|
So what's the deal with AJ McCarron? I get the feeling that not many people like him in the NFL, that he plays for the best team in CFB and that he's just a game manager. Any chance some team that needs a QB takes him to be a starter, or is he more of a "great potential as an excellent backup" type guy?
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
bhsman posted:I'm surprised Jarvis Landry didn't make the list; great route-runner and catches everything. Reminds me a lot of Anquan Bolden in how he attacks the ball. All I see is a defensive back who can't hold onto a sure-fire interception despite interfering with the catch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I'd imagine you guys are pretty close to best player available working out no matter who it is right? I guess maybe not QB if Pryor keeps looking like he might work out. An actual Raiders fan will probably give you a better answer than I, but it seems they're set at: 1. Tackle. Veldheer is pretty good when healthy and they just drafted Menelik Watson who hasn't played much due to injury. 2. Center 3. Tyvon Branch is a pretty good safety That's all I know off the top of my head. Not sure how Sio Moore is doing but even if he's good they need more linebackers. I assume they need defensive lineman. They're starting Mike Jenkins so they need more quality corners. Woodson is having a good year but they need a replacement for him down the line. Their guards suck. They have some nice receivers but I'm not sure any of them is a true #1. And I don't know anything about their tight ends. Pretty much anyone would help the Raiders right now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:A single first round draft pick would be fair value for Stafford. We already know what the value for a QB with elite tools is because Cutler was dealt for two first round picks and a 3rd. A first round pick, by itself, is not going to get an elite QB, if we're talking trade. Wait you say a first round pick isn't going to get an elite QB yet you say Stafford is worth one first. If you think Cutler has "elite tools" and Stafford doesn't I don't know what to tell you. Stafford is a better quarterback than Cutler.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Way to overachieve on a rebuilding year Raiders At least they don't need a quarterback (I assume they're sticking with Pryor?). I count 7 teams currently picking ahead of them that probably need a quarterback. If you assume 4 quarterbacks are taken before them they have the chance to take the #11 player on their board at worst if they stick to pure BPA. Of course, they should try to trade down and maximize their picks in the first three rounds. Do they have an extra picks in the 2014 draft?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. This is looking like a deeper QB class than last year's. No amazing prospects but decent guys available. If I were them I'd see how much Clowney is worth to someone wanting to trade up for him and grab a QB in the mid-first or early second.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
xeria posted:I'm starting to feel like a Browns fan re: quarterbacks, in that if they don't pull the trigger and draft the best QB (if the best QB isn't a mid-first round prospect himself, that is) this year, and instead trade down and pick some other guy, that other guy is going to end up Gabbert 2.0 and we'll be doing this whole dog-and-pony show all over again two years from now. It's a little misguided to look at the 2011 draft and think the Jags did something stupid by taking Gabbert. There were tons of people (including people on TFF) who mocked the Panthers for taking Newton because he was considered a huge risk as a QB prospect. Literally, people here were expressing sympathy to Panthers fans because they were "stuck" with Newton. Gabbert was, at one point, considered the #1 prospect and was even considered a reasonable pick for the Jags when they drafted him. Meanwhile, Locker and Ponder were overdrafted according to most people. It's not always the case that the first quarterback taken turns out to be the best in that draft. It's almost a crapshoot, even within the first round. Plenty of highly touted prospects like Leinhart and Quinn turn out to be busts. What I meant in my post is, if some team is willing to hilariously overpay for the chance to draft Clowney they should take the trade. I'm talking Julio Jones-type return. Clowney may be the best defensive player in the league three years from now, but that alone is not enough to win consistently. Hell, some of the best defensive players in the league right now play on poo poo teams or teams that are underperforming. Revis, Ware, Allen, etc. J.J. Watt is playing at a high level still and the Texans are still 2-5. Quarterback is the most important thing, but if there's a group of quarterbacks more or less equal in their estimation, they may as well trade down and try to accumulate more picks. They're so talent-starved that even a good quarterback takes them to 6-10 at most probably. They need most of an offensive line, running backs, tight ends, and like 7-8 starters on defense (not to mention a QB). It's going to be a multi-year project.