There is absolutely a top 5 typical prospect in the draft. They play QB, WR, LT, DE and from time to time DT.

The teams that stray from that more often than not regret it later. When you draft in the top 5 you suck, and you need to take core positions, not complimentary ones.

I was purposely ignoring it because it doesn't prove anything.

First of all, Vernon Gholston played DE in college and he was drafted to play 3-4 OLB. That's not the same thing as drafting an OLB like Curry.

Second, you are completely ignoring positional value. Rivers and Mayo would NOT be drafted in the top 5 even knowing what we know now because even LBs that grade very highly in the draft almost never get a top 5 pick. Patrick Willis had ironclad credentials and STILL didn't get drafted in the top 10. Because LB HAS LOW POSITIONAL VALUE.

But okay, let's play your game. Knowing what you know now, would you draft Rivers or Mayo over Jake Long, Chris Long, Matt Ryan, McFadden or Dorsey? I wouldn't, when you factor in the top 5's potential.

Let's play your other game. Assume we had a re-draft knowing what we know now. You're really going to draft Mayo or Rivers above Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Ryan Clady, Branden Albert, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Leodis McKelvin, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Eddie Royal, Sam Baker, Brandon Flowers, Steve Slaton? Those are at least 10 players who would easily be drafted higher than either of those two.

The problem with the Lions was that they DID choose the normal positions.

Care to bet that the Lions would like to have taken Suggs or Barnett instead of Rodgers, just for one example?

Why would they have done that when hindsight says they could have traded down and not only got Suggs and another player? Furthermore, Suggs is a pass rusher and has far more value than Curry.

First of all, Suggs was a DE in college. Second of all, Suggs would have been a disaster in Detroit, given that they run a 4-3.

Finally, Barnett's a decent player. But a top 3 pick and top 3 money? You must be outside your mind. The Lions probably regret the Rogers pick, but not because they passed on Nick Barnett. There are dozens of other names you would put above that. The funny thing is, one of the few draft picks they hit on was Ernie Sims. He's obviously been a very big difference maker for that franchise.

Ok, thanks for posting this. It lets me know that you know nothing about football.

Why do you people keep trying to move the goalposts? Taking the "normal" value position was a mistake. Taking either of the top LBs taken would have been the smarter play. It's why this nonsense about "positional value" is stupid in general, and more stupid than usual when there are no top prospects separating themselves from the pack.

Suggs was drafted with the ability to play both positions. Furthermore, the Ravens have played both the 4-3 and the 3-4 during Suggs' tenure there. That is, in fact, one of the reasons they had the hassle with his franchise tag:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394771

Did someone really throw out Suggs as an example? The guy put up 20+ sacks in 1 year, please don't ever compare him to someone like Curry...

Suggs also hurt himself a bit going into that draft because he put on weight to show he could play DE and he ended up running really bad 40 times with the extra weight.

suggs contract hassle was about money. LB gets paid less than DE.

When Dan williams got tagged Carl argued he was basically a DT even though listed as a DE in the Hybrid scheme when DT played the Falcon.

Suggs was mentioned as an example of a linebacker who should have been chosen top 5 rather than a wide receiver.

Suggs was tagged as a linebacker and wanted DE money. His claim was that he played more DE than LB. In the end, he got a 'hybrid' designation of both.

Depends what WR's we're talking but as I said teams weren't overly sure what exactly he was which is why a 3-4 team was his best fit.

Carlos Rogers

Who? You mean Charles Rogers?

It was obvious the Lions did that to take the hometown local Michigan State product that was why they favored him. They should have taken Andre Johnson he was the best prospect in that draft.

If Missouri or Kansas had a legit top 5 prospect in the draft and the Chiefs had a pick up there everyone would be clammoring for the local guy even if he wasn't as good of a prospect as the other guy.

Yes, Charles. That's what I get for talking and posting at the same time. Thanks for the correction.

You sure seem cocky about your knowledge of football, even though you don't know a damn thing about the 3-4. Terrell Suggs played DE in college. He was drafted to play OLB in a 3-4 Defense. An OLB in a 3-4 Defense is not a traditional LB, like Mayo or Rivers or Hawk play. It is a pass rushing position with SOME outside LB responsibilities (i.e. pass coverage), etc.... You do NOT draft an OLB like Hawk or Rivers to play the 3-4 OLB position.
Take notes. 16 out of 16 3-4 OLBs in the NFL today played defensive end in college. Shawn Merriman, Demarcus Ware, Adalius Thomas, etc... etc... etc....

The only reason they call it a "hybrid" position is because your main responsibility is to be a pass rusher, but you play more traditional OLB roles (i.e. pass coverage) than a traditional DE.

You keep trying to act like Suggs and Merriman are LBs. They are not. If you suggest that they play anything close to the same position as AJ Hawk, then you have no business calling people out for knowing nothing about football. Watch game tape of Shawn Merriman and you tell me whether he is more of a pass rusher or more of a coverage guy.

This is just surreal. Normally, you two would see eye to eye on just about everything. This has got to be a first.

I'll say it again, I dare anyone to point to me a 3-4 OLB that played traditional LB and never played end.

Look, either start reading my posts or don't respond to them. How bloody difficult is it for you to grasp English?

Suggs was a DE in college, but he was drafted with the idea of him being able to play either DE or LB. That is, in fact, precisely what he does in Baltimore. He would have been a smarter pick than Rogers, who was a WR (traditionally high 'positional value').

No, they called it a 'hybrid' (my word), because he took a boatload of snaps as both a DE and a LB. The Ravens wanted him franchised as a LB, Suggs wanted DE money. After a grievance, a new designation was determined.

Suggs plays DE and LB. You can make all the other silly claims and comparisons you wish. Had you bothered to actually read my posts, you'd have noted that the comparison of Hawk and Suggs being made was that they are both linebackers. Given that Hawk has been playing LB in a 4-3 scheme, I'm frankly not even sure what the hell you think was being implied. Then again, you'd take Forte over Mayo, so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to your posts at all at this point. Talk about poor positional valuation.

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm adding supporting evidence to the argument.

I know it must suck to realize that I'm right - Curry isn't worth the #3 overall pick.

FYI -Terrell Suggs played DEFENSIVE END in college. ROFL

Terrell Suggs is a 3-4 OLB and played DE in college. He's not AT ALL an example of what's being talked about.

I wonder if he even realizes how stupid of a comparison it is between Curry and Terrell Suggs? Are we going to compare him to Dwight Freeney next?

I mean, after all Curry isn't a LB, he's an undersized DE, right?

Then you are an idiot.

The Lions run a 4-3 defense. 4-3 Defenses use 230-240 pound OLBs who are fast and can play sideline-to-sideline. They have to have pure linebacker instincts and they have to be versatile enough to cover tight ends. They are typically not as good at shedding blocks and they blitz only as an element of surprise. A 3-4 OLB/DE (a "hybrid") is a pass rusher who plays coverage moreso as an element of surprise. They are 260+-pound former DEs whose PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY is to rush the passer and know pass rushing technique, and every once in a while they take on some LB responsibility. If Suggs played in a 4-3 like Detroit, he would either be an undersized third-down pass rusher, or he would be an overweight, slow-as-shit OLB. He would have been a better pick than Rogers, but he would have been a huge bust in Detroit. Just the same, if AJ Hawk played 3-4 OLB, he would be an extremely undersized DE/LB who consistently got destroyed in the trenches and probably could generate 3 or 4 sacks at the most.

You obviously have no understanding of a 3-4 defense. A "hybrid" is the same exact position Merriman, Ware, Adalius Thomas, Vernon Gholston, Lamar Woodley, Mike Vrabel,

What do they all have in common? Oh yeah, they all played DE in college. So stop acting like these are OLBs like AJ Hawk or Derrick Johnson. Are you really going to tell me that Derrick Johnson could play the role Merriman plays and get 10+ sacks a year? And are you really going to tell me that Merriman could play DJ's role and cover tight ends on a huge chunk of the snaps? A "hybrid" DE only means they are Defensive Ends who take on some LB responsibility. You even said so yourself, given that Suggs argued he took more snaps as a DE than as a LB. That is completely true.

Hawk is a 4-3 OLB
Suggs is a 3-4 DE/OLB

If you really want to argue they're the same, then God help you.

Suggs, and Hawk, are examples of players who were drafted to play linebacker. Suggs was drafted to play LB and/or DE. Hawk WAS drafted in the top 5 and the Lions would certainly like to have drafted Suggs rather than Rogers.

WTF is so difficult about this for you people to grasp? You're all so damned caught up in the details that don't mean a damned thing that you can't see the blatantly obvious.

Wow. "Just Fisting Myself" is really drawing the love today! ROFL

Because you are still trying to suggest that Suggs is a LB (and/or DE), nevermind that he is one of 16 OLBs in the 3-4 who are DEs (who happen to play some LB). 16 of 16 OLBs in a 3-4 were DEs converted into LBs.

You don't understand why that's important? It's because NFL teams are saying... if you're going to be a 3-4 OLB, we're going to teach pass rushers how to play a little bit of LB.

Again, the fact that you don't see any difference between a 4-3 OLB and a 3-4 OLB suggests that you're the one that doesn't grasp defense.

Hey, just out of curiosity, since you're so brilliant, how much did Jason Taylor weigh when he was playing a 4-3 DE in Miami?

Moron.


Actually, when I referred to "Hybrid", I was referring to the hybridized way in which the Suggs grievance was resolved. He was paid as a DE/LB, which is the hybrid. Again, had you actually bothered to read the posts, you'd have known that.

I didn't say they were the same, other than both being linebackers. Seriously, reading comprehension would go a long way for you, I think.

Suggs IS a linebacker, in the 3-4. I never claimed he was identical to a 4-3 LB. Again, if you people would read posts rather than just jumping on people, this sort of wasted time could be avoided.

And you're the moron that thinks that Suggs could play OLB in a 4-3 in Detroit. Tell me how many 260+ pounders are playing OLB in a 4-3.

You keep referring to Suggs and Hawk as playing the same position, even though it couldn't be further from the truth. All 3-4 OLBs play the hybrid position. It is what they call a "tweener"--a DE that scouts thought was too small to play DE in a 4-3, but too big to play LB.

Terrell Suggs is a DE who was asked to play "tweener". As was Merriman, Ware, and every 3-4 OLB/DE "tweener" in the NFL (16 in total)
AJ Hawk is an OLB who was asked to play OLB

And again, you are suggesting that 4-3 LBs and 3-4 LBs are both "linebackers." They're not!

3-4 OLBs are asked to take on much more DE responsibility. Therefore, they carry much higher draft value than a LB. DEs are one of the most highly sought after prospects in any given draft. LBs are usually taken toward the middle of the first round. Consistently.

Now, the only reason 3-4 OLBs tend to drop lower in the draft is because only a handful of teams actually run a 3-4 defense (8 teams). So let's sum it up. Patrick Willis fell to #11 because no NFL team wanted to reach for a LB in the top 10. Terrell Suggs dropped to #6 because you have to run a 3-4 to get value from him.

Ok, please tell me you've never bred, because this type of stupidity should never be passed on. Suggs plays DE in a 4-3, not OLB. Hence the comparison with Jason Taylor, for example.


Actually, I don't believe that I've ever referred to Suggs and Hawk as playing the same position. Linebacker is a term which covers multiple positions, and those positions are different depending upon how you're running your defense. Again, if you would just take the time to actually read....

Stupidest line of the day, and that took some doing. Of course they are both linebackers. But, since you seem ready to change the world, start with Bill Belichick, since he's used both converted DEs AND traditional linebackers in his 3-4 systems, both inside and out. Clearly, that guy just doesn't know what the hell he's doing with defenses.

If only any of this had something to do with this thread, I'd pretend to care. But, since it doesn't....

The only player with a skillset even ROUGHLY equivalent to Curry's to be drafted in the Top 5 in the past 20 years is AJ Hawk.

And you're going to sit here and tell me you'd be HAPPY with AJ ****ing Hawk at #3 overall?

You're high, and it's not good shit either.

Whoa! Slow down there, slick. I never said that I thought the Chiefs should draft Curry. Frankly, if I were the Chiefs, my first leaning would be to Raji. That's never been my point in all of this, which is why I kept asking you people to actually read my posts.

This is a terrible season for top end prospects. There's no real difference between #1 and #21, except at left tackle and, maybe, at QB. So, since nobody is likely to trade for the #3 spot as of now, bitching about whomever is picked based upon 'positional value' is moronic. This is the kind of year where you take the player that you feel will most likely succeeed in your system, taking need into account. Other than kicker or punter, position shouldn't mean a damned thing.

Well it does.

At least to teams that care about winning.

No, it doesn't. That's pretty clear throughout history, actually.

Pretty clear by what? The massive volume of non-pass rushing LB's drafted in the top 5?

You're right about one thing - history is VERY clear on this subject.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By View Post
Other than kicker or punter, position shouldn't mean a damned thing.So then guards are picked as often as QB's in the top 5?

I agree with most of your points, though I haven't read through the entire thread. But a smaller difference in value doesn't mean there isn't any.

If positional value were all that mattered, no QB would make it past the first round.

[QUOTE=Just Passin' By;5666521]Ok, please tell me you've never bred, because this type of stupidity should never be passed on. Suggs plays DE in a 4-3, not OLB. Hence the comparison with Jason Taylor, for example.

The Ravens run a 3-4, genius. Type in "Baltimore Ravens" depth chart and tell me how many times you see Suggs listed as a DE.

Jason Taylor is a DE in a 4-3. He does not play even close to the same position as Suggs. Taylor plays all of his snaps with his hands on the ground. Suggs does not.


You have implied it. Trust me. Everyone on this board knows that this is exactly what you've been saying. You have been saying all along that Suggs and Mayo and Rivers are examples of linebackers who should have been drafted in the top 5. And what I am AGAIN reiterating is that Rivers and Mayo are traditional, hands-off-the-ground, LBs who are drafted because of their speed and instincts. Suggs was drafted to be a pass rusher first and foremost. You can't make that comparison. Again, 3-4 OLBs carry high draft value. 4-3 OLBs or 3-4 ILBs typically do not.


Yes, and almost all 3-4 OLBs are DEs, and almost all 3-4 ILBs are you're more traditional 4-3 LBs. Don't act like traditional LBs have sometimes played OLB or that DEs have sometimes played ILB. Bellichick used Mike Vrabel, who was a 4-3 DE at Ohio State, to be his OLB. Notice a trend? Again. 3-4 OLBs are not traditional LBs. Almost 100% of the time, they are DEs that play a little bit of linebacker. You apparently can't see the enormous difference between a traditional LB and a 3-4 OLB. 4-3 ROLB, MLB, LOLB are similar to 3-4 RILB and LILB. 3-4 ROLBs and LOLBs are entirely different.


You keep saying that Detroit should have drafted Terrell Suggs to play 4-3 DE. And I'm pointing out that there's a very good likelihood he wouldn't have been that good in Detroit, because he would play a COMPLETELY different position.

I agree that teams take position into account. My initial point to htismaqe was that this was an unusual year and it shouldn't hold water this season. Naturally, instead of actually responding to that, he changed the argument to "winning teams" instead of remaining focused on one specific season.

The reality is that all teams value somewhat differently. That's why the Raiders drafted a kicker as high as they did, for example. However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

[QUOTE=chiefzilla1501;5666573]Ok, you're an idiot. Get back to me when you gain enough IQ points to put you in double digits.

Someone please tell me there's an ignore button around here.

P.S. Nevermind, I found it. Good Lord, what a dipshit this clown is.

[QUOTE=Just Passin' By;5666588]That's pretty funny, given that you're arguing against the world right now.

Unfortunately true, I know it can be aggravating. Sometimes people just want to take one point about a prospect and assume that that one factor makes the decision black and white, when 90% of the time it's in the grey and other factors have to be taken into acccount.

ILB's don't usually go in the top 5, but whether you(I guess meaning "everyone else") like it or not this top 5 does suck, especially for us.

While I now have you on ignore, this just had to be addressed. Tedy Bruschi was a defensive end for most of his college career. He became an ILB in the NFL.

Pierre Woods was a linebacker at Michigan and is an OLB in New England. Tully Banta-Cain played outside linebacker before shifting to defensive end in college, and then back to OLB in New England.

Details, details, I know.....

When did I say that positional value is ALL that mattered? Talk about moving the goalposts. ROFL

I'm amazed that you don't catch the irony of your own comment. It's the whole point.

EVERY year is unusual when it comes to certain players or positions. You NEVER throw out historical context. EVER.

You want to talk about being blatantly stubborn - how about insisting that Curry is worth the #3 overall pick despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary...

There was nothing ironic about my comment at all. You mischaracterized my statements, AGAIN, and now you're being deliberately obtuse in an effort to deflect away from it.

You're the one that wants to speak in absolutes, not me.

I quoted your statements. I did not mischaracterize them. You're the person with the ridiculous take on positional value and Curry, not me. You post against Curry at #3 and you post against O-line at #3. So, other than QB, what's there to take at #3?

Just as an example, Kiper's Big Board (as of 4/9) has Crabtree, Orakpo, Pettigrew and Maclin as the only players besides Curry that are not QB or OL in his top 10.

Not one of them is a top 10 pick in a lot of years. Which one of them is your choice for the #3 pick?

We were talking about Curry and LB's. Not offensive linemen. Don't try to change the subject again.

I've said I'd take Crabtree ahead of Curry.

Furthermore, you and alot of the other Curry advocates continuously want to remove QB from the discussion, as if that's either fair or relevant and it's neither. I'd absolutely take Sanchez over Curry.

As for my stance on Curry being ridiculous, that's easy to say when you're willing to throw the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window. Talk about ridiculous.

Wow, so they agree with me. Imagine that.

What are you talking about? Other than including the tackles, that's basically word-for-word what I've been saying.

1.) I'm not changing the subject at all. You've made the same statements about not taking OL as about not taking Curry at #3.

2.) And, AGAIN, I'm not a Curry advocate. I pointed out that I'd look to Raji at #3 before anyone else. Seriously, if you're not going to bother reading, what's the point of this?

3.) It's not throwing the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window, as you well know.

4.) Of course I'm removing QB from the discussion. If Pioli takes a QB at #3, that would be far more groundbreaking than taking Curry there, unless you can remember a time that a team has ever drafted a QB in round 1 after trading for a franchise tagged QB. I believe that, if it happens, it'll be a first, unlike a LB being drafted in the top 5.

How many times has anybody traded for a franchise QB? I honestly can't remember one. So trading for a franchise QB is unprecedented in and of itself. Therefore the idea of taking a QB at #3 just jumped the shark.

As for a LB being drafted in the top 5, that's a much different situation. There's been 15 drafts since the inception of the franchise tag (to make it a fair comparison) and how many non-pass rushing LB's have been taken? 1? 2?

Anyway, I'm done fighting about Curry. In the end, it looks like the two of us agree and we've entered this argument not because we believe deep down but we saw some compulsion to argue on merit alone.

Yes, details. They are the exception. Not the rule. It's the same as saying that every 6th round pick can be a pro bowl quarterback because Tom Brady was picked in the 6th round. Yes, DL can play ILB in a 3-4 or OLB in a 4-3. But it rarely, rarely ever happens, just like OLBs playing 3-4 rarely ever happen.

Now, as for your argument about Raji, finally we agree on something. I think when you're talking about a 3-4, Raji, Everett Brown, and even a Robert Ayers carry a lot more value than Curry. Now, you've been arguing all this time about Curry deserving to be in the top 5. Look, I agree with you on that. I think in a 4-3, Curry is going to be good enough, especially in this draft class, to warrant a #3 pick. But in a 3-4, he's not worth a pick that high.

I love "ignore willpower breakage".

Derrick Thomas?

Nope he played end in Gunther's scheme.

Believe it was a 3-4 in 90 and 91.

It's probably one of the closest examples you can find, but DT was also a Defensive End at Alabama. So he had significant experience in college. And even though he was a 4-3 LB, he was an untraditional LB--the Falcon position, as it came to be known.

Kevin Green played outside linebacker at Alabama and played outside backer his whole career.

Greg Lloyd was an outside linebacker at Fort Valley State and never played end. He was an outside backer his whole career.

Chad Brown started as an inside backer with the Steelers then moved to outside once Lloyd left I believe. He was never an end until he went to Seattle.

James Harrison never played end in the NFL. Not sure at Kent State. He was an outside backer from day 1 both with the Steelers and the Ravens.

Cornelius Bennett never played end in college or in the pros. He was an outside linebacker his whole career.

That is just off the top of my head. Either way, if the point you are trying to make is that only ends can play outside linebacker, then you don't have one. Gusy like Green, Lloyd, Bennett, etc are not anomalies in a 30 front. Lots of traditional linebackers play outside in 30 fronts.

True, but he ALWAYS lined up on end.

But I bet if you look at percentages most 3-4 olb's, especially those used primarily to rush, especially those who had an immediate impact, played some DE in college.

I realize that isn't exactly the point he was making, but it shouldn't be entirely dismissed.

edit: or they at least had sacks in college like Sintim.

Most college players, esp defensive players, line up all over the place. Lots of NFL players do as well. A few years ago the Saints used their middle linebacker at the time, Charlie Clemons, as their hybrid rush end on passing downs. THEIR MIDDLE LINEBACKER. He had 14 sacks doing it. He was the teams leading tackler as well.

The point is, if you want to draw a line in the sand and say "name me a guy that never put his hand in the dirt" then it is possible that NO one can be listed. Because at some point most linebackers played a few downs with their hand in the dirt at some level. However rushing from the outside spot in a 30 front where the tackle is covered up by an end or guard isn't the same as rushing with your hand in the dirt. So a guy can come in as a traditional linebacker and become a good pass rusher from the stand up position without ever having played most of his time at end. Why? Because it's two different animals. James Harrison could not line up in a 40 front defense and collect 15 sacks a year. Write that down. Wouldn't happen. Jared Allen on the other hand, doesn't have the quickness off of a 9 technique to get 15 sacks either. He does it from the end postion because his is a grinder with great leverage and long arms. Jared has the ability to beat guys from up close. He would not be as effective lining up wide like a linebacker in a 30 front. Harrison uses his short leverages to beat guys from a wide position, and because he's very explosive in that short distance.

It's really apples and oranges. Some guys can do both. Some can't. It's really about the player and not his position.

This clearly means they are taking Crabtree at #3

To the extent that it's possible, I'd be interested to know how many of those college teams ran 3-4 defenses and how many of those guys actually transitioned from 4-3 LB to 3-4 LB.

Agree. This is how I would build a dynasty. Bring vets to school the rooks. I know its been said a thousand times on here, but it still makes sense. Even heard something the other day about LJ shaping up.:eek: