The Pats and now Steelers have shown that the front 7 are what teams need to be dominate. It's always been this way. Look at the teams that made the playoffs and look at their front 7.

I agree. It could be a good thing that Giunta is gone.

The secondary does have seem to have talent though, Surtain is a good player, and Knight is ok.

Warfield on the other hand, Im not all that crazy about. But, to say the least he is not terrible, so thats a good sign. He may do well with a defensive line in front of him.

Wesley is the glaring weakness in our secondary. That position, FS needs improvement, unless, of course, Wesley improves, and im not depending on that to happen.

*There is talent there, Surtain and Knight are guys you build around. Maybe adding Gibbs to our coaching staff will be a good choice?

:shrug:

Bunkley's a better player than Watson. I think more of the question is whether you want a smaller DT who can create havoc like Bunkley or a big space eater like Watson.

I believe Bunkley is more athletic than Watson, but I don't believe he is more talented. That being said, I agree with your assessment in the players being different type of DTs. We have plenty of undertackles, what we have been lacking is the mammoth NT, like Watson. Some question Watson's work-ethic, but not many question his talent. I believe he has been given a bad rap and more recent interviews with Watson sound as if he committed to giving his all.

I have to disagree with assesment of Watson and Bunkley. In The Senior Bowl, Watson was dominating, no RB got around him, and he freed up fellow linemen to make big time plays. Bunkley on the otherhand ,was pushed around and neutralized.

The only bad rap that has been given to Watson was caused by his own lack of effort during his collegiate career. He isn't that talented. He has bulk. That bulk enabled him to beat on smaller guys in college. He won't be able to do that in the pros.

If people want to disregard several seasons of football for a week of practice and a handful of series of plays during the senior bowl, then fine you can do that. Just be aware of what you want and what you might be getting.

And look at their safeties.

All of them have at least one playmaker back there. We have none.

Watson was dominating and said all the right things because he knows he's auditioning for several million dollars right now.

Of course he looks great now.

Bunkley is auditioning, TOO.


Next.

Bunkley played every down of his ENTIRE college career with a non-stop motor.

Watson disappeared for large portions of entire games because he didn't feel like trying.

Next.

Parker, I've a good feeling about this guy, he could be KC's Ted Washington or Kris Jenkins type that KC's been missing since Dan Saleamua.

Yep. It's like saying Plummer is a good QB because he had one good year.

At least for me, it's hard to ignore the entire body of work in favor of just a small sample.

He absolutely could be.

But right now, he's much closer to Chester McGlockton than Ted Washington...

I understand that some of you have questions about Gabe Watson. I do, too. I've looked over the last few posts and see what you all are saying about an entire collegiate career and there is certainly ALOT of merit to that. However, the one position, that you can get by without being super athletic and just be a mammoth boulder is the NT position.

I think some are putting too much emphasis on his stats, instead of what the guy can actually do for a defensive line. He can clog up the middle and STUFF the run. He also commands a double-team, thus freeing up other lineman to get after the QB and HB.

BS.

Sims, Freeman, Sands. You can't get by with just size alone in the NFL. In college, yes.