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Gendo posted:Clowney would transform Minnesota's defense almost immediately. I seriously would rather take lesser talent at QB to secure him. If he pans out, and if he doesn't get injured. And as a Vikings fan I don't get why you'd take lesser talent at QB over any position. Sure Adrian Peterson is awesome and all but he won't win poo poo unless they get a quarterback. Same for Jared Allen or any other great player they've had recently. He could end up like Jared Allen and Demarcus Ware; elite pass rushers who've wasted their careers on underperforming teams due to failure to either provide quality quarterback play (Minnesota, except for 2009) or to provide other talent at key positions (Dallas). If the Vikings finish #3 overall, do you want them to trade up for him? How much are you trading for him?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:This is the caveat for literally every draft pick in the history of ever. And? Assuming that one rookie player, regardless of how good he is, is going to transform your defense is premature for precisely that reason. People overemphasize the impact of rookies. Very few rookies actually significantly change a team's performance, even first rounders. I'm not saying Clowney would be a bad pick, but it's doubtful that he alone changes a team's fortunes from Day 1.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The Vikings made the playoffs just last year with bottom 5 quarterback play. They earned a Wild Card spot on the back of one of the greatest performances by a running back in league history, in a year when the Giants and Bears both collapsed late and the Saints were playing without their head coach. Any one of those three teams were probably better than the Vikings last year, at least in terms of how they could match up in the playoffs. The Vikings had AD and an overperforming defense; even if Ponder were healthy against Green Bay they would've probably still lost and it's doubtful that they could've beaten San Francisco, Atlanta or Baltimore. Of the 12 playoff teams last year, the Vikings had by far the worst quarterback; the next "worst" was probably Andy Dalton who was way better than Ponder. Clearly the Vikings were not one rookie away from going over the top. Hell, they had 3 first round picks last draft. Maybe Clowney will be the difference, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:Very few players do, though. Andrew Luck and RG3 seem to be two examples of things changing overnight but in a lot of cases the first quarterback taken doesn't fix everything, unless they're a generational prospect. Clowney is that generational prospect. I don't follow CFB so bear with me on this. Weren't Julius Peppers and Mario Williams considered equivalent prospects, more or less? Did they dramatically transform the fortunes of their respective teams? It looks like Peppers went to the Super Bowl his second season and made the NFC championship round later, but didn't they already have a good quarterback in place? Hard to see the Jags making a quick turnaround without having a decent quarterback. Williams never did much with the Texans (not that he was the wrong pick at the time). He had pretty good stats but the team only made the playoffs once with him and then he left. Their defense was also pretty lovely for a while before adding other pieces and getting a good coordinator, so it wasn't as though Williams "transformed" their defense singlehandedly. Suh was a generational DT prospect. He didn't change that defense by himself. After thinking about it more though, it's not as though the Jags are an old team with a short window. If they take Clowney this year and a quarterback next year, they'll still have a young core to build around.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Gendo posted:I think you underrate the impact an elite defensive end can have on a defense. I want Minnesota to restock the line this year with a pass rushing end and a disruptive nose tackle. Being able to generate pressure with your front four masks a lot of ills at the second level, and there's a lot of work to be done back there yet. Having watched the entirety of DeMarcus Ware's career, you need more than an elite pass rusher (whether it be a 4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB). One alone is not going to cover for a weak secondary, as evidenced by Dallas' defense the past few seasons. Last year when we got several games out of Ware, Anthony Spencer and Jason Hatcher together the secondary was still weak and gave up a lot of yards. Besides, isn't Jared Allen a counterexample himself? He's a borderline HoF talent and it's not like Minnesota has had great defenses during his time there. Elite pass rushers are important pieces but you need more than one great player on a defense. Clowney can be a good pick for Minnesota, but expecting a dramatic turnaround simply because you've added him seems a little premature.