Patrick Chung: Oregon's Defensive Prodigy

by Doug Farrar on Apr 3, 2009 8:26 AM PDT

Exclusive interview feature here. More on this guy over the weekend as I run a mock up the flagpole, but the vitals are as follows:

51 college starts at age 21.

Played the rover position, which, as Chung told me, is "Safety/corner/linebacker all rolled into one. You have to cover tight ends, cover slot receivers, play in the box, Cover-2 and Cover-3 and you are pretty much the guy who covers the whole field." It's a nice skill set for a defense that will demand versatility.

Looked good at the Senior Bowl, Combine, and his Pro Day. The latter event had Seattle DC Gus Bradley running the drills, and Chung nailed his coverage assignments, by all accounts.

Yesterday's events obviously extended and altered various trade scenarios in this year's draft, and we have to guess at this point when it comes to Seattle's perception of safety as a need. Still, this one wouldn't surprise me at all.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

For safety,

I’ve always had Chung as 1, and William Moore as 1a, and Michael Hamlin as 1b, but the scout.com article puts Chung much higher in my book, and probably Ruskell’s book since he seems to be a very smart, versatile, and ‘team-first’ type of player.

by LantermanC on Apr 3, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions

Meh, I always thought Moore was head and shoulders better.

To the point where he’s a top 20 pick falling for the wrong reasons. But I’m not sure if he’s an FS or SS, and Chung would be better value if we could snatch him with the second pick.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions

8 INTs is 8 INTs, even if it was fluky (depends at how you look at his injury this year).

Plus he supposedly weights 230 and can hit like a truck.

by LantermanC on Apr 3, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Brian Russell had 9 picks in 2003.

by abender20 on Apr 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions

And still didn't make the Pro-Bowl. =/

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 7, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions

We want Chung! We want Chung!

Seriously, I’d be disappointed if the Seahawks don’t get Chung. They could make up for it by getting Hamlin, though.

Weez the juice!!

by Carl Shinyama on Apr 3, 2009 11:32 AM PDT reply actions

I have read through some of John's Chung scouting....

but I can’t find a concise description of why we are so high on him.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I kinda took JM’s scouting as a mixed bag. There seemed to be a ton of potential mixed with some areas of serious concern. Am I reading the analysis right? Could someone give me a “Tale of the Tape” type of run down on why this blog is so sold on PC? I think Safety is a huge area of need and I want to be sold on someone (Moore, Chung, Hamlin, I still love Bruton as well).

by iverson2169 on Apr 3, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, you seem to be reading it right,

that is why no safety is projected to go in the 1st round.
Then again, some people were not sold on Polamalu’s size or coverage skills when he was drafted I think.

by LantermanC on Apr 3, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions

And to be fair, those concerns were well-founded.

His coverage skills have definitely been regressing (or at least, they appear to be) recently…I’ve watched a lot of the Steelers since XL and he’s developed a bad habit of blowing a coverage and then reverting to diving at someone’s legs, whiffing often. But of course, I’m not saying he’s Brian Russell.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't know. I hate the Steelers as much as I hate anything.

But I absolutely love Polamalu. I can’t imagine a more perfect safety, great against the run, pretty good at blitzing, good coverage skills, supremely athletic, 4.3 speed, can squat 600 pounds, hustler who goes all out every play putting tons of stress (maybe even too much) on his body as if it were a battering ram, and just a great guy as well.
He’s not very attractive, and yet most women think he is, which usually irks me, but I have such a man crush on him I’m more than fine with that as well.

by LantermanC on Apr 4, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Maybe you should take him out to dinner.

And then to the barber’s afterwards.

Weez the juice!!

by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Because of his last name.

DBs with odd last names tend to have success in the NFL. See: Nnamdi Asomugha, Troy Polomalu, Oshiomogho Atogwe, etc.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions

I would think everyone's scouting report contains a mixed bag.

But where Chung is concerned, I happen to see more of the sweet stuff than the sour. Having watched him play (mostly against UW), watched his highlight film, and read the stuff that John has written about him, I can’t think of a reason for why the Seahawks shouldn’t take him.

The fact that he strikes me as a pure Ruskell pick (even the stuff that John has written about him seems to support this assertion) and would be an excellent (perhaps even the best) option to free up Grant to do what he does best is what I find so appealing about him.

Weez the juice!!

by Carl Shinyama on Apr 3, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I see... so it it the general consensus of the collective here that...

The Seahawks best move at safety is to draft a SS to allow Grant to slide back over to FS? as opposed to drafting a FS and allowing Grant to stay put?

by iverson2169 on Apr 4, 2009 1:48 AM PDT up reply actions

It depends

Grant is, IMO, adequate at SS. He’s not a liability there. But he definitely would be better at FS. So drafting a true SS kills two birds with one stone. However, depending on how the draft falls, finding the right value at FS and simply upgrading over Russell helps the D out tremendously as well.

A lot of it is going to hinge on what exactly the new “West Coast Defense” looks like next year. If it relies on a lot of cover-2/tampa-2, Then Grant’s always going to be a bit miscast – since both S’s in that scheme have relatively equal run/pass responsibilities. However, if our new scheme employs a lot of cover-1/cover-3, then it becomes more imperative to move Grant back to FS, since deep zone “center field” coverage is his strength, and more traditional in-the-box SS duties would really exploit his weaknesses.

by jteckmann on Apr 4, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

I can't speak for everybody here

But that’s what I think.

Weez the juice!!

by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Doug, you have an awesome job.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 12:45 PM PDT reply actions

Doug is the MAN!

by iverson2169 on Apr 3, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Doug!

Great article. Chung’s stock is rising so fast. Do you think that he will fall to the Seahawks at the beginning of the second round. I see him going as high as Atlanta at 24.

by PattyB on Apr 3, 2009 12:46 PM PDT reply actions

He's a second-rounder.

His stock is pretty high — he and Louis Delmas are probably considerd to be the best safeties in the draft if you don’t count Malcolm Jenkins — but he’ll likely go in the second round. It’s like the old baseball axiom — you can hit .350 in June, July and August, but if you’re a .300 hitter, that’s what you’ll when the season is done. Chung’s a .300 hitter. I like what he brings, but I’m thinking that the Seahawks rate Russell far more highly than most civilians do, and they’d be more inclined to take a project (as John intimated in his latest mock). Then again, 51 starts at age 21 is a pretty freakin’ cool set of numbers. The kind that impress the guy in charge of that there front office.

by Doug Farrar on Apr 3, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions