pressure, and then pressure comes so fast it works. Is Baltimore and Pittsburg and NYG big guys, seems that is working pretty well.

Roy P 01-24-2009 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7564)
However, since we have Ryans, that makes even less sense than drafting a NT. Sure, you could move DeMeco to the WILL, but the GM just drafted Adibi, so why keep adding to the LB corps?

There was a little sarcasm in this part of my post. I was responding to a similar "logic" for not drafting a DL.

Perhaps I'm getting more pessimistic and cynical as I go through this every year. For some reason, I'm not exceptionally fired up about many of the prospects. All I am seeing is projects and not difference makers in this group.

Raji appeared pretty impressive during the week, but in the game today, he was pretty quiet. Peria Jerry had a pretty good showing, but I'm hesitant to wanting to draft another player like Okoye or Travis Johnson. The LBs in the game were marginal (including the USC group). TE Pettigrew was lackluster.

I'm trying to formulate a My Guys list and it might be short.

WR Crabtree
WR Maclin
LB Curry
NT Raji
DT Jerry

There's my 1st round picks. If all 5 are off the board, I'm trading down if possible.

jppaul 01-25-2009 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7570)
There was a little sarcasm in this part of my post. I was responding to a similar "logic" for not drafting a DL.

Roy maybe i am a little slow but huh?

James 01-25-2009 12:56 AM

No feel for the outside rushers that could be available? Maybin or Brown? Maclin, Raji, and Jerry could be available at our draft slot, likely only one of them, does that discount what a true outside rusher would add to the defense immediately? Brown is more ready than Maybin, except, perhaps, in your 5-1-5. Orakpo should be gone. I'm all for adding picks, but if one of these guys can come in and add 10 total sacks (as a whole for the defense) and 20 more pressures, is that not the difference between 8-8 and 11-5?

nunusguy 01-25-2009 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7562)
Gobs of prospects don't always translate into legitimate NFL players. Mike Mayock is intrigued by English from N. Illinois. However, Robert Brewster of Ball State shut him down. Therefore, I am not impressed by the level of competetion that he faced.

While I like Cody Brown, I'm not 100% sure that he would be the next Joey Porter, much less DeMarcus Ware. There are more Matt Roths and Dan Bazuins in the draft than Shawne Merrimans. Sidbury and Veikune could be more like Ken Pettway and Travis Laboy than Shaun Phillips.

Trying to project a college DE into a standup OLB is pretty tricky business.

True. But IMO it's still tougher to find a guy coming out of college who has got what it takes to play DE in the 4-3 where you've got to be able to have the quicks to rush the QB from the edge and still be big & strong enough to defense the run.
BTW, about last nights game, I could have sworn I saw Raji on the field once or twice but I dunno if I heard his name a single time ? The guy looked great in practice this week but apparently left Mobile before last nights kickoff ?
Slatons former QB teammate pretty much guaranteed himself a spot in the Draft someplace in the first 2 rounds after last nights performance, though the verdict is still out about him playing QB.
I don't think Graham Harrell will be sending Mike Mayoc a Christmas card this year ? Mayoc really trashed his performance, not that it wasn't evident for the whole football world to see.
I thought Bomar was impressive despite fumbing in the EZ thereby letting the D recover and score a TD. He's got a strong arm and showed his athleticism
in a couple scrambles out of the pocket. I dunno, is he there for us in the third-round ?

TexanJedi 01-25-2009 11:20 AM

I would avoid any QB at the Senior Bowl except for Pat White. He's got the arm and legs but is he big enough and can he read an NFL defense? Bomar is just not accurate enough for Kubiak's offense. Harrell looks like he has a weak arm and bad mechanics. The kid from Central Arkansas was in over his head.

At running back the best to me was Rashad Jennings for Liberty. He would make for a nice complement to Slaton. Andre Brown looks like a nice prospect but when he was dancing in hole. I had flashbacks of Jonathan Wells.

The best DT last night was Mitch King from Iowa, though Jerry had a couple of good plays. Mayock was high on Raji and seems to think he won't get past us at 15. The South interior linemen did a nice job against him and the rest of the North tackles.

In the secondary, Eugene Chung looked like the best safety. Moore from Mizzou did not look good. I want to think his senior season was an anomaly and he can be the player he was as a junior. Maybe he can and some team will get a steal, but that remains to be seen. I had Dunta flashbacks with the smaller safety from Western Michigan.

