OK lets see it

[Dave Lane]

Whos got some kick butt video of the greatest LB in NFL history Aaron Curry? What I've found is really pretty unimpressive. I can't see in film why he's ranked so highly. Anyone have some good video they can point me too?

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Mecca

He's got profootball weekly...who I'd laugh at as a legit draft source.

A week before the draft (before you can copy Gosselin or Wrights or Mayock's final mocks) post your mock and we'll see if it is more accurate than the source that you laugh at.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Mecca

He's got profootball weekly...who I'd laugh at as a legit draft source.

That's it?

He said he had "links." Plural. As in "more than one."

[Mecca]

And you aren't even using their mock you're using their "player ranking" list which if you notice doesn't typically coincide with a mock.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And that has WHAT to do with refuting these arguments, as you claimed you've already done?

Let's go through one by one:


There has been ONE MLB/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

So, NFL decision makers think so highly of taking a MLB in the Top 3, that it's happened ONCE in the past twenty years? The best MLB of that timeframe was taken TWENTY SIXTH. Others of comparable talent went no higher than NINTH.

Please, explain.

Perhaps the NFL decision makers feel that Curry is better than the others and justifies a top three pick? That he transcends what is generally considered a position of less importance, at least when drafting unproven college players.

There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

See above. Also, there are quite a few LB's that WERE taken Top 3, primarily because they COULD rush the passer, and EXCELLED at it in college.

In the past ten years, here are your top 3 rushers:

1998: Andre Wadsworth
1999: N/A
2000: Courtney Brown, Lavarr Arrington
2001: N/A
2002: Julius Peppers
2003: N/A
2004: N/A
2005: N/A
2006: Mario Williams
2007: N/A
2008: Chris Long

Whoops. Wait a minute. You said linebackers. Okay. So scratch Wadsworth, Brown, Peppers, Williams and Long from that list.

So in the past ten years, the NFL decision makers thought that only Lavarr Arrington was worth a top three NFL draft pick. I wonder if they feel that the rush backer position is a position of little importance considering that there has only been one outside linebacker taken in the top three in the past ten years?

I'm not sure how only Arrington translates into "quite a few" though...hmmmm.

MLB is one of the least important positions on the front 7?

Please, refute this. I'd like to know why you consider the MLB position so valuable, more valuable than DE, pass rushing OLB or DT.

Because the MLB must have the knowledge to quickly recognize the offensive sets and call adjustments to them quickly. They also have to possess excellent instincts as they are responsible for finding the ball on every play and stopping the play as quickly as possible. They have to be athletic enough to support both the run and the pass, and cover tight ends, receivers and backs. Their area of responsibility on the field is much greater than other positions.

A rush end has one simple task. Get the quarterback. If they do it but once a game, they are considered a great success. A defensive tackle, depending upon the scheme is basically required to tie up blockers to allow the more athletic players to make plays. It's not asking much for a big fat dude to stand in the middle of the field and waddle towards another big fat dude. However, a ILB is requried to do so much more. And that's why I consider it a position of high importance on the defensive side of the ball.

[Mecca]

Why would anyone argue the value of LB in the draft when they just frankly don't go top 5, what are you trying to do argue history?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Mecca

He's got profootball weekly...who I'd laugh at as a legit draft source.

How bout you supply the links where Curry wasn't ranked in the top five way back when. I know Mayock had him at he top from the get go. He'll your hero Scott Wright has him at #2 right now. You have a link where Wright didn't have Curry top 5?


PhilFree

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Perhaps the NFL decision makers feel that Curry is better than the others and justifies a top three pick? That he transcends what is generally considered a position of less importance, at least when drafting unproven college players.

So your hanging your argument on the hope that NFL GM's think that Curry is a better player than Lewis, Urlacher, Mayo, Rivers, Willis, etc?



OK.

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

In the past ten years, here are your top 3 rushers:

1998: Andre Wadsworth
1999: N/A
2000: Courtney Brown, Lavarr Arrington
2001: N/A
2002: Julius Peppers
2003: N/A
2004: N/A
2005: N/A
2006: Mario Williams
2007: N/A
2008: Chris Long

Whoops. Wait a minute. You said linebackers. Okay. So scratch Wadsworth, Brown, Peppers, Williams and Long from that list.

So in the past ten years, the NFL decision makers thought that only Lavarr Arrington was worth a top three NFL draft pick. I wonder if they feel that the rush backer position is a position of little importance considering that there has only been one outside linebacker taken in the top three in the past ten years?

Interesting that you stopped at 10 years, when the timeline we were discussing was 20 years.

Oh, wait.

I see.

Quite disingenuous of you.

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Because the MLB must have the knowledge to quickly recognize the offensive sets and call adjustments to them quickly. They also have to possess excellent instincts as they are responsible for finding the ball on every play and stopping the play as quickly as possible. They have to be athletic enough to support both the run and the pass, and cover tight ends, receivers and backs. Their area of responsibility on the field is much greater than other positions.

A rush end has one simple task. Get the quarterback. If they do it but once a game, they are considered a great success. A defensive tackle, depending upon the scheme is basically required to tie up blockers to allow the more athletic players to make plays. It's not asking much for a big fat dude to stand in the middle of the field and waddle towards another big fat dude. However, a ILB is requried to do so much more. And that's why I consider it a position of high importance on the defensive side of the ball.

So, which is it?

High importance, or more important that a DE, pass rushing OLB or DT?

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Why would anyone argue the value of LB in the draft when they just frankly don't go top 5, what are you trying to do argue history?

Because OTW is having a hissy fit about it. He wanted someone to refute something, said that OLB have been a regularity in the top three in the draft, and I thought I'd oblige him by showing him that they weren't. Go bust his balls, not mine. I was just trying to stop him from squealing "REFUTE IT" over and over.

[Mecca]

I'm pretty sure his argument is about how LB's don't go in the top 5....not that they do.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by philfree

The reality of the situation heading into the 2009 draft is that the players at the positions of greater value aren't considered to be as good as a prospect who palys a position considered to be of lesser in value. What's so hard about that?

Nothing is hard about that. You made a blanket, ABSOLUTE statement that history doesn't matter. That couldn't be more false.

Originally Posted by philfree

And if they want to go off history then there is no way anyone takes SAnchez @ #3. History says he will bust.

Valid point. Touche.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Because OTW is having a hissy fit about it. He wanted someone to refute something, said that OLB have been a regularity in the top three in the draft, and I thought I'd oblige him by showing him that they weren't. Go bust his balls, not mine. I was just trying to stop him from squealing "REFUTE IT" over and over.

That's not at ALL what I said. Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said it happened with regularity, only that OLB's are taken that high much more than ILB's.

Also, there are quite a few LB's that WERE taken Top 3, primarily because they COULD rush the passer, and EXCELLED at it in college.

"Quite a few" doesn't have to equal much more than one, in this case, as there was only one MLB taken in the Top 5 in the past 20 years. Where I screwed up was changing to Top 3 from the Top 5 that Phil was speaking of.

Arrington
Hardy
Marvin Jones
Mike Croel
Keith McCants
Junior Seau
Derrick Thomas

That's "quite" a few more OLB's to be taken that high versus ILB's.

[Mecca]

Kevin Hardy is what I think Aaron Curry is if you want a comparison for what I think his career is going to be.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I'm pretty sure his argument is about how LB's don't go in the top 5....not that they do.

This.

The whole point is that even the BEST OLB's don't often go in the Top 5. The best ILB has gone that high ONCE.

Look at the above post as proof.

So, people think that Curry is better than all of those ILB's, and most of the OLB's in past drafts?

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

So your hanging your argument on the hope that NFL GM's think that Curry is a better player than Lewis, Urlacher, Mayo, Rivers, Willis, etc?



OK.

Seems like he's being touted as such. Casserly, who's done the GM thing before, stated he was the best LB that he's seen in the past 10 years. If other GM's see it that way, then I guess he is or is considered to be. I guess we'll find out on draft day.

Interesting that you stopped at 10 years, when the timeline we were discussing was 20 years.

Oh, wait.

I see.

Quite disingenuous of you.

I didn't see where you said 20 years. Fine. Here:

1988: Aundray Bruce
1989: N/A
1990: N/A
1991: N/A
1992: Quentinn Coryatt - Whoops. He was a MLB. Sorry, he doesn't count.
1993: N/A
1994: N/A
1995: N/A
1996: Kevin Hardy
1997: N/A

Okay. So in 20 years, you've had NFL teams pick a OLB three times in the top three. Still doesn't seem to be "a lot" does it?

Arrington, Bruce and Hardy. Whatcha think now?

So, which is it?

High importance, or more important that a DE, pass rushing OLB or DT?

Let's see...we had the best, most complete DE in Jared Allen, but he really didn't seem to get us over the hump. Hell, our defense, even with him on the roster, was the laughing stock of the NFL. Derrick might have been the best rushing OLB in NFL history, but yet, how many playoff games did we win with him on the roster? How many Super Bowls? A defensive tackle? A big fat space eater that's meant to free up the ILB?

I'd like "The more important position on the defense" for $1000 Alex.

What is ILB? Yeah, I win football Jeopardy!!!

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I'm pretty sure his argument is about how LB's don't go in the top 5....not that they do.

Oh no. He specifically said that "quite a few LB were taken in the top three because they could rush the passer and excelled at it in college." His words, not mine.