Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Draft and FA predictions influenced by today's hirings

86 posts in this topic

Posted

The thought process of some people amazes me. I read a post yesterday were someone didn't want Aso because he was so good that he shut down half of the field. So QB's didn't throw at him much and it would be better to get somebody that QB's would target more so that we could maybe get more INT's.

Now I am reading that Fairley is a bad pick at #1 because he is too athletic for a big man and was able to penetrate and get too many sacks in college. I understand some peoples aversion to picking up Fairley but the logic behind this escapes me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Gabbert didn't have that great of a line this year. He took 23 sacks (Same number as Cam Newton). For comparison, Luck took all of 6, Mallett took 25 (statue), Locker took 19. Russel took 16 his last year of college, Clausen 24.

My main point about Russell was that he and Brady Quinn were the only QBs taken in the first round that year. Russell being taken #1 because of his potential alone. He was an outstanding college player, don't get me wrong. He just wasn't worth the top pick. His draft stock only existed due to a shortage on top level QBs. It was him or Brady Quinn and Quinn's drop showed how weak the QB class really was.

Without Luck, this year's QB class is relatively weak in the upper echelon. Sure they're some high calibre guys like Mallet and Locker and Gabbert, But I don't see them as Top 10 picks let alone Top 5. You're really reaching if you want a QB. We might not see all 3 drafted in the first either. This means the Second and Third rounds will be money in terms of QBs. Especially when someone takes a gamble on Cam Newton like Denver did with The Golden Calf of Bristol.

Now had Luck declared and we'd taken him with the #1, we'd probably see more of these guys get drafted in the first simply because it'd mean that their values would essentially drop enough that the risks woudl be more worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He got 12 sacks in the toughest conference in college football.....as a DT. That means that he is athletic and disruptive.

He is definitely worthy of the #1 pick. Decision has to be made whether to go offense or defense.

Still raises questions as to why he wasn't starting before his Junior Season. I still feel like the system set him up to succeed more than his abilities did. He wouldn't be coming through the line with no one on him so many times against so many different teams otherwise. Oregon sure took advantage of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The thought process of some people amazes me. I read a post yesterday were someone didn't want Aso because he was so good that he shut down half of the field. So QB's didn't throw at him much and it would be better to get somebody that QB's would target more so that we could maybe get more INT's.

Now I am reading that Fairley is a bad pick at #1 because he is too athletic for a big man and was able to penetrate and get too many sacks in college. I understand some peoples aversion to picking up Fairley but the logic behind this escapes me.

lol both were me :<.

If aso shuts down half of the field, teams pick on gamble. you want that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Still raises questions as to why he wasn't starting before his Junior Season. I still feel like the system set him up to succeed more than his abilities did. He wouldn't be coming through the line with no one on him so many times against so many different teams otherwise. Oregon sure took advantage of that.

You should, maybe.....I don't know, maybe........do some research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My main point about Russell was that he and Brady Quinn were the only QBs taken in the first round that year. Russell being taken #1 because of his potential alone. He was an outstanding college player, don't get me wrong. He just wasn't worth the top pick. His draft stock only existed due to a shortage on top level QBs. It was him or Brady Quinn and Quinn's drop showed how weak the QB class really was.

Without Luck, this year's QB class is relatively weak in the upper echelon. Sure they're some high calibre guys like Mallet and Locker and Gabbert, But I don't see them as Top 10 picks let alone Top 5. You're really reaching if you want a QB. We might not see all 3 drafted in the first either. This means the Second and Third rounds will be money in terms of QBs. Especially when someone takes a gamble on Cam Newton like Denver did with The Golden Calf of Bristol.

Now had Luck declared and we'd taken him with the #1, we'd probably see more of these guys get drafted in the first simply because it'd mean that their values would essentially drop enough that the risks woudl be more worth it.

I think you're confused.

First, did you read Russel's scouting reports? People claimed he'd be the next great thing. He had all of it - except the work ethic, it turns out. He was worth a high first rounder. It's easy to say he wasn't worth the #1 the way he ended up busting, but what if he hadn't? Many, many scouts and analysts thought he was worth the #1 and I recall from that combine people decided he was worth it.

What I bolded just doesn't make sense. Some analysts had Gabbert at #5 before Luck said he was staying in school, and many still had him in the top half of the first round. Newton also has a good chance of going high.

There may not be a QB worth the #1 right now, but that doesn't mean none of them are worth being taken in the first round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

lol both were me :<.

If aso shuts down half of the field, teams pick on gamble. you want that?

...yes?

lol, what kind of stupid question is that.

If half the field is shut down you can game plan to cover the other half. You're acting like we will ONLY ever be in man coverage.

Plus Gamble is a decent corner.

So you'd rather teams have the option to pick on both sides of the field at their choosing??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

lol both were me :<.

If aso shuts down half of the field, teams pick on gamble. you want that?

Sure, because if you can let a DB stand completely alone with a WR then that frees up everyone else in coverage. Gamble is not chopped liver either, he was poorly utilized in the past defensive shemes.