Maualuga and Cushing at times looked like beasts at linebacker.

The defensive end from Tennessee and Larry English looked like the best pass rushers.

Anyway, that's one man's opinion.

Roy P 01-25-2009 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanJedi (Post 7578)
The best DT last night was Mitch King from Iowa, though Jerry had a couple of good plays. Mayock was high on Raji and seems to think he won't get past us at 15. The South interior linemen did a nice job against him and the rest of the North tackles.


Moore from Mizzou did not look good. I want to think his senior season was an anomaly and he can be the player he was as a junior. Maybe he can and some team will get a steal, but that remains to be seen.

After re-watching the game, Raji was getting doubled many times, leaving Mitch King to look like Warren Sapp. On the goal line when Mayock mentioned Raji "got handled" by Eric Wood, it was actually King who got run over by Tyronne Green that allowed Andre Brown to score easily.

Jeria Perry got good penetration and pressured the QB several times. He also batted a ball down. I'm wondering if he'd be an upgrade over TJ if Raji is off the board and if the Texans are through with TJs attitude.

Moore left the game with an ankle injury. I'm not a Dr. but this kid has played hurt his entire Senior year. If he goes to Indy and the Dr's go through his medical history, I wonder how far he will drop. Can he come back and play like his Junior year, or is he just going to be on IR during his pro career?

NBT 01-25-2009 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 7566)
Clay Matthews Sr played for 49ers.
His two sons Clay Jr. and Bruce both played at USC and then in the NFL.

Clay's son Clay III, was a walk on at USC and this season became a starter, and difference maker.

BTW Bruce has a son playing OC at Texas A&M.

Uhhh, didn't Clay Mathews play for Cleveland? I'm pretty sure he did. I remember he was pretty tough on our Oilers.

sinnister 01-25-2009 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NBT (Post 7584)
Uhhh, didn't Clay Mathews play for Cleveland? I'm pretty sure he did. I remember he was pretty tough on our Oilers.

The Clay Matthews that played for the Browns as a LB was the son of Clay Sr., who played for the 49ers.

jppaul 01-25-2009 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7581)
After re-watching the game, Raji was getting doubled many times, leaving Mitch King to look like Warren Sapp. On the goal line when Mayock mentioned Raji "got handled" by Eric Wood, it was actually King who got run over by Tyronne Green that allowed Andre Brown to score easily.

I was watching that play and I saw a player with a BC helmet get shunted to the side. I wouldn't call it manhandled but it was an effective block. I think it was Raji but I would have to rewatch to make sure it wasn't Brace.

Roy P 01-25-2009 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul (Post 7586)
I was watching that play and I saw a player with a BC helmet get shunted to the side. I wouldn't call it manhandled but it was an effective block. I think it was Raji but I would have to rewatch to make sure it wasn't Brace.

Raji did get shunted to the side, but it was King who got pancaked allowing Brown to go into the endzone. Would it have been nice to see Raji shed his block and make the tackle? Yeah. However, if he had another 300lbs DT next to him, I'm not sure if the TD is scored.

There were several plays during the game that I watched closely to see. For example, when JP Wilson scored his TD on a draw play, the Middle LB (McKillop or Follett) got blocked after Raji and King parted ways leaving the middle open. I saw some hestitation in Marcus Freeman, Brian Cushing, Tyrone McKenzie, and others that I did not like along with some poor tackling. Clint Sintim really dissapointed me for somebody who is consistently ranked as a 1st round prospect.

The three guys who impressed me the most were Peria Jerry, Robert Ayers, and Cody Brown. If they were our 1st 3 picks of the draft, that would suit me just fine. The best tackler I saw this week was Scott McKillop in terms of wrapping up and taking on backs head on. Patrick Chung and Alphonso Smith moved up in terms of Secondary prospects.

jppaul 01-26-2009 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 7587)
Raji did get shunted to the side, but it was King who got pancaked allowing Brown to go into the endzone. Would it have been nice to see Raji shed his block and make the tackle? Yeah. However, if he had another 300lbs DT next to him, I'm not sure if the TD is scored.

Even if he did Raji still lost his battle, one that if he had won, might have resulted in a stop. King is more of a DT who plays in non-short yardage situations. He is only 265, and is going to get manhandled everytime in those situations.

On another note, apart from that fumble, I was really impressed with Peerman, and am interested in him as a complement to Slaton.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.