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:The Giants won a Superbowl on the back of a great defensive line and not much else 6 years ago. And Eli bullshit And they had more than one good player on defense. Like I've said repeatedly, Clowney will need supporting help so it's unwise to expect that he alone is going to transform the Jaguars/Vikings defense. I don't think I've said that Jacksonville should reach for a quarterback instead of taking Clowney. I merely stated that it would be better for them to trade down if they got a monster haul in return (multiple firsts, a second plus something else). That value is probably more than just adding Clowney himself. There have been studies that conclude that no particular team is better or worse at drafting; they more or less hit on the same number of players. There is a noticeable drop-off in talent after the third round, so maximizing your picks in the first three rounds appears to be the optimal strategy for drafting. The GM also has the benefit of being relatively new at the position, and works with an owner who is comfortable tanking in the near term. So he should not be fearing his job, but instead be comfortable making trades to maximize their returns because rookies are more valuable to them than practically any other team. If Clowney is the #1 prospect and there are no good trade offers, Jacksonville would not be unwise to select him over a quarterback. Just don't expect him to dramatically change their defense Day 1.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Gendo posted:If Minnesota trades down to acquire more lesser players over a franchise-altering talent like Clowney they are sunk and may as well close up shop. There is no future in mediocrity. After the Herschel Walker trade you'd think you would appreciate the value of the draft more
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Gendo posted:This makes for a nice glib retort but we're not talking about that kind of trade are we? We're talking about adding an extra mid round pick. Another Gerald Hodges does poo poo for this franchise. You're the one who said mid round pick. I said Julio Jones trade value. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
AAA DOLFAN posted:
They do whiff as much as anyone else; like I said, teams have more or less the same success rate when it comes to finding players. But by giving yourself more lottery tickets you're maximizing your chances. The Patriots have been lovely at drafting for several reasons, but accumulating picks is still an optimal strategy. And regardless of how Cleveland used the picks they got in exchange for Julio Jones, they still made the right move. Julio Jones isn't going to look as good with Weeden, McCoy or whoever the hell the Browns trot out at QB in this scenario, but getting those picks instead is a good strategy. They just happened to blow one on Weeden in a universally panned move. Atlanta made the wrong move. They traded up for Julio Jones so he could put them over the top but here are the results so far: Year 1: They get blanked in the playoffs by the Giants, scoring 0 points on offense. Year 2: Beat by a superior San Francisco team, which had much more depth overall. Year 3: JJ is hurt early and their season is in the toilet, largely because of their depth issues. Now Tony G is gone next year, Roddy is older and coming off injuries, Stephen Jackson is older and coming off injuries, they have a terrible offensive line and a bad defensive line. They sure could benefit from some of those picks they traded for Julio Jones. You can't tell me that they're going to be better off next year than they probably would have been otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I thought calling Bradford not just a lock-in bust, but the biggest financial bust in NFL history was the dumbest thing I would read all day, and then you said that Gallery was a worse pick for the Raiders than Russell. Who is a bigger financial bust than Bradford? He signed the most guaranteed money for a rookie ever and has not had near the amount of success that would justify it. If his cap cost was lower they probably would've drafted RG3 and traded or just benched Bradford but he was too expensive to do that with. He's not terrible, but not good either and he costs way too much for what they get in return. I'm pretty sure that's why he specified financial bust. And he didn't say anything about Gallery being a worse pick, just Gallery was a bigger bust. Considering the fact that Gallery was considered one of the greatest linemen in college football history, the fact that he became a terrible tackle and mediocre guard in his short NFL career constitutes a bigger bust than Russell. At least, it's fair to make that assessment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The Keenum-led Texans aren't that bad. It's not like Kansas City, Arizona or Indy are bad teams; the Cardinals may have the league's best defense. Not only that; they were close and/or leading late in each of those games. I wonder what they do in the draft if they decide Keenum deserves the starting job next year. Offensive line?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Nawid posted:WATTerCLOWNEY Can Clowney play 3-4 OLB? I'm sure the answer is "probably" but I'm just curious because I've only heard him discussed as a 4-3 DE, and most of the teams projected to be in the bottom of the draft (Tampa, Oakland, New York, Jacksonville) run the 4-3.