Draft and FA predictions influenced by today's hirings

[scarface]

Fairley and Coefield would make a great combo!!

To bad it won't happen.

[WilkinsonDonnie]

Saying Fairley will be the next next Gholston is a bad assessment. Saying Bowers is the next Gholston is more believable. If we got a pocket crusher everyone on the defense will become better. Our offense will be better next year with a better coach and a healthy line. I also think we will pick up someone early on in the draft at TE or in FA. I wonder if Steve Smith still wants to stay here?

[MadHatter]

I'm comparing him to Gholston in that it took 1 productive year for him to shoot up the charts. They're comparable in that they've used their athleticism to get penetration but they can be exploited in similar ways. Gholston was a sack machine, but he would get taken out of plays constantly. Same thing with Fairley.

The dude has 12 sacks as a DT.. you just don't see that in the NFL. It just seems too easy..

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.

[SOJA]

we don't need both Mankings and Nicks just one of them. We need a better tight end. Dont expect us to sign Nnmadi (sp?) he has Colts written all over him

[GritsRgreat]

To bad it won't happen.

Why not, Coefield is a free agent and Fairley is now the obvious pick at number 1.

[GritsRgreat]

I like K Boss @ tightend and Johnathan joseph @ cornerback.

[scarface]

Why not, Coefield is a free agent and Fairley is now the obvious pick at number 1.

Hardly obvious since I don't see him as #1 overall pick.

[GritsRgreat]

I think he's a better pick than Bowers.

[House]

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.

[Seamonk]

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.

[Seamonk]

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.

[Seamonk]

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?

[House]

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?

[mav1234]

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.