Michael Brockers Article

[Marguide]

I've been on the Brockers bandwagon for a while. He's my favorite realistic option with our first pick.

I really like him. It just is a bit concerning that he was basically a 2 down player at LSU, and we desperately need to improve our interior pass rush.

[klumme]

I really like him. It just is a bit concerning that he was basically a 2 down player at LSU, and we desperately need to improve our interior pass rush.

He need some more in the pass rushing department no doubt about it. But when you say 2 down player I se a Hollis Thomas who cant do anything but stop the run and that is not the case with Brockers.

LSU rotates the hell out of their D-line and on top of that he saw a lot of double team. He still got some nice stats with close to 20 plays in the backfield and some passes brokken up, blocks. FF and a INT. That is nice in limited snaps and through double teams.

Had this guy stayed in college he would be a top 3 pick next year. And he very well could be gone before we pick come April this year.

[rayzor]

I really like him. It just is a bit concerning that he was basically a 2 down player at LSU, and we desperately need to improve our interior pass rush.

he wasn't a "2 down player".

if you saw him, you'd see that he was on for a lot of passing plays. when the QB ws going to be throwing the ball and brockers was in, that pocket was getting small and collapsing. not only was that happening, but bockers was keeping at least one hand up when the QB tried to throw to obstruct his view and try to get the pas broken up. you don't see DTs do that with the regularity that he does.

i have no doubt that he will be able to play any down.

[DaCityKats]

i really do hope he is there at 8 or 9.

[Actionman0z]

With his length can he play DE, and move inside in our hybrid looks? How heavy is he? I am not sure we're willing to spend 8/9 on a DT.. for some reason I am still leaning towards the two OT's, which is strange, but perhaps with what we get from our rehabbing OL guys, Jeff and Geoff, 8-9 may be a luxary pick after all, and we go with best available DL guy, DE or DT available? Interesting look there.

[Lout]

With his length can he play DE, and move inside in our hybrid looks? How heavy is he? I am not sure we're willing to spend 8/9 on a DT.. for some reason I am still leaning towards the two OT's, which is strange, but perhaps with what we get from our rehabbing OL guys, Jeff and Jeff, 8-9 may be a luxary pick after all, and we go with best available DL guy, DE or DT available? Interesting look there.

We could take Mitchell Schwartz in the 5th round, and I think he could start for us immediately at RT (if Otah is injured). He is more atheltic than his brother Geoff.

[DaCityKats]

With his length can he play DE, and move inside in our hybrid looks? How heavy is he? I am not sure we're willing to spend 8/9 on a DT.. for some reason I am still leaning towards the two OT's, which is strange, but perhaps with what we get from our rehabbing OL guys, Jeff and Jeff, 8-9 may be a luxary pick after all, and we go with best available DL guy, DE or DT available? Interesting look there.

he is 305 i believe and was recruited to LSU as a DE. i can see him playing DE in a 3-4 as a 5 tech and sometimes as a left DE in a big set.

[Actionman0z]

he is 305 i believe and was recruited to LSU as a DE. i can see him playing DE in a 3-4 as a 5 tech and sometimes as a left DE in a big set.

Then that would put him on the field a lot of times, allowing us to show a lot of unique looks with the 3-4, "joker" and Buffalo sets.. I hesitate to take DT's in the first round, because it seems to take extra time for them to develop if they ever do. Suh is the exception, not the rule. Plus coming from a great program also usually does not bode well for DT's in the Pros because they have to play harder to accomplish less.

[DaCityKats]

Then that would put him on the field a lot of times, allowing us to show a lot of unique looks with the 3-4, "joker" and Buffalo sets.. I hesitate to take DT's in the first round, because it seems to take extra time for them to develop if they ever do. Suh is the exception, not the rule. Plus coming from a great program also usually does not bode well for DT's in the Pros because they have to play harder to accomplish less.

Exactly, he can allow us to show many different looks.

[rayzor]

he is 305 i believe and was recruited to LSU as a DE. i can see him playing DE in a 3-4 as a 5 tech and sometimes as a left DE in a big set.

he was 255-265lbs (i've heard both) when he was recruited.

i think he was 255 when he played as a senior and 265 when he showed up at LSU. they redshirted and moved him to DT b/c it was obvious this boy was going to be doing a lot of growing (not getting fat, but getting big and growing into his humongous frame.

i seriously believe that after a full year of pro-level weight training and working out that he will be pushing 320 easy.

[rayzor]

http://twitter.com/RUSSLANDE

This is the guys opinion I want to hear about concerning Brockers. A lot of people havent watched the film of Brockers yet because he was one of the last guys to declare due to the National title game, plus he is a rs soph, people didnt think he would declare. To me, give it a few weeks, Brockers will be a top 10 prospect.

yep, people have a lot of catching up to do in this guy's case. he wasn't expected to make the jump so they didn't look ahead of time.

him not being at any of the all star shindigs means that they won't have a chance too look at him first hand until they see his awesomeness at the combine.

i'm just afraid that someone is going to jump before we have a chance...although that means that someone of value could fall back like claiborne so i won't cry.

[DaCityKats]

i think he is going to blow up at the combine.

[Actionman0z]

No thanks.

[DaCityKats]

he fought of doubles, and was very disruptive that game. plus he has a motor so i dont understand what you dont like about that. let me guess, because he didnt have a sack.