Why Seattle takes Malcolm Jenkins at #4
by diehard82 on Jan 14, 2009 10:02 PM PST
84 comments
Most NFL front offices really are pretty savvy (Al Davis and Jerry Jones always exceptions). They can't predict injuries, and at times can't foresee team chemistry and get blinded by physical skills vs. character, but generally want to make the smart long-term decision. The draft is like any other "market" driven by supply and demand. This year, OT talent is deep, but demand has never been greater, so they will go quickly. If you don't take one with your first pick, you may be looking at the 10th best prospect in round 2. QB talent is shallow, but demand is spotty, so they won't go quickly, maybe only 2 in the first 2 rounds. Crabtree is talented, but there isn't perceived to be that much long-term difference in potential at this high risk position into round 2 or 3. You can't say that about Corners. There is a chasm between the top corners who could start as rookies and the rest of the field.
The Lions will follow Miami's lead and fill their greatest need, OT with Monroe or Smith.
The Rams will do likewise, taking the other to help the rushing attack.
The Chiefs would love Monroe to fall to them. Afterall, Brandon Albert moved to guard at Virginia due to Monroe, and Albert is now KC's starting left tackle. In the end, with Monroe off the board, they will choose to shore up the pass rush with the best available. I think it will be Curry, as there are no DE with quite as much potential. KC traded up last year for Mayo, and that turned out to be a great call.
Seattle will shore up the 28th rated pass defense with the best CB (since there are no Safeties that warrant this pick) Malcolm Jenkins, who will start opposite Trufant.
(Expect a WR and SS in rounds 2 and 3, with O-line getting help in round 4)
Crabtree winds up at Oakland, completing Al Davis Trifecta including Russel and McFadden.
The Niners pass on QB until round 2 or 3 and go DE with their first pick.
The Jets grab Stafford who is the first QB taken.
And the planets are re-aligned and the world makes sense again.
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
84 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I would hate drafting another corner, but its plausible.
As long as we took Nicks in the second I would be okay.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 14, 2009 10:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I can't disagree.
It would make sense.
Considering Arizona is in the NFC Championship game, is the currently the best team in our division, and has two WRs that we can’t defend because of the lack of size, it would make sense. When all are done declaring or going back to school tomorrow we can all start picking it apart. But I’ve been eying Jenkins a little more and wondering exactly what his strengths and limitations are. He’s been the consensus #1 CB up to now, but I don’t know much about his game. He sounds like he could be the guy we are missing in coverage, just like Crabtree seems like the guy we are missing at WR. Both appear to bring a skill-set that we do not have.
by cashless on Jan 14, 2009 10:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
But I've also heard he's like Lito Sheppherd in the fact that if he bites, he's done.
His recovery speed apparently is negligible, and if he’s caught on a playaction/flea-flicker/pumpfake, it’s all over, leading to the idea that he should convert to safety. Again, this is just on what I’ve heard about him, I haven’t seen him play.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He got beat a few times in the game against Texas
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...That was HIM?!
Man, I really need to start paying more attention.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he didn't have an overly impressive game.
Nor did he have an impressive game against USC this year or pretty much any time OSU played a real team over the past few years (in his defense, I guess, OSU’s whole team laid down in those games).
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, of course that was him. I was thinking about the championship game.
Yeah, he wasn’t great vs. Texas but neither was the entire team.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
as far as Jenkins, I don't know enough about him, yet, to believe he's a special player other than simply the "top rated CB"
If he projects as a top-flight corner that fits our system, it would make some sense, but that’s only if Jennings’ problems aren’t correctable and Wilson is deemed a nickleback. Wilson showed promise last year (though he’d be best served covering players the size of Sproles…) and Jennings the year before. Has the front-office given up on Jennings or the idea of Wilson being a starting cornerback? I’m not so sure. Maybe in the days leading up to the draft Jenkins will have established himself as a potentially elite corner. That’s what would have to happen to spend the #4 pick on him.
by Misfit74 on Jan 14, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look
As best I can tell from the sketchy answers to my questions about dominating the NFL with a run first offense, the only way to do that is by having the best defense in the NFL. If that’s going to happen the Seahawks are going to need some better players on defense than they had last season.
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 11:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes
If with Hasselbeck the Seahawks are going to dominate the NFL with a run first offense…
If Hass is done next year or the year after, the run first game is going to come in real handy while we do our transition most likely. If he is not done, he will benefit from the new scheme.
But having a tall CB as an option in my opinion is an important part of a secondary. Which is why I was rooting pretty hard for Pete Hunter to make the team last year. It just gives you more options against some of the better tall WRs in the league, and there are many of them. That said, for Jenkins to be our #4 pick, it’s important for him to be a possible pro bowler, not just a spot starter. Especially because we have a pro bowler, a 1st rounder and a 2nd rounder there already. So we need to be extremely critical of his game when looking at him.
by cashless on Jan 14, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't dominate the NFL as half a team
But I think you’re probably right, a run first team would be more dependent on their defense. I don’t think that makes Malcom Jenkins the answer though.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 14, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A run first team
also helps out the Defense though. They feed off each other which is why it can be so effective. Of course, when your opponent puts up points early, that kind of set up goes out the window.
Also, don’t worry about what picks we spent on the positions. That’s out the window, it doesn’t matter since no matter what we do won’t change that fact. What does matter is whether they have given up on Jennings and Wilson. I’d be surprised if they had already, which is why I don’t think we’re going CB for our first pick.
by Fear on Jan 15, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
works the other way around
the defense will be on the field less, making them better
Ball control offense is the way to win games in the nfl. I’m looking forward to it. If you control the ball, your defense gets better, you wear down the defense, and the other team has less plays to score with.
by blackhalobender on Jan 15, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we already have 3 pretty good corners.
Granted Jennings looked awful in the first half, and Wilson looked lost in the first quarter, but both ended the year pretty solidly.
HOWEVER, as JM has been advocating for part of the season, why can’t Wilson be a great safety? He certainly seems to have the big play ability of an Ed Reed (well.. not quite Ed Reed, but who can claim that besides Ed Reed), and he seems to be both a big hitter and a decent in coverage.
The only problem with this is that any fault in secondary can be blamed almost solely on Ruskell. Our 5 defensive backs would consist of 3 first rounders and a second rounder (all of them the first pick of our draft that year) as well as a veteran FA of his choice Deon Grant. So if this unit doesn’t perform well, I would have no qualms about blaming Ruskell’s talent evaluation concerning defensive backs.
by LantermanC on Jan 15, 2009 9:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Russell also brought in Veteran Russell too.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Ruskell keeps Russell around...
I would have problems with Ruskell’s talent evaluation concerning defensive backs. Right now I have concerns. Those would be somewhat exacerbated.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no mention of d-line?
The secondary is only as good as the pressure that it’s d-line provides. It’s not a coincidence that when Kerney was healthy and able to bring consistent pressure the secondary looked and played much better. As the pass rush goes away so does the coverage. That’s not to say that we couldn’t benefit from a better CB or anybody besides Russell. I just think its shortsighted to ignore the defensive lines problems when evaluating the secondary.
by Hancock.Brett on Jan 15, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Considering Wilson caught on late last season
I doubt we’ll take a corner
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 11:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Considering Sanchez is now coming out....
I doubt we take a corner.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 15, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is it so wrong to want a quarterback named Sanchez?
And for that quarterback to get hit around, and to not be entirely clean?
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 15, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That depends if you really want to pay 30 million guaranteed for said dirty Sanchez.
Could Sanchez really end up going top 5?
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha
And I could see it happening if his combine is good and his hype reaches ungodly proportions and because of the lack of other QBs, like Alex Smith in 2005.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would pay $30 million for Sanchez.
Better than $20 million for a cornerback.
We’re talking Monopoly money here, right?
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 15, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But unlike Smith
He’ll actually be good
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Based on what?
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just want to know the reasoning. He’s only been a starter for one season and was benefiting from an unbelievable defense.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It helps that he is in a pro style offense.
But from all the USC games I watched he just had good pocket presence, made all the correct reads, made all the throws. Has good size and a good arm.
Peoples biggest drawback was that he didn’t put up numbers. Well its not his fault that they were so far ahead in so many games that he got to stop throwing.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez has issues
there were several games where he got side tracked because he missed a big play early on. If he hits a big play early in the game his confidence grows and he does well, but if he makes a mistake or two early on he can take awhile to over come it during a game.
He has a lot of faith in his arm and can force it at times, he also was prone to trying to get the bigger throw and not dumping off to the outlet.
That being said his big issues all seem to be things that can be coached and that will go away with more experience.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Jan 16, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perfect.
Let’s give him a flyer with our 7th rounder and have him sit and learn for a few seasons until Matt’s done. If he sucks, no harm no foul. >_>
If only, if only…
by Fearless Frog on Jan 16, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He can make every throw you make in the pros
To be clear, he’s leaving a year early. Pete Carroll is CLEARLY saying the same thing (and it isn’t like Pete has a problem with kids leaving early). At the same time, that kid makes every throw he’d be asked to make in the pros. He’s far more accurate than Leinart was.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 15, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's the type of quarterback who would definitely need to sit on the bench
for at least a few years, so taking him would in effect be a vote of confidence in Hasselbeck. Still, I like Sanchez and in the two big games USC had (USC, Penn St), he absolutely destroyed those touted defenses with what was supposed to be a bit of a down offensive year (down in the USC sense).
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean OSU and Penn State right?
by LantermanC on Jan 15, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah yes, I do
Although the barnburner when USC played USC in the spring was quite the thriller.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was also the #1 rated QB
coming out of HS for his class as well.
by LantermanC on Jan 15, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What I read was
He would have been a 2nd rounder if Bradford declared, but a definite Top 10, possible Top 5, now that Bradford’s staying. Which makes sense, because not many of the teams between picks 10-32 need a QB.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 15, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Sanchez
Between he and Stafford, that’s probably where I lean, but am still interested in seeing how the draft starts to shake out here in the next month.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the hardest past in the offseason. Once college season finishes, we all get excited about the guys we watched and want on the Hawks.
Then you sit and wait for 4 months.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I am trying not to get too emotionally invested in one player at this point.
Considering that there will probably be about 800 different twists (Senior Bowl, etc), I would prefer to wait on that.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree with those who have said that Jenkins is not Ruskell
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 11:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
and that was "Enter" instead of apostrophe. I'm sure you all know Jenkins is not Ruskell
Again:
I tend to agree with those who have said that Jenkins is not Ruskell’s pick at 4. It’s too much money to invest in someone who’s upside is not truly elite. Perhaps with a trade down to mid first round. That would be much more reasonable for a guy like Jenkins.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with most of what all of you have said
If the hawks can trade down, and get equitably compensated with additional picks, I’m sure they will. But if nobody is interested, or the offers aren’t equitable and they have to pick at #4, then who if not Jenkins (or the then top rated elite CB)? Who is deserving of $60M over 6 years, roughly 10 percent of the teams current salary? He has to be a full-time starter as a rookie. As I look at alternatives, there is no guarantee an OT starts ahead of Jones or Locklear or even Willis. Ditto for most other positions. The only ones that might make sense, if Hill and/or Bernard are lost to free-agency, are OLB (Curry again if KC doesn’t take him) or DT (BJ Raji from Boston College is tops on most boards). But there are very good arguments against those as well. Like why let Hill go and pay a rookie $50M, especially when Heller and DD. Lewis are pretty solid backups. BJ Raji at #15 ($3.5M/yr in dollar terms) makes sense. BJ Raji at $8-10M/yr does not. Show me a better alternative and I’m happy to listen. I also know Ruskell has a history of drafting defensive backs with high picks, and you have to admit Trufant has worked out well. Jennings may be OK, but will probably always struggle against taller receivers. “Cashless” made an excellent point about Arizona in our division with two excellent tall receivers in Boldin and Fitzgerald. Gotta find a way to cover those guys. And for my money, our 2nd round pick should be a tall hard-hitting Safety (Chung, Hamlin or Harris) I’d be in favor of trading up with our 2nd round pick to get Chung.
by diehard82 on Jan 15, 2009 1:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The contract is going to suck any way you look at it
There isn’t a single player we will draft that will be worth the money we give him. Thinking about it from a financial perspective is probably not the best way to go.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's my argument as well
Unfortunately, top 5 picks get paid WAY too much money in today’s NFL. The hope is to give that ridiculous contract to an individual who is a franchise changer.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 15, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Trufant wasn't drafted by Ruskell.
And I doubt Chung is drafted that early.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also made the point everyone else is...
If he’s not going to be an elite player, he shouldn’t be our pick there. Finding a situational tall CB would make more sense on the FA market, or we could take a small-school tall CB with decent athleticism to give a shot…stuff like that. This pick needs be as close to a sure thing as possible.
by cashless on Jan 15, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One last comment
Backup DB’s can also be very valuable on special teams, more so than backup DT’s , so I wouldn’t mind having extra depth there.
by diehard82 on Jan 15, 2009 1:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
you don't draft someone at #4 to play special teams
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just you wait until we draft a kicker in the first round
for our ultra-super-secret 3-kicker trick play.
by BrianL on Jan 15, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I look forward to seeing Bruce DeHaven work that one out.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 15, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hopefully Michael Oher can kick
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Young DB's usually require playing time to adapt to the NFL game.
It’d be a bad idea to give a #4 pick DB playing time on special teams and not start on the defense.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 15, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing my that...
You mean the depth at CB we already have would get pushed down?
by cashless on Jan 15, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank You!
Yes, if Jenkins starts opposite Trufant, Jennings can still contribute on special teams.
And I’m still waiting for someone to make a compelling case for what other position/player makes sense at #4. Everyone knows we’ll have to pay that guy too much money. So, what is the lesser of all the possible evils. How do we make lemonade milkshakes!
by diehard82 on Jan 15, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
QB, LT and WR make the most sense
Since Stafford and maybe Sanchez, Oher/Smith/current flavor of the month LT, and Crabtree are all worthy of that pick. You could make a case for Jenkins or Curry or Orakpo, and you’ve done that for Jenkins, but that doesn’t make it the best option or even a good one.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 15, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jennings can't do anything on ST.
Gunner. No. Blocker no. Returner. No.
by redwolf75 on Jan 17, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If we took Malcolm Jenkins
I would want to see Josh Wilson tried at safety.
He would have elite speed for a safety, he is thick, he is a good tackler, his speed would give him great range vs the run and pass, he hits with some pop and forces fumbles, he has good ball skills and would be a threat for 6 on every interception, he is cocky, he has swagger, he’s competetive, he hustles and he is an adequate if not improving blitzer.
by puerto on Jan 15, 2009 5:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea.
When he is playing in coverage, he can stick with his man, but reacts to the ball when he’s facing and reading the QB. He also would have a lot of range, and learning from Grant you would hope he could learn the discipline of deep coverage. But like Rolle for Arizona, we would have to expect him to get tricked and beat a few times, or more than a few times.
Considering who he would be replacing, I can live with that. I don’t know what Bob Sanders’ injury history was in college, but one would wonder how well he could handle hitting backs all the time.
by cashless on Jan 15, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've always been for this idea
Except I don’t think Josh Wilson would last a season.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine if Wilson has a learning curve.
Even if he gets ‘tricked’ 10 times on the season, he’ll be better than Brian Russell…
by LantermanC on Jan 15, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we can do what the chargers did that one year
draft somebody someone else really wants and then trade him to move back
by xSAMx on Jan 15, 2009 7:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kind of same as just trading the pick
This is what I hope the team does.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
crabtree
I can’t stop thinking about crabtree,when I think about Fitzgerald. If we’re talking elite players, then sign me up for one of those. Other than the catches that Branch made in the game against NE, when have we had a receiver that could make a super play?
All this talk about defense . . . We wouldn’t have to worry about it so much if we had such an extreme offensive threat.
by Havik on Jan 16, 2009 7:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree, the idea that Crabtree could be even half as good as Fitzgerald is tantalizing.
I still hope we get him.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 16, 2009 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, someone half as good as Fitzy would be getting about 48 catches, 700yds and 6 TDs.
But I’d take him if he were 3/4 of Fitz.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 16, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, I'm not just talking about stats, although those would be decent for a rookie too.
But the complete fear opposing secondaries have when matched up against Fitz, almost always doubling him. That would open so much stuff for Engram in the slot and Carlson in the seam.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 16, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's nice to have the #4 pick
Every year it seems we have been in the bottom of the 1st round, or don’t even have a 1st round pick as in 2007 draft, and we jeolously watch as other teams snap up the elite prospects. Now that we have a top pick, turns out it’s not so easy to decide who to spend $60M on. Detroit is in an envious position (aside from the fact that they suck), with 3 of the first 33 picks. How can they go wrong? If anyone should want to trade down, it should be them. I just don’t think it’s going to be easy to trade down, so we’ll have to pick the one guy we are most convinced will be a hall of fame player, and one we will build the future offense or defense around. We have one of the best linebacker rosters in the league, provided we retain Hill, and could have for years. We could have one of the best Cornerback tandems, if we take Jenkins. Jackson was our 1st round pick last year, and I expect them to give him at least another year to see if he can be the Anvil to Kerneys Hammer. We do need another nasty DT alongside Mebane, and Red Bryant may not be it. With a talented possession WR addition, the offense could start hitting on all cylinders with no other changes. Sure, Crabtree could be that guy, so could Iglasius or Heyward-Bey, or one of 3-4 others.
I’d still like to see us focus on defense. Defense wins playoff games. Look at Baltimore and Pittsburg.
by diehard82 on Jan 16, 2009 2:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Every time you post a long post,
you get me to side a bit more towards your POV. I think it could work. I’m not sold on spending a boatload for a WR either, and I honestly think we have strengths and depth at every position on defense, but if Jenkins is in fact an elite CB, then I can agree with your point, if only for the fact that there are no elite safeties in this draft.
by LantermanC on Jan 16, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
william...moore
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 16, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, we can get him in the 2nd.
Though I don’t know much about him except he was a walk on.
I can’t wait until the SB is over so we can get more info on the draft.
I don’t know anything about him or Chung, and those are definitely two guys I’d like to get to know better (in a professional way).
by LantermanC on Jan 16, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Defense wins playoff games"
Argh. No, great teams win playoff games, or average to good teams with a heaping dose of luck (see Seattle against Dallas a few years back, Baltimore against Tennessee this year) and great teams have better than average defenses and offenses. The FO weighted offense stats put Baltimore at #15 and Pittsburgh at #16 for the season. Not great, but not terrible.
Bad form to cherry pick teams like this. I could easily say, “Offense wins playoff games.” Look at New England, San Diego, and Green Bay from last year. All superb offenses. And Pittsburgh’s vaunted “D” last year in the playoffs got smoked by Jacksonville.
When we got to the Super Bowl? #1 ranked OFFENSE. Not that it means anything, I’m just saying. It’s not just defense that wins playoff games.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 16, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
However
I write that not against your overall argument. I agree with you that we need to pick a guy we are pretty convinced will be a true franchise talent, on either side of the football.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 16, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
Not about the defense philosophy, but about investing even more there. Our d’s woes went hand in hand with the fact our offense couldn’t sustain drives worth a damn. And what’s the reasoning why you don’t think Red Bryant can’t be Mebane’s partner in crime? He’s shown a lot of promise early.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 16, 2009 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I said "Red Bryant may not be it, simply because I figure the coaches know a lot more than I do about his potential, so he could be the right guy, I just didn’t see it. He didn’t see that much time behind Mebane and Bernard.
by diehard82 on Jan 16, 2009 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
and please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he spent a good chunk of the year injured.
by Fear on Jan 16, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doh!
BrianL is too fast for me. The few times I remember him being health though I remember John Morgan praising his ability to force the double team (I think?). In other words, I think it’s a situation where you give him at least another year to see what he can do inside.
by Fear on Jan 16, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He was inactive in favor of Howard Green early in the season.
And when they started working him into the rotation, he got injured. But he played well.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 16, 2009 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