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Doctor Candiru posted:Would Atlanta really pass on Clowney, assuming that's where they stay in the draft order? I can see Minnesota passing, because QB is a bigger need (I think they'd take Manziel before Hundley -- or, as a fan, at least I hope they would, because Hundley has never impressed me like Manziel has). Yeah I doubt the Falcons pass on Clowney for Matthews. DE is just as big a need as OT, and I'd rather take Clowney + 2nd rd OT prospect than Matthews + 2nd rd DE prospect.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Does a first overall pick ever not start day 1? Not since Carson Palmer, I don't think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Korranus posted:For me, it's get Clowney because the Texans are NOT a year or a piece away from contending again and need rebuilding once again. Might as well build inside out with a Clowney-Watt core on the defensive line (assuming Watt even wants to stay), go for a later round QB like Boyd, (gulp) Carr, or Fales, and if all else fails put Keenum through Blitz Pickup School and/or draft Mariota or go to free agency next year. They are almost the same team that made playoffs runs the past two seasons. They are a qb away from probably being good again. They need to replace a few guys but they don't need to enter rebuilding mode. They have one of the best defensive players in the league and they got swept by the jaguars. Clowney doesn't make them a playoff team next year if they don't get a qb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Who's more valuable to the Lions: Stafford or Suh? Stafford without a doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Mmmm....you guys may be right - I just figure if the Rams have the #1 pick it would be hard for them to turn down a franchise QB when Bradford hasn't shown enough to prove he's the guy. I'm not sure they should or would take Clowney. Consider the fact that they recently extended DE Chris Long, who's pretty good. They also have Robert Quinn playing the other DE spot, who's a legitimate DPOTY candidate in his third season. Unless they want to slide one of those guys inside it just doesn't make much sense to take Clowney when you have two good-to-great players at the position. Instead, they should trade down to any team willing to jump Houston for the rights to draft Bridgewater. If nobody bites then I guess either Barr or a tackle would make the most sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Ask the Browns how settling for the 3rd - 5th options at quarterback in a draft works out. That is the single position that you do not want to "settle" on... Wilson Kaepernick Foles Dalton Etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Houston could land Jadeveon Clowney in the first round, Louis Nix in the second and Trent Murphy in the third and win 10 games with T.J. Yates at quarterback because the defense is allowing 14 points per game. When has this happened since the Dilfer ravens?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The next two superbowls after it. Then '05. Then again in '07. 2007 Giants scored 23.3 points per game, 14th in the NFL. 2005 Steelers scored 24.3 points per game, 9th in the NFL. 2002 Buccaneers scored 21.6 points per game, 18th in the NFL. 2001 Patriots scored 23.2 points per game, 6th in the NFL. So with the exception of the Bucs, those other teams all had pretty good offenses too. A better example would be the current Panthers, who are allowing the fewest points per game at 14.5 and only scoring 22.9, good for 17th in the league. And they manage to do that without a Clowney or Watt on defense (although their front 7 is very good as it is). If the Texans only allow 14 points per game they'll probably win a bunch of games, but not with TJ Yates as their quarterback. I'm not sure Keenum would be enough. The Seahawks allowed 15.3 points last year and won 11 games, but they had a pretty good quarterback over the last half of the season and the 9th most points-per-game. Anyway I've come over to the idea of the Texans taking Clowney as long as people don't think it's a "win now" move. Because it probably won't be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Carr's decent, but he's probably overpaid. Same with Scandrick, who's a decent nickel/slot CB (but a bad #2). I have a few questions/comment. 1. How is much Free due? $3.5 mil again? If that's the case, do you think they'd keep Parnell over Free? Free's played better this year but I don't see much of a drop-off between the two and I'd rather keep the younger (and cheaper) player. 