If you are pretty much taking away a WR, the offense is playing with 10 guys. That is a pretty big help to a D.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, about Nick Fairley, he transferred to Auburn in 2009 from a junior college and what I heard was that he was basically a walk on who fought hard for playing time and only got sizable amounts of it this year, which is why his stats are so heavily weighted to this year.

In 2008 at a junior college, he had 63 tackles and 7 sacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, about Nick Fairley, he transferred to Auburn in 2009 from a junior college and what I heard was that he was basically a walk on who fought hard for playing time and only got sizable amounts of it this year, which is why his stats are so heavily weighted to this year.

In 2008 at a junior college, he had 63 tackles and 7 sacks.

Johny, could you please tell mav1234 what he has just won!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sure, because if you can let a DB stand completely alone with a WR then that frees up everyone else in coverage. Gamble is not chopped liver either, he was poorly utilized in the past defensive shemes.

If you are pretty much taking away a WR, the offense is playing with 10 guys. That is a pretty big help to a D.

+1

I don't get this argument at all...and I've seen it several times now. We DONT want Aso because he is so good that he takes away 1/2 of the field? Senseless.

I'd much rather have a D that forces punt after punt after punt than one that gets a bunch of picks and gives up more points. I'll take the good players over the average ones any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think you're confused.

First, did you read Russel's scouting reports? People claimed he'd be the next great thing. He had all of it - except the work ethic, it turns out. He was worth a high first rounder. It's easy to say he wasn't worth the #1 the way he ended up busting, but what if he hadn't? Many, many scouts and analysts thought he was worth the #1 and I recall from that combine people decided he was worth it.

What I bolded just doesn't make sense. Some analysts had Gabbert at #5 before Luck said he was staying in school, and many still had him in the top half of the first round. Newton also has a good chance of going high.

There may not be a QB worth the #1 right now, but that doesn't mean none of them are worth being taken in the first round.

I remember the scouting reports. Big Dude, Big Arm, Can throw 40 yards on his Knees, etc. I also remember people breaking down how much time he had in the pocket at LSU. Especially during the Bowl game against Notre Dame. He was hard to bring down, etc.

Now he was taken #1 overall in the 2007 draft. a Weak draft in terms of QBs. In that same draft, he was determined to be worth more than Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, and Gaines Adams. The Raiders also had an OT need. While I agree that his potential made him a 1st rounder. I still, to this day, think they made the mistake of taking Russell 1st overall. He wasn't BPA. He was Best QB available, but not BPA imo. They also had bigger needs at Tackle. Joe Thomas and Levi Brown were both taken in the top 5 at OT.

Now I get it. We have a need at DT and QB. Making both Gabbert and Fairley extremely attractive. They've got the production, they've got the rediculous athleticism. But I still think they're being overrated. They're worth Top 10 picks certainly. Fairley might be a top 5. The thing I'm worried about is.. before Luck decided to stay in school. The names for QB were Luck, Mallet, Locker, Newton. Once Luck decided, the names became Gabbert, Mallet, Locker, Newton. His name shot up way too high too fast for me to be comfortable about taking him #1. It felt like ESPN going "oh there's this guy, you should talk about him now"

As for Fairley, I seriously think that a lot of his production is due to the Defensive scheme. Don't get me wrong, he's worth it, he's every bit as athletic as you guys claim him to be. I just think we can coach up a later round DT to do the same. DT is a pretty high-value position in the second-third rounds. We don't need a Fairley to upgrade, especially if it means we can get more picks in the process.

Now for Asomugha. I know what a shutdown corner is. I realize a lot of the coverage goes the other way. But face it. Asomugha will not be on an island all the time. Like you guys said, we'll be changing our defensive plays. Even with Asomugha shutting half the field down, Oakland was never a winner. They repeatedly got abused on the ground and through the air. Even when they had Rob Ryan as their DC. Asomugha is also going to demand a lot of money. We're trying to rebuild, we're going to need a lot of that money for draft picks and other FAs.

In fact, think back to 2005. The bears had Nathan Vasher (then thought to be a top tier CB) and Charles Tillman. Both are very good. Vasher was being rediculous with INTs that season. In our playoff game against them, we rarely threw in his direction. Instead we picked on Tillman. Steve Smith went absolutely apeshit that game. Now, Tillman isn't a bad Corner. He's actually pretty good. But we were able to exploit one side of the field despite the other side being shut down. Similarities in that include that Asomugha and Vasher only stayed on one side of the field during their most of their years with their teams. Although I believe Asomugha was designated to the top WR this past year.

Next. We're already paying Gamble top tier money. We bring in Asomugha, it might cause some stirs.

Also, we're going to be a team that emphasizes turnovers. I still think that my point is valid in that shutting down a side of the field will cause a decrease in Turnovers to that side of the field also. We'll see more incompletions than turnovers. Asomugha hasn't had more than 1 interception in a season since 2006 when he had 8. He's been pretty much avoided altogether. In fact his only interception in 2008 has been at the hands of Jake Delhomme.

Last, the dude is 29, about to change the system he's been a part of his entire career. Like I said before, I'd rather have a young player that we can still mold into our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites