ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Saccopoo Memorial Draft Forum (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   On ESPN now is a draft special.. (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205538)

Mecca 04-07-2009 06:01 PM

On ESPN now is a draft special..
 
Schlereth is going to explain why Curry isn't worth a top 10 pick is one of the teasers..

ChiefsCountry 04-07-2009 06:05 PM

ESPN2

cabletech94 04-07-2009 06:09 PM

Thanks for the Heads Up.

bdeg 04-07-2009 06:26 PM

Schlereth's been reading CP.

I missed the beginning of the interview, did Curry mention KC?

philfree 04-07-2009 06:33 PM

Thanks for the heads up, Mark.....errr Mecca.

I did hear three people just say that Curry has the tools to rush the passer in the NFL. Besides that it was like reading the arguments pro and against Curry.


PhilFree:arrow:

KCrockaholic 04-07-2009 06:47 PM

This arguement wont end until 2 years from now...

SBK 04-07-2009 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5649402)
Schlereth is going to explain why Curry isn't worth a top 10 pick is one of the teasers..

Duh, the first 10 picks should all be on the O line. :evil:

milkman 04-08-2009 08:30 AM

Way to summarize what he had to say for those of us who didn't get any chance to see it.

bdeg 04-08-2009 08:33 AM

Schlereth said the usual ILB isn't worth a top ten pick argument, plus he went on about the value of a pass rusher.

Curry, in the part I caught, said teams were investigating how he rushed the passer. Said he has the quickness and everything, just needs to be taught.

milkman 04-08-2009 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5649447)
Thanks for the heads up, Mark.....errr Mecca.

I did hear three people just say that Curry has the tools to rush the passer in the NFL. Besides that it was like reading the arguments pro and against Curry.


PhilFree:arrow:

Those people are speculating, but the fact is that don't know that he can be a pass rusher.

It's only opinion that has no evidence to this point for support.

milkman 04-08-2009 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdeg (Post 5650491)
Schlereth said the usual ILB isn't worth a top ten pick argument, plus he went on about the value of a pass rusher.

Curry, in the part I caught, said teams were investigating how he rushed the passer. Said he has the quickness and everything, just needs to be taught.

That guy Schlereth seems to be pretty smart for a Donkey and soap actor.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdeg (Post 5650491)
Said he has the quickness and everything, just needs to be taught.

That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.

OnTheWarpath15 04-08-2009 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650649)
That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.

It won't.

Some of us have been saying the same thing for 2 months.

LaChapelle 04-08-2009 09:34 AM

Michael Smith defended Curry but, said Pioli's MO was to trade down. If staying at 3 he mentioned the usual suspects, had Tyson Jackson as a dark horse.

bdeg 04-08-2009 09:37 AM

If we take Tyson Jackson at 3 I might throw up.

As for taking a project at 3, that's only an issue if you don't consider his value at ILB worthy of the #3. idk

LaChapelle 04-08-2009 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdeg (Post 5650669)
If we take Tyson Jackson at 3 I might throw up.

As for taking a project at 3, that's only an issue if you don't consider his value at ILB worthy of the #3. idk

Pioli didn't have final say in NE. No one has a clue, but that don't pay to say.

bdeg 04-08-2009 09:42 AM

Tough call between Curry and Brown if you ask me, barring a likely trade down. I haven't watched more than a game and a couple HL tapes of either, but my inclination is to go with Brown.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdeg (Post 5650669)
If we take Tyson Jackson at 3 I might throw up.

As for taking a project at 3, that's only an issue if you don't consider his value at ILB worthy of the #3. idk

I don't. If we were picking at #10 or so, I'd be all over Curry. And people would be saying "he won't last that long".

Which is funny considering that people were convinced DJ would be gone when we picked at #15.

bdeg 04-08-2009 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650681)
I don't. If we were picking at #10 or so, I'd be all over Curry. And people would be saying "he won't last that long".

Which is funny considering that people were convinced DJ would be gone when we picked at #15.

Normally I agree, Curry goes closer to 10, but outside of the top 4(which don't fit), there isn't much if any elite talent. Curry might be the only real elite player left.

RustShack 04-08-2009 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650681)
I don't. If we were picking at #10 or so, I'd be all over Curry. And people would be saying "he won't last that long".

Which is funny considering that people were convinced DJ would be gone when we picked at #15.

Yeah but DJ fell because he wasn't a pass rusher and there were other DE's who would make for good OLB in a 3-4... And Curry is a... oh wait... OK never mind, its the same situation.

doomy3 04-08-2009 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650690)
Yeah but DJ fell because he wasn't a pass rusher and there were other DE's who would make for good OLB in a 3-4... And Curry is a... oh wait... OK never mind, its the same situation.

Well, the first part about DJ not being a pass rusher is similar to this year.

The difference is, in 2005 there was a Demarcus Ware and Shawn Merriman in the draft

RustShack 04-08-2009 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3 (Post 5650713)
Well, the first part about DJ not being a pass rusher is similar to this year.

The difference is, in 2005 there was a Demarcus Ware and Shawn Merriman in the draft

Everette Brown, Aaron Maybin, Brian Orakpo. Yes Curry is rated above them, but DJ was rated above Ware and Merriman.

doomy3 04-08-2009 09:53 AM

Really, looking at that draft in 2005, that was a pretty weak first round.



1 Alex Smith QB Utah San Francisco 49ers
2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn Miami Dolphins
3 Braylon Edwards WR Michigan Cleveland Browns
4 Cedric Benson RB Texas Chicago Bears
5 Cadillac Williams RB Auburn Tampa Bay Buccaneers
6 Pacman Jones CB West Virginia Tennessee Titans
7 Troy Williamson WR South Carolina Minnesota Vikings
8 Antrel Rolle DB Miami (Fla.) Arizona Cardinals
9 Carlos Rogers DB Auburn Washington Redskins
10 Mike Williams WR USC Detroit Lions
11 DeMarcus Ware OLB Troy State Dallas Cowboys
12 Shawne Merriman OLB Maryland San Diego Chargers
13 Jammal Brown T Oklahoma New Orleans Saints
14 Thomas Davis DB Georgia Carolina Panthers
15 Derrick Johnson OLB Texas Kansas City Chiefs
16 Travis Johnson DT Florida State Houston Texans
17 David Pollack LB Georgia Cincinnati Bengals
18 Erasmus James DE Wisconsin Minnesota Vikings
19 Alex Barron T Florida State St. Louis Rams
20 Marcus Spears DE Louisiana State Dallas Cowboys
21 Matt Jones WR Arkansas Jacksonville Jaguars
22 Mark Clayton WR Oklahoma Baltimore Ravens
23 Fabian Washington CB Nebraska Oakland Raiders
24 Aaron Rodgers QB California Green Bay Packers
25 Jason Campbell QB Auburn Washington Redskins
26 Chris Spencer C Mississippi Seattle Seahawks
27 Roddy White WR Alabama-Birmingham Atlanta Falcons
28 Luis Castillo DE Northwestern San Diego Chargers
29 Marlin Jackson DB Michigan Indianapolis Colts
30 Heath Miller TE Virginia Pittsburgh Steelers
31 Mike Patterson DT USC Philadelphia Eagles
32 Logan Mankins

doomy3 04-08-2009 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650718)
Everette Brown, Aaron Maybin, Brian Orakpo. Yes Curry is rated above them, but DJ was rated above Ware and Merriman.

Yeah, I guess it just depends on team's evaluations of them. I would imagine most teams do feel better about Orakpo and Maybin than people on here.

philfree 04-08-2009 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650649)
That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.


I don't think it's fair to call Curry a project. The only thing that he hasn't proven he can do is be a consistant pass rusher. And that comes from not having the opportunity. That said I've seen several plays where he came off the edge and was all over the QB. I saw a new one yesterday where he nailed the QB and the ball popped out and landed in the arms of another defender. The ball went forward and past the LOS so it was probably called a pressure and an INT in the stats. What it was, was an awsome play. IMO if given the chance he will be able to rush the passer in the NFL. He won't be an every down pass rusher but he will be able to rush the passer IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

DrRyan 04-08-2009 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650649)
That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.

Errr...that is exactly what you take. Sanchez anyone? All everyone wanting to take Sanchez has talked about is "how he projects to be a top 'x' starter in this league." I guess I do not have a problem if they still go QB at #3 if they can't trade down and QB is their BPA, but Sanchez has started 1 year in college, so you you are drafting a project, period, point blank.

philfree 04-08-2009 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRyan (Post 5650740)
Errr...that is exactly what you take. Sanchez anyone? All everyone wanting to take Sanchez has talked about is "how he projects to be a top 'x' starter in this league." I guess I do not have a problem if they still go QB at #3 if they can't trade down and QB is their BPA, but Sanchez has started 1 year in college, so you you are drafting a project, period, point blank.

Exactly! You don't take a QB with only 16 starts in the top three of the draft.
I would take Stafford if he fell to #3 and we couldn't get a trade done. I might take him no matter what.


PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5650735)
I don't think it's fair to call Curry a project. The only thing that he hasn't proven he can do is be a consistant pass rusher. And that comes from not having the opportunity. That said I've seen several plays where he came off the edge and was all over the QB. I saw a new one yesterday where he nailed the QB and the ball popped out and landed in the arms of another defender. The ball went forward and past the LOS so it was probably called a pressure and an INT in the stats. What it was, was an awsome play. IMO if given the chance he will be able to rush the passer in the NFL. He won't be an every down pass rusher but he will be able to rush the passer IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

If you draft a LB that high he better be a pass rusher, if he hasn't done it before hes a project. Thats like drafting a spread QB and saying he can learn to play a Pro Style offense easy.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdeg (Post 5650689)
Normally I agree, Curry goes closer to 10, but outside of the top 4(which don't fit), there isn't much if any elite talent. Curry might be the only real elite player left.

The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

OnTheWarpath15 04-08-2009 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650768)
The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

Reptastic.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRyan (Post 5650740)
Errr...that is exactly what you take. Sanchez anyone? All everyone wanting to take Sanchez has talked about is "how he projects to be a top 'x' starter in this league." I guess I do not have a problem if they still go QB at #3 if they can't trade down and QB is their BPA, but Sanchez has started 1 year in college, so you you are drafting a project, period, point blank.

Sanchez started a full season in college.

Curry hasn't started ONE GAME at the position most people want him to play.

There's no comparison at all.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5650735)
I don't think it's fair to call Curry a project. The only thing that he hasn't proven he can do is be a consistant pass rusher. And that comes from not having the opportunity. That said I've seen several plays where he came off the edge and was all over the QB. I saw a new one yesterday where he nailed the QB and the ball popped out and landed in the arms of another defender. The ball went forward and past the LOS so it was probably called a pressure and an INT in the stats. What it was, was an awsome play. IMO if given the chance he will be able to rush the passer in the NFL. He won't be an every down pass rusher but he will be able to rush the passer IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

When you want him to do something he's really never done in his career, you might as well be asking him to change positions.

This is the very definition of project.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650649)
That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.


they are college draftees, every single one of them is a project. A rookie project. every team is going to see if their rookie can BECOME an NFL Player by teaching them the pro game and seeing if they can adjust to it.

Every single one of them = project.

Sorry htismaqe, I just don't like that argument in draft talks..... :D

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5650756)
Exactly! You don't take a QB with only 16 starts in the top three of the draft.
I would take Stafford if he fell to #3 and we couldn't get a trade done. I might take him no matter what.


PhilFree:arrow:

And you don't take an ILB with 9 career sacks at #3 either.

You're FORCED to pick between the lesser of two evils.

And since the QB position carries infinitely more value than ILB, taking the QB makes far more sense.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5650780)
they are college draftees, every single one of them is a project. A rookie project. every team is going to see if their rookie can BECOME an NFL Player by teaching them the pro game and seeing if they can adjust to it.

Every single one of them = project.

Sorry htismaqe, I just don't like that argument in draft talks..... :D

Wrong.

Every draftee is a RISK. Only the ones that are being asked to do something they've not done before are "projects".

dirk digler 04-08-2009 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650762)
If you draft a LB that high he better be a pass rusher, if he hasn't done it before hes a project. Thats like drafting a spread QB and saying he can learn to play a Pro Style offense easy.

That's a dumb thing to say. I am not a Curry lover but I bet most of the top D players in this draft have never played in a 3-4 so by your definition they are a project.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650768)
The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.


Now this is how you argue against a pick.....

Brock 04-08-2009 10:10 AM

I wonder how long it took Schlereth to say "Because he isn't a pass rusher" Segment over.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5650780)
they are college draftees, every single one of them is a project. A rookie project. every team is going to see if their rookie can BECOME an NFL Player by teaching them the pro game and seeing if they can adjust to it.

Every single one of them = project.

Sorry htismaqe, I just don't like that argument in draft talks..... :D

Some more so than others, like when you draft someone and ask them to do what they haven't done before.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650785)
Wrong.

Every draftee is a RISK. Only the ones that are being asked to do something they've not done before are "projects".


which college prospect has played football at a professional level?

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650787)
That's a dumb thing to say. I am not a Curry lover but I bet most of the top D players in this draft have never played in a 3-4 so by your definition they are a project.

It's not about 3-4 vs. 4-3, it's about doing what they're suited for. An undersized 4-3 DE is being asked to do the same things in college that he would in the pros as a 3-4 OLB.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650787)
That's a dumb thing to say. I am not a Curry lover but I bet most of the top D players in this draft have never played in a 3-4 so by your definition they are a project.

Thats why most 3-4 OLB's are DE's, because they already have the pass rushing skill.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5650795)
which college prospect has played football at a professional level?

What does that have to do with anything?

You're talking about taking a risk by taking ANY player that's never played in the NFL before.

And I've already acknowledged that the risk is very real.

That is NOT and will NEVER BE the same as taking a player that did one thing in college and having him do something COMPLETELY different in the pros. That's a completely separate, and compounding, risk.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5650795)
which college prospect has played football at a professional level?

You don't understand the concept of a raw prospect and someone thats ready for the Pro's do you?

dirk digler 04-08-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650797)
It's not about 3-4 vs. 4-3, it's about doing what they're suited for. An undersized 4-3 DE is being asked to do the same things in college that he would in the pros as a 3-4 OLB.

Doesn't a 3-4 OLB still play in coverage quite a bit? I am asking because I admit I don't know.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650807)
Doesn't a 3-4 OLB still play in coverage quite a bit? I am asking because I admit I don't know.

Not as much, but its not nearly as hard to learn to drop back and cover a TE as it is to learn how to rush the passer.

htismaqe 04-08-2009 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650807)
Doesn't a 3-4 OLB still play in coverage quite a bit? I am asking because I admit I don't know.

It depends on the defense. Some do and some don't.

Besides, there's so much zone blitz in football nowadays, most DE's coming out of college have had to cover their fair share of passes.

dirk digler 04-08-2009 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650816)
Not as much, but its not nearly as hard to learn to drop back and cover a TE as it is to learn how to rush the passer.

Ok but by your definition then they would be a project because you will have to teach them.

I think personally it would be easier to teach a player how to rush a passer then it would be to play in coverage.

dirk digler 04-08-2009 10:18 AM

My example would be DT or Merriman. Those guys can rush the passer but couldn't\can't cover worth a shit.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650825)
Ok but by your definition then they would be a project because you will have to teach them.

I think personally it would be easier to teach a player how to rush a passer then it would be to play in coverage.

Your probably one of the very few to think that.

DrRyan 04-08-2009 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650772)
Sanchez started a full season in college.

Curry hasn't started ONE GAME at the position most people want him to play.

There's no comparison at all.

Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650831)
My example would be DT or Merriman. Those guys can rush the passer but couldn't\can't cover worth a shit.

3-4 DE's are drafting for their pass rushing ability, not coverage. If your a coverage LB your a ILB.

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRyan (Post 5650836)
Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.

Sure bring it in, but make sure you leave out the spread QB's. Oh wait, there isn't a list anymore after that is there?

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650804)
You don't understand the concept of a raw prospect and someone thats ready for the Pro's do you?



I understand completely, do you understand that coaches and talent evaluators are looking these kids over to see if they have the skill to do what they want them to do at the next level?

I can't really say that curry could be a pass rusher, but I guess I'm just not as educated/studied/experienced as you, mecca, htis, or pioli....


BTW-I have no freakin idea who we take, and I can see the reasons why curry is viewed as a risk. As I stated in my first post of this thread, I just don't like the "he's never done that before" arguement. It's not conclusive enough for me. that's all.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650816)
Not as much, but its not nearly as hard to learn to drop back and cover a TE as it is to learn how to rush the passer.


Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650825)
Ok but by your definition then they would be a project because you will have to teach them.

I think personally it would be easier to teach a player how to rush a passer then it would be to play in coverage.


exactly

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650832)
Your probably one of the very few to think that.


what, in here?
guess I am too then. I'd say it would have to depend on the skill set of the player/prospect we are talking about.

But, then again, there has been talk about hali moving to a 3-4 OLB, but there were several arguements against it, based on how hard it would be to teach him coverage.

This place cracks me up sometimes....

kcbubb 04-08-2009 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650768)
The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

not true. they are enamored with his athletic ability, his playmaking ability, his character, his leadership and his ability to help a struggling team win games. Wake Forest was a much better team with Curry.

DrRyan 04-08-2009 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650839)
Sure bring it in, but make sure you leave out the spread QB's. Oh wait, there isn't a list anymore after that is there?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Bring what in? Spread QBs, WTF are you talking about?

We are talking about Sanchez and him being a project, and you retort with talk of bring "it" in and spread QBs. Please elaborate...

DaneMcCloud 04-08-2009 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb (Post 5650857)
not true. they are enamored with his athletic ability, his playmaking ability, his character, his leadership and his ability to help a struggling team win games. Wake Forest was a much better team with Curry.

"They" meaning whom? The talking heads? In an interview this week, Mayock said that the value in this draft is at the bottom of the first round because there isn't any elite talent in this draft.

That's something I've been saying since January.

1. "This is by far the worst year for the top 10 that I've seen. Down around 18, 20, you'll get every bit the player you'll get in the top 10 for a third of the price.''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1

dirk digler 04-08-2009 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650837)
3-4 DE's are drafting for their pass rushing ability, not coverage. If your a coverage LB your a ILB.

Well according to the Packers they are going to move Aaron Kampman to OLB in their new 3-4 scheme and they said that position has to be able to cover good.

Quote:

Kampman Switching To 3-4 OLB

From Packers.com:

With an almost entirely new defensive coaching staff, the coaches on that side of the ball are evaluating the team’s existing personnel to see where players fit in the new system. Head Coach Mike McCarthy said Tuesday that defensive end Aaron Kampman will line up at outside linebacker in the base defense. Though it is too early to say who else will be playing there for the Packers in ‘09, Greene does know what will be required of them.

“They have to rush like big defensive ends against big offensive tackles, which are 6-6, 330, and so forth,” Greene said. “Obviously they get picked up by a running back every once in a while, but it’s a rare occasion when a running back will try to block an outside backer in the 3-4.