2. I don't see them cutting Carter. He had a pretty good season last year before his injury, and although he's been benched twice this season he's a clear upgrade over the Ernie Sims and Kyle Bosworths of the world. He's still on his rookie contract and it seems like the savings would be negligible over whoever has to replace him. 3. Do these numbers reflect the Scandrick extension that happened a few days ago? They added some non-guaranteed years to the back of his deal and reduced his cap number over the next few seasons in exchange for guaranteeing some of his pay for injury. Also, to anyone else looking at the Cowboys salary cap you have to remember that they intentionally structure contracts for key players to be restructured. Romo, Carr, Scandrick, and Witten all have money that can be moved around to massage the cap. Austin will probably be a June 6th cut to spread the dead money over the next two seasons. Ware will need to be traded but I highly doubt this happens because of Jerry. That being said it's not like the Cowboys are in an enviable position with regards to the cap and they have certainly screwed themselves more often than not. The Austin, Ratliff and Carr contracts were bad (Carr was necessary only because of poor drafting) and they whiffed on Spencer and Hatcher by not locking them up sooner. Edit: Wade is not a good head coach. He might be if you keep him out of the draft room or blame his poor drafts on Jerry Jones (but they were better under Parcells and Garrett, so...) but you could do a lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:6 mil to have Michael Huff play for a division opponent is money well spent. Dallas has "leaked" pictures of their draft boards for 2010 and, I think, 2013. But I imagine most teams are paranoid that other teams will figure out how they grade prospects and that will offer some competitive advantage. Here is the 2010 draft board Here is the 2013 draft board Disillusionist fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
HappyHelmet posted:I honestly believe that all but the most incompetent front offices pretty much know how everyone else is going to draft. I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason front offices are so secretive is so they don't have frothing at the mouth fans breathing down their neck because player X is higher on their board than player Y. That makes sense. I also thought that it could become a factor in contract negotiations; I can imagine an agent saying "Well sure my client was drafted in the 7th round but you had him graded in the 4th!" but now that rookie contracts are more or less locked in that probably isn't a factor.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:I see Clowney at another level to Matthews, Barr and the like. And you know what's better than having two good pass rushers? Having three good pass rushers - and in a division where you're going to be up against extremely mobile QBs like Wilson and Kaepernick it's even more important to have an athletic DL. Unless Quinn, Long or Clowney can play 4-3 DT then only two will be on the field at any given time. And both Long and Quinn were first round picks themselves; you don't spend the #2 overall pick on a guy who will rotate with two other first rounders. Long and Quinn are both under contract for the near future and Quinn just had a DPOTY caliber year, he'll be extended without a doubt. So Clowney would be a luxury pick for the Rams. They should either trade or take the top LT/OLB prospect. Their front 7 would improve more by adding a quality OLB than it would by adding Clowney.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
John Brown posted:Was he really a bust? I feel like he never had enough time to develop, and he had absolutely nobody to throw it to as Winslow was busy getting injured on the battlefield, and Braylon Edwards had brick hands. If you draft a quarterback in the first round, and he's gone before his second contract, he's a bust.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
John Brown posted:I'd have to imagine that one of the teams at the top of the draft in need of a QB will draft Clowney instead. Which team is likely to do this? And who are they likely to pursue in FA or trade? Probably Jacksonville or Oakland. The only (real) QB candidates on the market are Vick and...don't know who else. Cassell and possibly Kyle Orton will be available too but they don't have any real upside.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
darkforce898 posted:The Lions defensive line is probably the only great thing about the Lions. Which makes me sad. It's more that having two great/elite prospects on a DL (which Houston would have with Clowney and Watt) does not automatically guarantee that you're going to have some awesome defense that drags you to the playoffs. Detroit did not necessarily make a mistake in drafting Fairley, especially since they already had a good quarterback option. For what it's worth, I think I would take Bridgewater at #1 if I'm Houston. They went from making the playoffs two consecutive seasons to 2-14 with the biggest change being a massive decline in quarterback play. The best way to ensure they get back to playoff contention is improving their quarterback production, and the best way to do that would be to take the best quarterback prospect. You don't get the chance to draft the best quarterback prospect often so if that's your biggest need you should take it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Gatts posted:How many picks are the Rams gonna be like "Mmmm...nope, let's get some more first round poo poo for next year and trade again." Hasn't it been going on for a while now? They should keep doing it until they absolutely need a QB. They've gotten a decent haul from all those picks, might as well keep the ball rolling as long as possible. I think it started during the RG3 draft, to answer your other question.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Just a 2nd rounder for the Falcons to move from 2nd to 6th for Clowney, eh? Probably not. A 2nd to move 4 spots seems reasonable, especially since St. Louis doesn't need him and I doubt there are other teams in the Top 10 willing to trade up for him because they have so many needs. I think it would be silly for the Falcons to do that, but it wouldn't be a huge overpay like the Julio Jones trade.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
John Brown posted:I wish the Cowboys would do something awesome like move up and get Clowney. Maybe trade their next year's first and third, and this year's third? Yeah that would be a bad idea. Total Jerry move. Also unless there's an awesome safety in the first and all the defensive linemen are taken, I don't think they should draft one. Wilcox was a third-rounder last year and it's too soon to give up on him; drafting a safety in the second round is basically acknowledging you threw away a 3rd last year and it's doubtful that the rookie safety you draft is going to be a huge improvement over Wilcox. Like Rasczak said, Dallas is so thin everywhere but TE that trading up is probably a terrible idea. They already made that mistake with Claiborne, passing up the opportunity to draft Michael Brockers and Bobby Wagner (who both would be loving awesome right now). They should trade down if anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
John Brown posted:Perharps you're right about the trade and I'm just desperate for some excitement in Dallas, but you're mistaken if you think the Cowboys don't need another safety. Heath is terrible all around and Church is only decent at tackling. Church is good enough and could improve. Heath was a UDFA rookie who shouldn't have even seen the field. Ideally wilcox resumes as starter and improves in his second year. I don't think you burn a high pick on a safety unless a huge talent falls to them in the first. Which second round pick safety is going to be significantly better than Wilcox with a year of NFL experience under his belt? Improving pass rush and coverage linebackers combined with a scheme change from Kiffin to Marinelli should help take the pressure off the safeties. Marinelli had great defenses in Chicago with mediocre or even downright bad safeties.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
John Brown posted:Church is really stiff in his transition and he over-pursues runs and shorter passes way too often. He's good a taking a player to the ground, but they've likely already caught the ball or ran for a first down at that point. Wilcox, as you might expect from a young player, makes a lot of bad reads and angles on passes. Church isn't a bad safety. He may never be Pro Bowl-quality but he's more than adequate, cheap and relatively young. He also has only started like 19 games over the past two seasons so it's reasonable to believe he may continue to progress. The reason not to take a safety (again, unless a great one is available in the first) is that they have a prospect in Wilcox already. It's rare that safeties are good as rookies; besides Reid, Vacarro and possibly Elam I can't think of any rookie safeties who were better than mediocre last year. Note that those guys were all taken in the first round. If you burn a second rounder on a safety this year, you're basically saying that Wilcox is a backup at best after one season. Wilcox in his second year is probably going to be better than a rookie taken in the 2nd/3rd round. He was not so bad that they should just give up on him. There's also the fact that the Cowboys are deficient at defensive tackle, defensive end and linebacker. Other than Tyrone Crawford, Kyle Wilber and Devonte Holloman they have no real young prospects they're developing. Hatcher is gone, Spencer should probably not be re-signed, Ware is not his former self, Carter is unreliable, Lee is oft-injured and Durant may be gone too. There are so many needs that it becomes dangerous to just focus on one position, and honestly safeties are the least important position in this scheme. Wilcox improving with age and experience, combined with a shift in the utilization of Carr and Claiborne, an improved pass rush and/or better play from the OLBs negates the need for elite safeties. I think they would be better served using their first and second picks on front 7 players, and looking for OL/WR depth in the third. That fits nicely with their needs and the talent likely to be available.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
John Brown posted:
Three reasons: 1. Wilcox's struggles were expected; he was injured, a rookie, and did not have much experience at the position. He wasn't so bad that they need to give up on him entirely. 2. The schematic differences between Kiffin and Marinelli bode well for the improvement of the secondary. 3. DE/DT/OLB depth is so bad that they're more likely to improve the defense as a whole by investing in those positions. None of their tackles are proven. Ware has proven to be old and Selvie is a backup at best. Carter has proven to be unreliable. Lee has proven to be injury prone. Their other OLBs are unproven. Wilcox showed more than Tyrone Crawford, Ben Bass, Kyle Wilber, and Devonte Holloman last season.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 02:12
|
|