Mage

Yea, what he should have done is take TJ Clemmings, the raw tackle who fell to the 2nd round unsurprisingly. You guys act like DJ Humphries wasn't pretty much guaranteed if he fell to 25. Gettleman sticks to his board. Just so happens the best player on his board played defense because three of our top offensive options got taken (Gurley, Peat, Humphries). Gettleman isn't going to reach for a player.

What makes you think we will limit him to linebacker?

Very happy with the pick.

There is difference between being a receiver who can make plays downfield from time to time and a receiver who can consistently burn you deep and causes concern for DBs. Ginn gets open downfield once every so often, but it is so inconsistent it doesn't really matter. A true, consistent deep threat are guys like DeSean Jackson, Antonio Brown, so on and so forth. Guys who DBs fear. Nobody fears Ted Ginn.

Bill O'Brien is an offensive coach.

You do realize Kevin Williams was more known for his pass rushing abilities than his run stuffing abilities (like Kawann Short)... right? It was hard to run inside because Pat Williams was a beast and Kevin Williams was an All-Pro talent. Selecting Goldman might improve our run defense, but you aren't going to see two nosetackles on the field together all that often.

And if we draft Denzel Perryman and he turns into Ray Lewis, we will be eating crow about this time next year. Guess it would be OK to draft a middle linebacker in the first round, right? I don't even have anything against taking a DT (well, I do, but I wouldn't be ticked or anything), but it is easy to see what the problem with the move would be. It isn't like we don't already have a great run stuffer on the roster.

Eh, it's possible depending on who you ask. There are a couple of DTs (sans Leonard Williams, because there is a snowballs chance in hell that would happen unless unexpected character or health issues arise) that, if they fell to our pick at 25, could be argued as BPA (not sure I would agree, but alas). However, the question truly is... are they good enough to the point that the difference between them and the next prospect is large enough to warrant drafting them despite our fortunes at the position currently? The answer to that is no. I'm not saying I would be outraged if we took Goldman. Me personally, I don't get up in arms about that kind of stuff. I just think there will be better options at 25, and far better options when you consider the situation.

I tend to agree with you. However, defensive tackle is down there with quarterback and middle linebacker of positions we absolutely do not need. At least not in the first round. I like Goldman, but not when we already have two young, very good (with the potential to become great very, very soon) defensive tackles already on the roster. We are not in a position where we should be making picks like that - we simply have too many other needs on the roster that a luxury pick like that would not be beneficial. It doesn't make sense as a current need nor would it make sense going forward considering our youth and talent at the position. I wouldn't be opposed to a defensive tackle in the second round, but there will be several better options in the first. Like you, I wouldn't be mad if we went defense. Just not at defensive tackle. That would be moronic. I mean, of course if a player like Leonard Williams fell to us... that changes things, but that isn't happening.

The reactions if we drafted Eddie Goldman would be glorious.

Day 1? As in, first round? Chris Conley... in the first round?

I'm curious. How is Melvin Gordon a "CJ2K type runner"? Gordon relies more on cutting than Johnson did. Gordon's vision is also much better. He doesn't have Johnson's straight-line speed, but beats him in COD. He is more like McCoy and Charles (although Charles has blazing speed) than Johnson.

Peat and it isn't even close.

Torn ACLs happen. You make it sound like Gurley was constantly nicked up or something. Not that I am advocating for Gurley in the first round, but there is no reason to think he can't handle a normal NFL workload for a top-flight RB.

I can't speak much on the 2005 Steelers, but the 2008 Steelers had one of the greatest defenses of all-time. They didn't need a lot of weapons on their offense. So maybe if our defense gets that good... yeah.

Can you clarify what you're talking about in reference to my post? I never said anything to imply Gettleman has neglected the offensive line in the past or is doing so now. I said if it so happens that he does so on draft day, then we will (maybe...) have something to talk about. Otherwise, this quote (the one of him saying Oher could solidify the offensive line) is meaningless to me. So I'm not sure where this... is coming from. I'm defending Gettleman.

Actions speak louder than words. If come draft day, Gettleman completely neglects improving the offensive line, then we will have something to talk about. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to take out of this. It isn't like Gettleman is going to say, "we're still not sure if Oher can solidify this group."

Just look at the last 2 drafts.

Thomas Davis is the only person I can think of that would for sure. Maybe Ryan Kalil and MAYBE Cam Newton.

He might be the most overrated prospect in the draft. He is still leaving off, for the most part, HS hype. When you watch him play, he doesn't look as fast as he is hyped up to be. Poor route runner. Not as physical as his size would indicate. When you take all of that in consideration with his problems off the field, I would be ticked if we took him in the 2nd.

I agree, which is why I'm against throwing a lot of money at Hardy. I'm with you on that we don't need him but I also believe that he does in fact make our defense that much better, which is why I would want us to look into bringing him back if the deal was cheap.

Also, finding a secondary as good as Seattle's is extremely difficult. Of course they can get away with lesser play from their DEs. Still, they go from being a great defense to an historical defense because of how good their pass rushers are. Their lack of pass rush is why they lost to the Falcons in 2012 and why they went out and signed Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett in 2013 and both had a huge impact on the Super Bowl last year and Bennett in particular wrecked havoc in New England's backfield all night.

You don't but Seattle's defense with Michael Bennett is a lot better without him. Will we be fine without Hardy? Probably. Our front seven is extremely talented and I like the upside in our secondary. Our defense is even better with Hardy, though. We don't need him nor do we need to throw buckets of cash at him. I wouldn't be in support of that. However, if we could bring him back on a cheap deal, I don't see why we wouldn't look into it. Hardy makes our team better. NOTE - This is not me saying Hardy will be back even if we were open to returning on a cheap deal. I'm not going to get into a discussion about that. What I am saying is that our defense is much improved with Hardy on the field. He is a top flight pass rusher.

Everyone is focusing on his return skills and rightfully so but don't underrate him as a receiver. Of all of the receivers I've looked at thus far, Lockett's route-running skills are among the best. His double move is killer, sharp in and out of his breaks. One of those guys who looks a lot quicker than fast although I'm sure he's plenty fast. Concerned about his weight but I like him a lot.

Shaw is more in the mold of Harbaugh and Carroll than he is Schiano or Kelly.