“An outside backer in a 3-4 has to play the run hard from the point of attack, and there are so many different blocking schemes that offenses try to get them on the perimeter. And an outside backer has to be able to cover. He’s got to be able to drop.

milkman 04-08-2009 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5650852)
exactly




what, in here?
guess I am too then. I'd say it would have to depend on the skill set of the player/prospect we are talking about.

But, then again, there has been talk about hali moving to a 3-4 OLB, but there were several arguements against it, based on how hard it would be to teach him coverage.

This place cracks me up sometimes....

I don't know about that whole "Hali can't learn to cover" argument, though I would think that he lacks the sthleticism needed to cover.

However, the biggest argument against movin Hali to OLB in a 3-4 is that he doesn't have the speed and athleticism to rush the passer as a stand up LB.

The only thing that Hali brings is a quick initial burst, which is effective agaisnt the lesser (generally) athletic RTs (as opposed to LTs).

Beyond that, he's virtually useless.

kcbubb 04-08-2009 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRyan (Post 5650839)
Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.


Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650839)
Sure bring it in, but make sure you leave out the spread QB's. Oh wait, there isn't a list anymore after that is there?

JaMarcus Russell is probably the most recent underclassmen QB to struggle. He got a lot of hype too after a big bowl game performance. Do you remember? LSU beat Notre Dame and then Quinn dropped like a rock in the draft. Sanchez is getting a lot of hype right after a big bowl game too. What if Sanchez has a bad game in the bowl game? Are we even talking about him now? To me, his resume is too short.

But I would love for someone to trade up for him.

dirk digler 04-08-2009 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5650852)
exactly




what, in here?
guess I am too then. I'd say it would have to depend on the skill set of the player/prospect we are talking about.

But, then again, there has been talk about hali moving to a 3-4 OLB, but there were several arguements against it, based on how hard it would be to teach him coverage.

This place cracks me up sometimes....

Yep. Hali is going to struggle covering people because it is a totally different skill set then playing D-Line and rushing the QB every other play.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5650874)
I don't know about that whole "Hali can't learn to cover" argument, though I would think that he lacks the sthleticism needed to cover.

However, the biggest argument against movin Hali to OLB in a 3-4 is that he doesn't have the speed and athleticism to rush the passer as a stand up LB.

The only thing that Hali brings is a quick initial burst, which is effective agaisnt the lesser (generally) athletic RTs (as opposed to LTs).

Beyond that, he's virtually useless.


IIRC - hali had greater success when rushing from a standing postion.
not trying to turn this into another hali discussion......

kcbubb 04-08-2009 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5650871)
"They" meaning whom? The talking heads? In an interview this week, Mayock said that the value in this draft is at the bottom of the first round because there isn't any elite talent in this draft.

That's something I've been saying since January.

1. "This is by far the worst year for the top 10 that I've seen. Down around 18, 20, you'll get every bit the player you'll get in the top 10 for a third of the price.''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1

hey, we agree on something! that's awesome. I've been saying that this is a weak draft at the top too. I think that in most drafts that Curry is a #10 pick, but since this draft is weak at the top, he moves up.

philfree 04-08-2009 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5650778)
When you want him to do something he's really never done in his career, you might as well be asking him to change positions.

This is the very definition of project.


He'll do more then one thing and those things he'll do very well. The thing about being able to rush the passer is that I'm starting believe he'll be able to do it. I've seen enough video of him in the backfield making tackles for loss and pressuring the QB that I think his skills will transfer to pass rushing. He's caused the QB to throw INTs because of his pressure and that's not just once. He's also pressured the QB out of the pocket into the arms of another defender who gets the glory of a sack that was really due to Currys pressure. IMO the 9 sack stat is misleading to Curry's ability. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks these things either. So to me Curry as an over all prospect isn't a project. And that combined with the other players available at the top of this draft him a top 5 pick.

PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack 04-08-2009 10:44 AM

Oh man I can't believe how stupid people are sometimes. Every DE we've talked about drafting and using as an OLB is fast enough and athletic enough to cover, you can teach players like that to cover easily... especially since most of them have played in coverage during a zone blitz. So you bring up Hali who isn't fast enough or athletic enough and don't get why we can't use him?

:banghead:

You can teach someone athletic enough to cover a lot more easily than you can teach them to pass rush. Maybe in HS when they can plow throw anyone it might be easier to pass rush, but when you have to teach them the technique and moves its a lot harder.

kcbubb 04-08-2009 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5650884)
Yep. Hali is going to struggle covering people because it is a totally different skill set then playing D-Line and rushing the QB every other play.

each team is different. Look at Miami. They have a huge OLB in Roth, 6'4" 275. They don't ask him to play man coverage down the field. They do ask him to play zone in the flat and the hook to curl area and make open field tackles.

I think Hali can play the same role as Roth.

kcbubb 04-08-2009 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5650909)
He'll do more then one thing and those things he'll do very well. The thing about being able to rush the passer is that I'm starting believe he'll be able to do it. I've seen enough video of him in the backfield making tackles for loss and pressuring the QB that I think his skills will transfer to pass rushing. He's caused the QB to throw INTs because of his pressure and that's not just once. He's also pressured the QB out of the pocket into the arms of another defender who gets the glory of a sack that was really due to Currys pressure. IMO the 9 sack stat is misleading to Curry's ability. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks these things either. So to me Curry as an over all prospect isn't a project. And that combined with the other players available at the top of this draft him a top 5 pick.

PhilFree:arrow:

I agree. In the plays where I have seen Curry rush the QB, he has been good at it. He just hasn't had the opportunity very often.

milkman 04-08-2009 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb (Post 5650951)
I agree. In the plays where I have seen Curry rush the QB, he has been good at it. He just hasn't had the opportunity very often.

He had clear paths to the QB in nearly every pass rush highlight.

There is one highlight where the QB feels the "pressure" and makes a bad throw, but the RB actually knocked Curry on his ass.

Getting to the passer isn't all about just running fast to the QB.
If he's expected to be a pass rusher, he's going to have to learn to do more than simply run through a hole in the line.

philfree 04-08-2009 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5650964)
He had clear paths to the QB in nearly every pass rush highlight.

There is one highlight where the QB feels the "pressure" and makes a bad throw, but the RB actually knocked Curry on his ass.

Getting to the passer isn't all about just running fast to the QB.
If he's expected to be a pass rusher, he's going to have to learn to do more than simply run through a hole in the line.

Curry takes on and sheds blocks so well I think he'll be able to beat the blocks. Curry is more then just a speed backer and more then one draft guru says that he can turn the corner. I watched enough of him that I think he'll bea ble to do it. Have you seen anything that says he won't be able to do it?


PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack 04-08-2009 11:14 AM

Curry goes through blockers, something that wont happen in the NFL.

kcbubb 04-08-2009 11:16 AM

I think it is more about physicality and athletic ability than just moves. I really think you can teach moves like rip, swim, spin or bull rush. It is hard to teach a player to be physical and it is impossible to teach a player to be athletic.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5650913)
Oh man I can't believe how stupid people are sometimes. Every DE we've talked about drafting and using as an OLB is fast enough and athletic enough to cover, you can teach players like that to cover easily... especially since most of them have played in coverage during a zone blitz. So you bring up Hali who isn't fast enough or athletic enough and don't get why we can't use him?

:banghead:

You can teach someone athletic enough to cover a lot more easily than you can teach them to pass rush. Maybe in HS when they can plow throw anyone it might be easier to pass rush, but when you have to teach them the technique and moves its a lot harder.


really, it's easy to teach reading plays, screens, routes? watching the ball and staying with the TE while you do it? It's funny. I'm only arguing the points here, not saying Hali will/should be moved, but he was a smaller DE, that specialized more in the rush, that fits the majority of the DE-to LB talk. But because he was asked to do it from the stance only and on the stronger side, he suddenly doesn't have that potential he had coming out of college anymore? It makes me "stupid" to speculate this, how?

dirk digler 04-08-2009 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5651004)
Curry goes through blockers, something that wont happen in the NFL.

Very true.

I honestly have no idea what the Chiefs are going to do or who they should pick. It will be exciting to find out what happens.

philfree 04-08-2009 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5651004)
Curry goes through blockers, something that wont happen in the NFL.


He takes on blocks and sheds them. That's what's LBs are supposed to do isn't it? The guys a beast he'll be able to shed blocks in the NFL just fine." He had a clear path to the QB" , and he "runs through blockers" so he's fast enough to blow by blockers and bad enough to run through blockers but he won't we able to rush the passer? What......ever.




PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack 04-08-2009 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5651034)
He takes on blocks and sheds them. That's what's LBs are supposed to do isn't it? The guys a beast he'll be able to shed blocks in the NFL just fine." He had a clear path to the QB" , and he "runs through blockers" so he's fast enough to blow by blockers and bad enough to run through blockers but he won't we able to rush the passer? What......ever.




PhilFree:arrow:

If blowing through college RB's was all it took to be a good pass rusher we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because our roster would already be full of those players.

milkman 04-08-2009 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5650999)
Curry takes on and sheds blocks so well I think he'll be able to beat the blocks. Curry is more then just a speed backer and more then one draft guru says that he can turn the corner. I watched enough of him that I think he'll bea ble to do it. Have you seen anything that says he won't be able to do it?


PhilFree:arrow:

No. I haven't seen anything that says he can't do it.

But neither have I seen anything that guarantees that he can, and that is what I'm debating.

As Parker said, you don't take what is essentially a project at #3.

If you take a player at #3 for a specific skillset, in this case pass rush, you have to have strong evidence that he has the neccessary skills to succeed.

You simply do not have that with Curry.

RustShack 04-08-2009 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5651013)
really, it's easy to teach reading plays, screens, routes? watching the ball and staying with the TE while you do it? It's funny. I'm only arguing the points here, not saying Hali will/should be moved, but he was a smaller DE, that specialized more in the rush, that fits the majority of the DE-to LB talk. But because he was asked to do it from the stance only and on the stronger side, he suddenly doesn't have that potential he had coming out of college anymore? It makes me "stupid" to speculate this, how?

DE/LB tweeners are 3-4 OLB's. OLB's are drafted for their pass rush ability, not their coverage ability. Coverage is a big bonus, not your main job as an OLB. Coverage who can occasionally get to the QB belong at ILB, and thats just what Curry is. Thats also a position that isn't a major need in a 3-4 defense, and can be found in free agency and later rounds of the draft. ILB's aren't really all that valuable and we could get away fine with who we already have on the roster at that position.

crazycoffey 04-08-2009 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 5651055)
DE/LB tweeners are 3-4 OLB's. Don't ask me why its easier to learn to cover than it is to pass rush, I'm not a coach. OLB's are drafted for their pass rush ability, not their coverage ability. Coverage is a big bonus, not your main job as an OLB.


then why was it "stupid" to speculate that Hali could be an OLB in the 3-4? He was a tweener coming out, but was put on the line over RT and had slight success, and last year put on the line over LT and he was dominated. He has the skill to rush, and was projected a possible 3-4 OLB coming out of college. I guess I don't understand why this topic turns to impossible, because he had a really bad year.

RustShack 04-08-2009 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey (Post 5651080)
then why was it "stupid" to speculate that Hali could be an OLB in the 3-4? He was a tweener coming out, but was put on the line over RT and had slight success, and last year put on the line over LT and he was dominated. He has the skill to rush, and was projected a possible 3-4 OLB coming out of college. I guess I don't understand why this topic turns to impossible, because he had a really bad year.

Hali just isn't athletic enough or fast enough to cover, he really isn't that good of a pass rusher either.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.