PDA

View Full Version : Nick fairley bandwagon accepting applications


Pages : 1 [2]

Rulon Velvet Jones
01-11-2011, 08:03 AM
27 - are you still in the Arlington area? Let's be all manly and find a hang for the night of the draft. I'll wear heels.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 08:04 AM
I'd love for Fairley to stick around for the 2nd pick. I think we'll see Bowers grade higher as he likely won't have the "character" knocks that will be reported about Fairley and a guy like Green will shoot up a number of boards and could be very tempting for Carolina to consider with the #1. I can also see the scenario of another team falling in love with Green that high and trading up to get him.

Carolina needs a top receiver pretty bad. I don't get why people think they will choose Fairley over Green. DT isn't a big need for them.

Beantown Bronco
01-11-2011, 08:06 AM
We ought to know by now how damn important special teams and field position are. One of the hidden reasons for Denver's offense under Shanny during his last year failing to score more points was not just their poor red zone production, but also their horrible starting field position. Denver finished last in the NFL in that caregory...a startling and significant disadvantage when you add up not just total offensive yardage gained, but factor in the distance from the goal line each drive began at.

To be fair, it's next to impossible for a team that plays half its games in Denver to be ranked in the top 10 in starting field position (if you ignore turnovers and only go with special teams return stats). Why? Because 75% of the kickoffs go for touchbacks and a majority of the punts either go for touchbacks or drop inside the 20 for fair catches. Devin Hester would be largely neutered in Denver. Every year, it seems we draft guys who were among the top college returners and every year, we see them neutered here. It's not a coincidence.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 08:10 AM
Didn't I tell you that Fairley was a bad ass and was similar to Trevor Pryce (in his Denver days, not Clemson days) over a month ago!?! I've been on his bandwagon since Auburn's 3rd game this season. As good as he played last night, it was nothing compared to how he played during the season, especially against Alabama and LSU. Against the top competition in all of College Football he has been dominant and at times unblockable. I thought it was funny that Oregon started by letting him penetrate thinking he would be undiciplined. They quickly figured out that that wasn't going to work and then attempted to block him. That didn't work out so well either. On the safety, he was double teamed and was the reason James redirected. He didn't budge and even pushed the LOS back a bit. When you have one player doing that it makes everyone around him better. I would be concerned about Fairley if he only had one elite game, but truly this was probably his 3rd or 4th best game of the year.

Yes, you did and I saw those game too. I agree though that Fairley has been as dominant a force as any other player in College football this year as well. Easily as dominant as Peterson, and likely to grade out just as high. The thing about Peteson is he is so big for a CB, that rare size alone makes people salivate about him as a prospect. They forget that Fairley also has better than prototypical size for an UT and that his height, arm length, and explosive first step are just as devastating as anything Peterson has to offer.

I think both guys are phenomenal talents, worthy of being the second pick. However, I still want Dareus or Fairley over Peterson. DB's do NOT impact the game on every play, DL do. It all starts in the trenches and DEN has the opportunity to have an Elite DL in their sights for the first time in years. Start up front and work your way back, not the other way around.

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 08:11 AM
To be fair, it's next to impossible for a team that plays half its games in Denver to be ranked in the top 10 in starting field position (if you ignore turnovers and only go with special teams return stats). Why? Because 75% of the kickoffs go for touchbacks and a majority of the punts either go for touchbacks or drop inside the 20 for fair catches. Devin Hester would be largely neutered in Denver. Every year, it seems we draft guys who were among the top college returners and every year, we see them neutered here. It's not a coincidence.


Good point, but why the flip side with our opponents starting position being so much greater than ours?

Kaylore
01-11-2011, 08:15 AM
Good point, but why the flip side with our opponents starting position being so much greater than ours?

Beat me to it. Opponents starting field position here in punts as well as kickoffs are consistently better. And this is in spite of our kickers frequently being in the top ten in touchbacks.

It has to do with a defense that can't get stops and poor special teams play.

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 08:17 AM
Yes, you did and I saw those game too. I agree though that Fairley has been as dominant a force as any other player in College football this year as well. Easily as dominant as Peterson, and likely to grade out just as high. The thing about Peteson is he is so big for a CB, that rare size alone makes people salivate about him as a prospect. They forget that Fairley also has better than prototypical size for an UT and that his height, arm length, and explosive first step are just as devastating as anything Peterson has to offer.

I think both guys are phenomenal talents, worthy of being the second pick. However, I still want Dareus or Fairley over Peterson. DB's do NOT impact the game on every play, DL do. It all starts in the trenches and DEN has the opportunity to have an Elite DL in their sights for the first time in years. Start up front and work your way back, not the other way around.

I agree 100%. The only question I have, if we stay with a 3-4 is it still worth drafting a Fairley/Bowers/Dareus at #2? All would play End in a 3-4 (Bowers maybe OLB) and only Dareus seems like a strong natural fit as a 3-4 End.

However, a move to a 4-3 opens the doors to several players in this draft.

Are the Broncos in No-Man's-Land right now as far as their scheme? Seems to me that while they've attempted to build a 3-4, the personnel they have may be more suited to play in a 4-3. Ayers seems like a natural fit at 4-3 DE. Doom played well in a 4-3 at DE. He is a liability vs the run either way. DJ Williams has never seemed like a good fit a the 3-4. His best position will always be Weak-Side OLB in a 4-3. Really, the only players that seem to be 3-4 players are McBean, Fields and Jamaal Williams. Bannan could be perfect in a 4-3 at DT, Thomas, and all of the LBs have played most of their careers in a 4-3 defense.

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 08:18 AM
Beat me to it. Opponents starting field position here in punts as well as kickoffs are consistently better. And this is in spite of our kickers frequently being in the top ten in touchbacks.

It has to do with a defense that can't get stops and poor special teams play.

And your STs coaching hero!

oubronco
01-11-2011, 08:20 AM
Maybe not...haven't seen him but once, but he's the guy who had 40 plays this season for negative yardage...FORTY...most defensive linemen don't make 40 tackles in a season, let alone 40 for negative yardage.

Carlton Powell comes to mind

Kaylore
01-11-2011, 08:21 AM
And your STs coaching hero!

It would be nice if we hired a ST coach who knew what they were doing. Maybe this time we won't hire a ST coach who came from one of the worst ST units in the league the years he was there.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 08:21 AM
Good point, but why the flip side with our opponents starting position being so much greater than ours?

Are you talking about 2008? A lot of it was that when our defense would actually manage to stop someone it wouldn't be until they had racked up a few first downs. Then they would punt it and pin us inside the 20. It happened a lot that season. We also failed to force many turnovers and that has a big impact on starting field position. Special teams was only part of the overall problem that year. I would imagine it was much the same this year (our D was just about as bad). Then factor in playing half the season in Denver with all the touchbacks. It's combination of negative factors that just compound into a total mess.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 08:23 AM
It would be nice if we hired a ST coach who knew what they were doing. Maybe this time we won't hire a ST coach who came from one of the worst ST units in the league the years he was there.

I didn't think our special teams was particularly bad this season. It was certainly better than what Shanny fielded his last few years with us.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 08:27 AM
To be fair, it's next to impossible for a team that plays half its games in Denver to be ranked in the top 10 in starting field position (if you ignore turnovers and only go with special teams return stats). Why? Because 75% of the kickoffs go for touchbacks and a majority of the punts either go for touchbacks or drop inside the 20 for fair catches. Devin Hester would be largely neutered in Denver. Every year, it seems we draft guys who were among the top college returners and every year, we see them neutered here. It's not a coincidence.
Here's another thing that's not a coincidence; we've had horrible COVERAGE teams as well...meaning the opposition is finding a way to do it...why can't the Broncos? Answer: horrible special teams coaches, lack of talent, take your pick we've had both more or less for years and years. In any case, I didn't say they had to be in the top 10, but they were 32nd that season and when I figured this out back in 2008, if memory serves it was costing them 3 points a game, a huge and little discussed impact that Shanny's special teams were having on his offense. He should have done more to fix that problem, and if he had, that alone might have made enough difference to eek out a win or two during one of those playoff collapses, and he might still be here.

oubronco
01-11-2011, 08:31 AM
Got to admit, I was real impressed with Fairley. Despite a 5 week layoff he showed up in excellent condition and displayed fantastic stamina. That is rare for a big DL.

He's a gamble but at this point he's looking like a gamble we have to take. At least if we go to a 4-3. It'd really depend on who the DC is if we're staying with a 3-4 and what kind of scheme he wants to run within the 3-4. We'd also absolutely need a good NT to put next to him.

Makes me want to see us draft him and move to a one gap 3-4 a la Pittsburgh, SD, and Dallas. Put Paea next to him at NT. Watch OLs crumble as the two of them, Bannan, Ayers, and Doom take turns beating their guys.

That would also be my recipe for how we put together a good 4-3 as well. Fairley + Paea opens a LOT of doors.

This is exactly what I want to see, enough of this drafting back to front it hasn't worked and they have tried for a loooooooooooong time

Chris
01-11-2011, 08:44 AM
Nasty is one thing. Constant 15 yard penalties that could cost us a game is another...especially if one leads to a suspension.

You forget the influence of quality teammates like (hopefully) Champ.

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 08:52 AM
I don't get the idea that you wouldn't want to draft Fairley for a 3-4. Sure, he'd be a waste if all you are going to put in your gameplan is some rigid scheme where all Fairley does is hold the POA to let LBs make the play. But I argue that any DC worth a damn could include a wide range of options and plays using Fairley in a 3-4. For one thing, he's frigging brilliant at getting off his blocks (even against double teams) and taking down the RB. Who doesn't want a DE in any scheme who can penetrate the backfield on every play? Design your blitz packages and coverages around him. You can also load an extra lineman in some situations and move Fairley around. That would be devastating. Put him right next to Doom! Getting a guy like Fairley for a 3-4 might not be traditional, but that's why you hire an innovative DC. ;D

Dedhed
01-11-2011, 08:53 AM
I agree 100%. The only question I have, if we stay with a 3-4 is it still worth drafting a Fairley/Bowers/Dareus at #2? [quote]No. If we're staying in the 3-4 and you think we absolutely have to go DL, the best move is to get into the back half of the top 10 and get Dareus. Any 3-4 DE at #2 would be a huge stretch, imo.


[quote]All would play End in a 3-4 (Bowers maybe OLB) and only Dareus seems like a strong natural fit as a 3-4 End. Bowers doesn't make sense, and and I think Fairley is going to be annoyed at playing in a 3-4. Get a couple extra picks and get Dareus.

However, a move to a 4-3 opens the doors to several players in this draft. and effectively stifles the careers of Dumervil and Ayers.

Are the Broncos in No-Man's-Land right now as far as their scheme? Seems to me that while they've attempted to build a 3-4, the personnel they have may be more suited to play in a 4-3. Ayers seems like a natural fit at 4-3 DE. Doom played well in a 4-3 at DE. He is a liability vs the run either way. DJ Williams has never seemed like a good fit a the 3-4. His best position will always be Weak-Side OLB in a 4-3. Really, the only players that seem to be 3-4 players are McBean, Fields and Jamaal Williams. Bannan could be perfect in a 4-3 at DT, Thomas, and all of the LBs have played most of their careers in a 4-3 defense.
The Broncos are in no man's land on defense, but there's no way the current personnel is better suited to a 4-3.

They were forced to play a 4-3 for a few weeks due to injury and it was pitiful to watch.

Chris
01-11-2011, 08:58 AM
and effectively stifles the careers of Dumervil and Ayers.I think it limits Dumervil but it probably makes Ayers better.

http://i1031.photobucket.com/albums/y374/JKr3w13/NickFairley.jpg

Beantown Bronco
01-11-2011, 09:00 AM
Good point, but why the flip side with our opponents starting position being so much greater than ours?

Turnovers. Other teams force them. We don't.

Web site rankings factor them in, but most people forget to. The kicking and return game is just part of the equation.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 09:08 AM
I think it limits Dumervil but it probably makes Ayers better.


It almost certainly makes Ayers better. He should've never been drafted as a 3-4 OLB.

Drek
01-11-2011, 09:11 AM
Yes, you did and I saw those game too. I agree though that Fairley has been as dominant a force as any other player in College football this year as well. Easily as dominant as Peterson, and likely to grade out just as high. The thing about Peteson is he is so big for a CB, that rare size alone makes people salivate about him as a prospect. They forget that Fairley also has better than prototypical size for an UT and that his height, arm length, and explosive first step are just as devastating as anything Peterson has to offer.

Med, do you think Fairley could have an impact playing in a one gap 3-4?

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 09:19 AM
I don't get the idea that you wouldn't want to draft Fairley for a 3-4. Sure, he'd be a waste if all you are going to put in your gameplan is some rigid scheme where all Fairley does is hold the POA to let LBs make the play. But I argue that any DC worth a damn could include a wide range of options and plays using Fairley in a 3-4. For one thing, he's frigging brilliant at getting off his blocks (even against double teams) and taking down the RB. Who doesn't want a DE in any scheme who can penetrate the backfield on every play? Design your blitz packages and coverages around him. You can also load an extra lineman in some situations and move Fairley around. That would be devastating. Put him right next to Doom! Getting a guy like Fairley for a 3-4 might not be traditional, but that's why you hire an innovative DC. ;D

I can't see a problem with Fairley in a 3-4 either. Seems like if he's there at #2 you grab him no matter the scheme. It's just a no-brainer with where this team is at right now.

There's an option of trading down from the #2, but that has risks as well.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 09:26 AM
I don't get the idea that you wouldn't want to draft Fairley for a 3-4. Sure, he'd be a waste if all you are going to put in your gameplan is some rigid scheme where all Fairley does is hold the POA to let LBs make the play. But I argue that any DC worth a damn could include a wide range of options and plays using Fairley in a 3-4. For one thing, he's frigging brilliant at getting off his blocks (even against double teams) and taking down the RB. Who doesn't want a DE in any scheme who can penetrate the backfield on every play? Design your blitz packages and coverages around him. You can also load an extra lineman in some situations and move Fairley around. That would be devastating. Put him right next to Doom! Getting a guy like Fairley for a 3-4 might not be traditional, but that's why you hire an innovative DC. ;D

It's all based on assumptions regarding what type of 3-4 we'll be playing as well. Under the system we've been using it'd be a terrible waste. Under a different system that is more aggressive with their DEs? Could be very different.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 09:30 AM
Carlton Powell comes to mind
I don't think he had 15 sacks and 25 TFL. I recall he was part of a D-line that gave up very little on the ground and he graded out as being the highest of the bunch on that line. He went in the 5th round though...nowhere near where the NFL talent scouts put this kid. I was dissapointed that Powell didn't make it though. He looked initially like he could, but I think that injury he had put him behind at camp when he came back. He seemed to be less effective after that.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 09:43 AM
I don't get the idea that you wouldn't want to draft Fairley for a 3-4. Sure, he'd be a waste if all you are going to put in your gameplan is some rigid scheme where all Fairley does is hold the POA to let LBs make the play. But I argue that any DC worth a damn could include a wide range of options and plays using Fairley in a 3-4. For one thing, he's frigging brilliant at getting off his blocks (even against double teams) and taking down the RB. Who doesn't want a DE in any scheme who can penetrate the backfield on every play? Design your blitz packages and coverages around him. You can also load an extra lineman in some situations and move Fairley around. That would be devastating. Put him right next to Doom! Getting a guy like Fairley for a 3-4 might not be traditional, but that's why you hire an innovative DC. ;D
I can't see the kid being agreable to playing in a 3-4 defense. For good reason if you look at it from his point of view. The fact is, he's far more likely headed for sacks, stardom and a nice payday down the road as a 4-3 guy. Asking a college lineman to do something different in the NFL starting out as a rookie is risky anyway, and in this case I don't think this kid's going to be happy with that, and I think he's the type of emotional player that needs to be. He also has some maturity issues that could easily show up in some Albert Haynesworth-like behavior. He's probably not going to show up in the wonderlic as much of a genius, but more to the point, he seems very much like a kid still. I don't think he's without risk from that perspective. Look at it from Elway's standpoint, he's GOT to get this right. How much can he gamble? If there's any reason to worry about character or off the field issues, or any kind of maturity issues...he'll be reluctant to pull the trigger and rightfully so. I don't think this guy's a bad guy at all, but he might not be emotionally ready for the changes he's going to see in the league, not on the field, but off of it.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 09:50 AM
I can't see the kid being agreable to playing in a 3-4 defense. For good reason if you look at it from his point of view. The fact is, he's far more likely headed for sacks, stardom and a nice payday down the road as a 4-3 guy. Asking a college lineman to do something different in the NFL starting out as a rookie is risky anyway, and in this case I don't think this kid's going to be happy with that, and I think he's the type of emotional player that needs to be. He also has some maturity issues that could easily show up in some Albert Haynesworth-like behavior. He's probably not going to show up in the wonderlic as much of a genius, but more to the point, he seems very much like a kid still. I don't think he's without risk from that perspective. Look at it from Elway's standpoint, he's GOT to get this right. How much can he gamble? If there's any reason to worry about character or off the field issues, or any kind of maturity issues...he'll be reluctant to pull the trigger and rightfully so. I don't think this guy's a bad guy at all, but he might not be emotionally ready for the changes he's going to see in the league, not on the field, but off of it.

What are you basing all of that off of? The Albert Haynesworth comparison in particular seems completely unfounded. The kid plays nasty, even a bit dirty, but that doesn't mean he has poor character. That's a big assumption. He just plays football how it used to be played and needs to adjust.

PRBronco
01-11-2011, 09:53 AM
What are you basing all of that off of? The Albert Haynesworth comparison in particular seems completely unfounded. The kid plays nasty, even a bit dirty, but that doesn't mean he has poor character. That's a big assumption. He just plays football how it used to be played and needs to adjust.

In all fairness he can still play dirty as long as it's against a second rate or a mobile QB :approve:

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 09:56 AM
I don't get the idea that you wouldn't want to draft Fairley for a 3-4. Sure, he'd be a waste if all you are going to put in your gameplan is some rigid scheme where all Fairley does is hold the POA to let LBs make the play. But I argue that any DC worth a damn could include a wide range of options and plays using Fairley in a 3-4. For one thing, he's frigging brilliant at getting off his blocks (even against double teams) and taking down the RB. Who doesn't want a DE in any scheme who can penetrate the backfield on every play? Design your blitz packages and coverages around him. You can also load an extra lineman in some situations and move Fairley around. That would be devastating. Put him right next to Doom! Getting a guy like Fairley for a 3-4 might not be traditional, but that's why you hire an innovative DC. ;D


I agree with what you are saying and I think Calais Campbell has been very effective doing just that for the Cardinals as a 3-4 DE.

The simple fact of the matter, for me personally anyhow... I think a defense that lacks pressure in the middle makes your edge players less effective. Offensive Tackles can simply anchor inside and push the DE or OLB long and allow the QB to step up in the pocket giving them time to complete the pass. And if you have a running QB you're in big trouble b/c you open up huge lanes for the QB to run. Look at what Jason Campbell did to us! We rarely blitz any of our inside LBs. Part of the beauty of the 3-4 defense is being able to use any of your four LBs as the 4th pass rusher and not sacrifice anything in terms of numbers in coverage. But if you just send the OLB every time, might as well be running a 4-3 b/c you lose the disguise advantages the 3-4 offers.

BlaK-Argentina
01-11-2011, 09:58 AM
I'll be one angry dude if we don't take this guy.

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 10:03 AM
I'd still rather have Peterson. With him you get two players, an elite return man and a shutdown corner. With Fairley you get a nasty DT who makes some great plays against smaller college lineman and is a penalty waiting to happen. It's still a good problem to have though, really I'd be happy with either one.

OrangeSe7en
01-11-2011, 10:07 AM
I'd still rather have Peterson. With him you get two players, an elite return man and a shutdown corner. With Fairley you get a nasty DT who makes some great plays against smaller college lineman and is a penalty waiting to happen. It's still a good problem to have though, really I'd be happy with either one.

Along those lines, you also lose two players if he gets hurt. He's like a TV and DVD player where if the DVD isnt working, you have to lose your TV while the DVD player is repaired.

And truthfully, a quality defensive lineman is more important than anything Peterson brings.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-11-2011, 10:15 AM
The one thing I like about Peterson is that he can succeed in Denver regardless of system. Sounds to me like we all believe Fairley is a 4-3 guy. If we go 4-3 with the new coach, draft Fairley, fire that coach in 2-3 years, and start over, possibly with a 3-4, we might get a much less-effective Fairley or just trade him outright for pennies on the dollar.

For the money a top pick will cost us, I want a guy who can play in any scheme.

That said, I wouldn't be unhappy with Fairley. I'd like him, or Peterson, or Dareus. Wouldn't mind Bowers either.

Any one of those guys improves us in one way or another on the side of the ball that really needs repair.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 10:17 AM
I'd still rather have Peterson. With him you get two players, an elite return man and a shutdown corner. With Fairley you get a nasty DT who makes some great plays against smaller college lineman and is a penalty waiting to happen. It's still a good problem to have though, really I'd be happy with either one.

If he is one of our starting CBs, he has no business returning kicks. That would be monumentally stupid.

And again DT > CB in terms of overall value to a defense. The penalty issue should be a non-factor with a bit of discipline instilled by coaches.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 10:21 AM
What are you basing all of that off of? The Albert Haynesworth comparison in particular seems completely unfounded. The kid plays nasty, even a bit dirty, but that doesn't mean he has poor character. That's a big assumption. He just plays football how it used to be played and needs to adjust.
I'm not saying he'll do something like Hayesworth did, but he might be a guy whose at similar risk for it. The personal foul on him for grabbing the Oregon runner's facemask and twisting on it while h e was on the ground wasn't anything like what Hayesworth did, but it was pretty stupid considering the nature of how significant this game was. He's not the brightest kid...he's just not. If you listen to him talk and watch how he responds to things, he does some odd behaviors and looks like he's lost sometimes. Did you catch the fact that while his coach was being presented the trophy after the game, the entire stadium was listening to the program's MC doing the presentation...except Fairley. He was drawing attention to himself, talking loudly enough to draw the attention of the television cameras. He's yuckin' it up loudly enough to interfere with the actual presentation. Is that a huge deal? No...but it's an indicaion that among other things he seems a bit off the road in terms of his grasp how behavior is viewed by people around him...that might not be something to ignore. I think I've read that scouts have a few questions about him...I'm simply saying that both in terms of his fit in our defense and in terms of a few things related to him maturity wise, it's to early to sign him off as the top pick or even the best one for us. Go back and look and it's obvious these guys slide up and down the draft charts...we're 3 months from the draft's complete information being available on these guys. Right now I'd like to have either one of these guys but I think Peterson lets us do more things. We could scheme all kinds of stuff using him. I'm not sure at all that can happen with Fairley. I think he's going to need to be the star, and frankly he probably should be. I would'nt want to fit that kid into a 3-4 anyway...I'd want to take him and move to a 4-3 to build a defense around himi. Square pegs...round holes...

SonOfLe-loLang
01-11-2011, 10:21 AM
I'd still rather have Peterson. With him you get two players, an elite return man and a shutdown corner. With Fairley you get a nasty DT who makes some great plays against smaller college lineman and is a penalty waiting to happen. It's still a good problem to have though, really I'd be happy with either one.

Isnt the definition of insanity something like trying the same thing over and over despite poor results? We had arguably the best corner of the past 10 years in our defensive backfield for the past 5 and consistently put up epically horrible efforts on D. But yes, by all means, lets draft another corner and ignore the front seven once again, even though the envied defenses of the NFL (Baltimore, Pitt etc) have dominant front sevens and often draft high on DL to help fortify this strength.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 10:31 AM
I'd still rather have Peterson. With him you get two players, an elite return man and a shutdown corner. With Fairley you get a nasty DT who makes some great plays against smaller college lineman and is a penalty waiting to happen. It's still a good problem to have though, really I'd be happy with either one.
Actually you get more than two players. You get several players. The thing about Peterson is, you can't really define this guy as a cornerback according to the way we think of that position. If you do, you limit the options you have with him. This guy's a college junior right now, and by the time he's filled out in the NFL, maybe another year down the road...he could be playing at 230 pounds. There's no such thing as a 230 pound cornerback...they don't exist. Only this one might be just that. This guy's not just a shut down corner like Champ or Deon, or even the kid on the Jets. He''s a nasty hitter, a head hunter whose the size of some 4-3 linebackers and he's an intimidator in the secondary, the kind that makes receivers hear footsteps. He could play any position in the secondary. He could move up and play a linebacker spot changing a nickel defense a 3-4, he could switch to playing an Atwater role in an 8 man front against the run, he can blanket any TE in the NFL and has the size to single cover the biggest receivers. He could turn into a blitzing TP type of pass rusher and be a 230 pound bullet off the edge...there's no limit to the number of scheme changes, designed plays and flexibility a player like this gives your defense not to mention he's just a highlight reel waiting to happen in the return game. He instantly covers up for a lack of speed on the part of whatever LB he lines up next to. He's got the size and nastiness to take on fullbacks and TE blocks, the athleticism and quickness to go through or around linemen against the run and the speed to track down any player on the field.

It's a tough decision but we CAN improve the line significantly even if we didn't get Fairley.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 10:36 AM
Man I just put on tape of Dareus and Fairley side by side and it was unreal how unblockable they were in college this past year. Double teams, only successful about 30% of the time! One on one, 80% disruption of the play if it was near them. Plays are run away, including screens, still make backside stops and never stop hustling to the ball. Both these guys are going to be early difference makers in the NFL unless someone stupid drafts them and misuses them early to fit a need.

I answered the question on Fairley not projecting to 3-4 DE last week, but here is why its relevant:

However, it is another thing altogether to project players based on overall draft value into a scheme. Nick Fairley does not fit the value of a #2 draft pick as a 5 Tech DE. I am not sure from watching him play if he can even handle 2 gapping every play in a 3-4 defense. His strength is purely in his first step explosiveness at this point, not his tenacity, not his technique, not his strength.

That is not the mold for a 5 tech at the next level. The 5 Tech has to be a team player first and playmaker second. They can not freelance or take plays off as they have 2 gaps not just one that needs to be covered. I do not see the mentality in Fairley to convert to a 2 gap 5 TECH. In fact, I see the mentality to pull the next Albert Haynesworth Drama fest if a team were to misuse him like that. That mean streak would be turned inward at the team and coaches instead of outward at OL!

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 10:39 AM
Actually you get more than two players. You get several players. The thing about Peterson is, you can't really define this guy as a cornerback according to the way we think of that position. If you do, you limit the options you have with him. This guy's a college junior right now, and by the time he's filled out in the NFL, maybe another year down the road...he could be playing at 230 pounds. There's no such thing as a 230 pound cornerback...they don't exist. Only this one might be just that. This guy's not just a shut down corner like Champ or Deon, or even the kid on the Jets. He''s a nasty hitter, a head hunter whose the size of some 4-3 linebackers and he's an intimidator in the secondary, the kind that makes receives hear footsteps. He could play any position in the secondary. He could move up and play a linebacker spot changing a nickel defense a 3-4, he could switch to playing an Atwater role in an 8 man front against the run, he can blanket any TE in the NFL and has the size to single cover the biggest receivers. He could turn into a blitzing TP type of pass rusher and be a 230 pound bullet off the edge...there's no limit to the number of scheme changes, designed plays and flexibility a player like this gives your defense. He instantly covers up for a lack of speed on the part of whatever LB he lines up next to. He's got the size and nastiness to take on fullbacks and TE blocks, the speed and quickness to go through or around linemen and the speed to track down any player on the field.

It's a tough decision but we CAN improve the line significantly even if we didn't get Fairley.

That's a bit over-the-top don't you think? The guy is good, but come on. And honestly one of my criticisms of the guy is that he doesn't play as big as he is. He's not that physical honestly. A lot less than you would like for a guy that's bigger than many strong safeties...

Drek
01-11-2011, 10:42 AM
Man I just put on tape of Dareus and Fairley side by side and it was unreal how unblockable they were in college this past year. Double teams, only successful about 30% of the time! One on one, 80% disruption of the play if it was near them. Plays are run away, including screens, still make backside stops and never stop hustling to the ball. Both these guys are going to be early difference makers in the NFL unless someone stupid drafts them and misuses them early to fit a need.


So in your opinion does it basically boil down to 4-3 front take Fairley, 3-4 front take Dareus?

Elway 4 Life
01-11-2011, 10:44 AM
A great DL is far more important than a good corner. If the QB has no time in the pocket then an average defensive backfield will look all pro. We fix our D-line and the group we have back there now will only get better. The front seven needs to be fixed first. We have been drafting backwords for years. Front 7 needs to be the focus in the draft.

SoDak Bronco
01-11-2011, 10:47 AM
So in your opinion does it basically boil down to 4-3 front take Fairley, 3-4 front take Dareus?

I know you aren't asking me, but that has to be the train of thought. I hope we stick with the 3-4, trade down a few picks and get Dareus. That game against Mich St. he absolutely dominated. If we get a coach like Fox or Fewell that is 4-3 thru and thru, then Fairley would be an excellent option.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 10:47 AM
A great DL is far more important than a good corner. If the QB has no time in the pocket then an average defensive backfield will look all pro. We fix our D-line and the group we have back there now will only get better. The front seven needs to be fixed first. We have been drafting backwords for years. Front 7 needs to be the focus in the draft.

Indeed, and yet people seem to want us to keep making the same mistake.

Elway 4 Life
01-11-2011, 10:49 AM
And until we fix the front 7 we will be known as the enver Broncos with absolutely no D!

SoDak Bronco
01-11-2011, 10:52 AM
Ideal situation that won't happen...We resign Champ, sign Nnamdi, draft Fairely/Dareus depending on scheme, and start to dominate on the defensive side.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 10:54 AM
Ideal situation that won't happen...We resign Champ, sign Nnamdi, draft Fairely/Dareus depending on scheme, and start to dominate on the defensive side.

We don't need Champ and Nnamdi. That's overkill and would kill our cap number.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 10:58 AM
That's a bit over-the-top don't you think? The guy is good, but come on. And honestly one of my criticisms of the guy is that he doesn't play as big as he is. He's not that physical honestly. A lot less than you would like for a guy that's bigger than many strong safeties...
I compare him to Kenny Easley, only 20 pounds bigger and playing corner not safety. Yeah, I think he is that good actually, or at least he has that kind of talent. Saying he's not playing that big is another way of saying the guy's got room to get better...seriously though did you watch the highlight hits this guy's laid out? That alone is impressive. He's got more than our whole secondary put together last year. My point all along is that the talent this guy has is there for someone to work with and he offers extremely unique options you don't get apart from a guy who can do so many things.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NAZYdrwwEeM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NAZYdrwwEeM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 11:00 AM
If he is one of our starting CBs, he has no business returning kicks. That would be monumentally stupid.

And again DT > CB in terms of overall value to a defense. The penalty issue should be a non-factor with a bit of discipline instilled by coaches.

I don't know, seemed to work out okay for Tramon Williams this year.

Steve Sewell
01-11-2011, 11:01 AM
Drafting a DT that early in the draft gives me pause. There have been just so many high pick DT busts in recent years that I seems like its a big gamble to me.

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 11:04 AM
A great DL is far more important than a good corner. If the QB has no time in the pocket then an average defensive backfield will look all pro. We fix our D-line and the group we have back there now will only get better. The front seven needs to be fixed first. We have been drafting backwords for years. Front 7 needs to be the focus in the draft.

This is a gross over-simplification. Demarcus Ware is a pretty damn good pash rusher and DAL had one of the worst pass defenses all year because their defensive backfield is crap.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 11:05 AM
The front is a function of Philosophy, personnel, and ability to execute. The 3-4 is so en vogue right now because of its variable nature versus top offenses that are so good at executing against standard base defenses and even base nickle. It forces different reads, different protections, and more opportunity for blown OL assignments, especially against zone blocking OL.

I am not tied to any scheme, I am more tied to proper personnel utilization. This is where DC's make their money. A guy like Dick Lebeau is a genius at tweaking that zone Blitz out of the 3-4 to the matchups of the individual teams he faces. One game Harrison is dominant, the next Polomalu, the next Woodley. He has all the right pieces to get favorable matchups and force the offense to react and not dictate the tempo of the game. That is what an elite defense is in today's NFL.

Dom Capers has done the same in GB. He has an Elite player at every level and the top secondary in the league to let the front seven get aggresive and nasty. That secondary is lights out good, best I have seen in years and they are young outside of Woodson who can and will transition to safety soon and play 3-4 more years. Capers forces teams to play with the personnel he wants to protect the QB and have any chance to run the ball.

As for the draft question on 3-4 Dareus or 4-3 Fairley, those are the draft values for #2 draft pick for those players. Both drop if they are schematically changed at the next level. I always tell people players have 2 grades by teams:

1. The overall draft value which is how teams value where players Might be taken by any given team.

2. The scheme value where the strengths are highlighted and a player has more value for a given team. That is why JAX drafted Alualu so high last year. They drafted him at their schematic value, not his overall grade which was about 28-30. He was the second most impactful DL in that draft too outside of this boy named Suh (Gratuitous Johnny Cash reference).

So, Fairley is worth the #2 pick to a 4-3 team and Dareus is worth it for a 3-4 team IMHO. Dareus is more scheme diverse and should have a higher overall grade, but he will not get one from any internet web site IMHO because they confuse the grades all the time for their own bias.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:07 AM
I compare him to Kenny Easley, only 20 pounds bigger and playing corner not safety. Yeah, I think he is that good actually, or at least he has that kind of talent. Saying he's not playing that big is another way of saying the guy's got room to get better...seriously though did you watch the highlight hits this guy's laid out? That alone is impressive. He's got more than our whole secondary put together last year. My point all along is that the talent this guy has is there for someone to work with and he offers extremely unique options you don't get apart from a guy who can do so many things.


Peterson is a great player. He isn't what you are making him out to be though. Beyond that the position he plays limits how much of an impact he can make. All the scheming options in the world aren't going to change the fact that he's never going to have the same impact as a dominant d-lineman.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:12 AM
This is a gross over-simplification. Demarcus Ware is a pretty damn good pash rusher and DAL had one of the worst pass defenses all year because their defensive backfield is crap.

The front seven also addresses our run defense which was 31st in the league.

Drek
01-11-2011, 11:13 AM
So, Fairley is worth the #2 pick to a 4-3 team and Dareus is worth it for a 3-4 team IMHO. Dareus is more scheme diverse and should have a higher overall grade, but he will not get one from any internet web site IMHO because they confuse the grades all the time for their own bias.

Sure, Fairley has the sizzle. Big national title game, Lombardi award, gets a ton of QB pressure. He's a web site mock drafter's wet dream to rant on about. Especially in a year following Suh's huge draft stock paying off from year one.

My big question with Dareus is if he'll show the stamina to be a 3 down player for the full course of a game. If so we could do some real interesting things, like bumping him in to NT on third and long to let more rushers get after the QB in those situations.

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 11:13 AM
The front seven also addresses our run defense which was 31st in the league.

That's assuming the guys you get in the front seven are good at both run defense and pass defense. Those guys don't grow on trees. Having a shutdown corner helps the run defense too, especially a guy like Peterson who can shed blocks and tackle.

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 11:15 AM
Isnt the definition of insanity something like trying the same thing over and over despite poor results? We had arguably the best corner of the past 10 years in our defensive backfield for the past 5 and consistently put up epically horrible efforts on D. But yes, by all means, lets draft another corner and ignore the front seven once again, even though the envied defenses of the NFL (Baltimore, Pitt etc) have dominant front sevens and often draft high on DL to help fortify this strength.

This. Fairley trumps Peterson at this point for team need.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 11:16 AM
Peterson is a great player. He isn't what you are making him out to be though. Beyond that the position he plays limits how much of an impact he can make. All the scheming options in the world aren't going to change the fact that he's never going to have the same impact as a dominant d-lineman.
You're not listening, clearly. He's a unique physical specimen, a physical freak. A 230 pound, 4.3 corner with his reflexes, ball hawking skills, playmaking ability...he's a difference maker who demands an offensive coordinator game plan for him. You can do things with a guy that big you can't do otherwise. It's obvious...we used Atwater like that. Atwater didn't have this kind of elite athleticism or speed, nowhere near even the size since this dude is likely to play in the NFL probably 12 pounds heavier than Steve was. You don't think there's a reason scouts say this guy's the best CB to come out in 10 years? He's a mega-talent.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:17 AM
That's assuming the guys you get in the front seven are good at both run defense and pass defense. Those guys don't grow on trees. Having a shutdown corner helps the run defense too, especially a guy like Peterson who can shed blocks and tackle.

No they don't grow on trees. That's why you use high 1st round picks on them. See: Nick Fairley.

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 11:18 AM
No they don't grow on trees. That's why you use high 1st round picks on them. See: Nick Fairley.

That's assuming we are to trust your assessment of how his skills translate to the NFL game which is quite the stretch.

bendog
01-11-2011, 11:24 AM
yeah, but with the 36, 47 and Orton, it's not like they don't have ammunition to take Peterson and move up to still take a dlineman in the first and still take another front 7 guy in the second rd, and still get an olineman in a latter round. there's no doubt that dlineman can make game changing plays with sacks and creating turnovers, but the question is whether Dareus or Peterson has more potential for making those kinds of game changing plays.

I still think they trade down, anyway.

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Man I just put on tape of Dareus and Fairley side by side and it was unreal how unblockable they were in college this past year. Double teams, only successful about 30% of the time! One on one, 80% disruption of the play if it was near them. Plays are run away, including screens, still make backside stops and never stop hustling to the ball. Both these guys are going to be early difference makers in the NFL unless someone stupid drafts them and misuses them early to fit a need.

I answered the question on Fairley not projecting to 3-4 DE last week, but here is why its relevant:

Well, hold the phone. If Fairley is unblockable in college this past year, why would he NOT be a good interior lineman in the NFL regardless of scheme?

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:26 AM
You're not listening, clearly. He's a unique physical specimen, a physical freak. A 230 pound, 4.3 corner with his reflexes, ball hawking skills, playmaking ability...he's a difference maker who demands an offensive coordinator game plan for him. You can do things with a guy that big you can't do otherwise. It's obvious...we used Atwater like that. Atwater didn't have this kind of elite athleticism or speed, nowhere near even the size since this dude is likely to play in the NFL probably 12 pounds heavier than Steve was. You don't think there's a reason scouts say this guy's the best CB to come out in 10 years? He's a mega-talent.

He isn't 230 pounds. Stop saying that. And please stop blathering on about all the things you can do with the guy. He's either a big corner, or a fast safety. He's either playing man or zone. He doesn't revolutionize the game, and he can easily be countered without a good pass rush. He is a great prospect, but he isn't some football god like you seem to think. Champ was a much better prospect. So was Charles Woodson. Neither of them were taken at #2.

And Steve Atwater >>>>> Patrick Peterson as a football player. It's highly unlikely that will ever change.

Seriously you're kind of insane with your Patrick Peterson love.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 11:26 AM
That's assuming we are to trust your assessment of how his skills translate to the NFL game which is quite the stretch.

It's not a stretch, did you see how Fairley held that explosive running game of Oregon to 200 plus yards under its average last night? And, how he hit the QB five times in pass rush? The kid is absolutely as unique a talent as Peterson is and plays a position that makes an impact on every play versus being in a section of the backfield every play. Fairley plays on the other side of the LOS every down, You hope Peterson can cover a third of the field from wherever he plays at the next level.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:29 AM
That's assuming we are to trust your assessment of how his skills translate to the NFL game which is quite the stretch.

Or the assessment of pretty much everyone who has a brain and two eyes...

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 11:30 AM
Well, hold the phone. If Fairley is unblockable in college this past year, why would he NOT be a good interior lineman in the NFL regardless of scheme?

Aargh, I just addressed that on the past page in that same post! Please read that and then ask questions. Fairley will not be as unblockable if he is not allowed to penetrate in a one gap system as that is his true strength and value as a DL!

bendog
01-11-2011, 11:31 AM
It's not a stretch, did you see how Fairley held that explosive running game of Oregon to 200 plus yards under its average last night? And, how he hit the QB five times in pass rush? The kid is absolutely as unique a talent as Peterson is and plays a position that makes an impact on every play versus being in a section of the backfield every play. Fairley plays on the other side of the LOS every down, You hope Peterson can cover a third of the field from wherever he plays at the next level.

But you just said Fariley is only worth the no 2 if a team is commited to the 4-3, right? So, to get value, Den has Ayers and Doom on the roster and with contracts.

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 11:32 AM
It's not a stretch, did you see how Fairley held that explosive running game of Oregon to 200 plus yards under its average last night? And, how he hit the QB five times in pass rush? The kid is absolutely as unique a talent as Peterson is and plays a position that makes an impact on every play versus being in a section of the backfield every play. Fairley plays on the other side of the LOS every down, You hope Peterson can cover a third of the field from wherever he plays at the next level.

Cool, but Oregon does not have an NFL caliber offensive line nor do they run anything close to a pro-style offense. That's what makes it so hard to judge Fairley or Peterson or anybody else.

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 11:34 AM
Ideal situation that won't happen...We resign Champ, sign Nnamdi, draft Fairely/Dareus depending on scheme, and start to dominate on the defensive side.

We don't know that won't happen. I'd like to see it happen. It could actually happen. I'm curious how much interest there will be in Asomugha, I'm thinking he won't get the big contract.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 11:38 AM
But you just said Fariley is only worth the no 2 if a team is commited to the 4-3, right? So, to get value, Den has Ayers and Doom on the roster and with contracts.

I still think Dareus and Fairley are top 5 regardless of scheme. They are the cream of the crop of the DL with Bowers being in there as the pass rusher who can play the run as a 4-3 DE.

Ayers and Dumervil can play in either scheme as neither is a complete player yet. Fairley and Dareus are those rare complete players whose skills would be maximized by certain fronts. As I said before, pick a HC, then Pick a stud DC who can maximize the personnel like a Dick Lebeau or Dom Capers, then use his front philosophy to determine which of these players makes sense at #2. Both will be playmakers on the DL, just do not minimize their strengths playing them out of position too often, but they can move around in variable fronts as well.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Cool, but Oregon does not have an NFL caliber offensive line nor do they run anything close to a pro-style offense. That's what makes it so hard to judge Fairley or Peterson or anybody else.

No, they do not. However, that is why you go back and look at the tape of teams that do and against the teams with better OL. He still played that way against better pro style offenses and better OL.

What you saw was a kid who was prepared, disciplined, and dominant at both run and pass plays last night against one of the most lethal offenses in College football. He was a difference maker against all kinds of various schemes this year. That is what makes him so special. He has great explosion, solid tackling, incredible length, and playmakers hustle.

He is every bit as spectacular as Peterson is on film. He just impacts the whole game more from DT than a CB ever will.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:43 AM
Cool, but Oregon does not have an NFL caliber offensive line nor do they run anything close to a pro-style offense. That's what makes it so hard to judge Fairley or Peterson or anybody else.

Fairley isn't hard to judge. He has all the physical ability needed to dominate in the NFL. The question is whether or not he has the dedication and discipline to take his game to the next level once he's drafted. Make no mistake, the reason top prospects fail in the NFL is rarely because they don't have the talent. It's almost always because they lack the dedication and discipline necessary to take their game to the next level. If we interview Fairley and get that impression, then we should look somewhere else. Otherwise he should be the guy. That or it should be Dareus if they decide he's the better fit.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 11:43 AM
He isn't 230 pounds. Stop saying that. And please stop blathering on about all the things you can do with the guy. He's either a big corner, or a fast safety. He's either playing man or zone. He doesn't revolutionize the game, and he can easily be countered without a good pass rush. He is a great prospect, but he isn't some football god like you seem to think. Champ was a much better prospect. So was Charles Woodson. And Steve Atwater >>>>> Patrick Peterson as a football player. It's highly unlikely that will ever change.
Neither of them were taken at #2.
Unlikely? Why is that? Atwater was ranked nowhere near where this kid is when he came out. Champ was not a better project and neither is Woodson...well round and round the merry-go-round we go...I think it's time to jump...I'll give you a hand:

He's 223 pounds as a college junior, and has room to get bigger. He could easily add 7 pounds in two years and play at that weight, and it's likely he will. If we can project a college lineman adding 20-30 pounds or more for the NFL we can project a few pounds on this guy when he's still a junior.
[/quote]Seriously you're kind of insane with your Patrick Peterson love.[/QUOTE]
Everything I've pointed out is reasonable, and the NFL has seen plenty of college defensive linemen who flopped misserably as well. There are no guarantees.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:45 AM
We don't know that won't happen. I'd like to see it happen. It could actually happen. I'm curious how much interest there will be in Asomugha, I'm thinking he won't get the big contract.

Why wouldn't Aso get a big contract?

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 11:48 AM
[QUOTE=Broncoman13;3081452]I agree 100%. The only question I have, if we stay with a 3-4 is it still worth drafting a Fairley/Bowers/Dareus at #2? [quote]No. If we're staying in the 3-4 and you think we absolutely have to go DL, the best move is to get into the back half of the top 10 and get Dareus. Any 3-4 DE at #2 would be a huge stretch, imo.


Bowers doesn't make sense, and and I think Fairley is going to be annoyed at playing in a 3-4. Get a couple extra picks and get Dareus.

and effectively stifles the careers of Dumervil and Ayers.


The Broncos are in no man's land on defense, but there's no way the current personnel is better suited to a 4-3.

They were forced to play a 4-3 for a few weeks due to injury and it was pitiful to watch.

Actually Doom has contributed quite nicely as a 4-3 DE. He had 12.5 sacks in the 4-3. He is a liability vs the run whether it be in the 3-4 or 4-3.

As for Ayers, he is a more natural fit in the 4-3. He isn't a pass rusher either way... unless he moves to the inside as a DT in 4-3 on obvious passing downs.

We practiced the 3-4 for two years and then tried to throw in a 4-3 with a few weeks of practice... you really think that was going to turn out well?

Bronco Boy
01-11-2011, 11:48 AM
Fairley isn't hard to judge. He has all the physical ability needed to dominate in the NFL. The question is whether or not he has the dedication and discipline to take his game to the next level once he's drafted. Make no mistake, the reason top prospects fail in the NFL is rarely because they don't have the talent. It's almost always because they lack the dedication and discipline necessary to take their game to the next level. If we interview Fairley and get that impression, then we should look somewhere else. Otherwise he should be the guy. That or it should be Dareus if they decide he's the better fit.

Well the 500+ posts you've managed to make in the past 2 weeks have me convinced that you definitely know what you're talking about, so I guess I'll just agree with you then.

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 11:51 AM
I can't see the kid being agreable to playing in a 3-4 defense. For good reason if you look at it from his point of view. The fact is, he's far more likely headed for sacks, stardom and a nice payday down the road as a 4-3 guy. Asking a college lineman to do something different in the NFL starting out as a rookie is risky anyway, and in this case I don't think this kid's going to be happy with that, and I think he's the type of emotional player that needs to be. He also has some maturity issues that could easily show up in some Albert Haynesworth-like behavior. He's probably not going to show up in the wonderlic as much of a genius, but more to the point, he seems very much like a kid still. I don't think he's without risk from that perspective. Look at it from Elway's standpoint, he's GOT to get this right. How much can he gamble? If there's any reason to worry about character or off the field issues, or any kind of maturity issues...he'll be reluctant to pull the trigger and rightfully so. I don't think this guy's a bad guy at all, but he might not be emotionally ready for the changes he's going to see in the league, not on the field, but off of it.

Nice post. An interesting dynamic for sure. If you're Elway do you go boom or bust, or do you go safe and conservative?

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 11:54 AM
Unlikely? Why is that? Atwater was ranked nowhere near where this kid is when he came out. Champ was not a better project and neither is Woodson...well round and round the merry-go-round we go...I think it's time to jump...I'll give you a hand:

Wow...

Atwater is one of the greatest safeties to ever play the game. He'd be a shoe-in for the HoF if he hadn't been a Bronco and a safety (both make it much harder to make it in). If you don't understand why it's highly unlikely Peterson ever matches him as a player then I just don't know what to say. And if you think Peterson is as good a prospect as Champ or Woodson were...well again I'm left speechless.

Clearly you think Peterson is a lock for the HoF. If I shared that assessment I'd be more inclined to support him as our pick. That said, I don't. He has great potential, but no more potential than Fairley. In fact, I don't think he has as much potential. I tend to think he'll turn out a lot like Aso: great all-around corner but not a real difference maker.

bendog
01-11-2011, 12:02 PM
I still think Dareus and Fairley are top 5 regardless of scheme. They are the cream of the crop of the DL with Bowers being in there as the pass rusher who can play the run as a 4-3 DE.

Ayers and Dumervil can play in either scheme as neither is a complete player yet. Fairley and Dareus are those rare complete players whose skills would be maximized by certain fronts. As I said before, pick a HC, then Pick a stud DC who can maximize the personnel like a Dick Lebeau or Dom Capers, then use his front philosophy to determine which of these players makes sense at #2. Both will be playmakers on the DL, just do not minimize their strengths playing them out of position too often, but they can move around in variable fronts as well.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree Fairley can play in either scheme. (I like Dareus a LOT more in the 3-4 and 4-3 at the pro level). It's just that IF they were going to the 4-3, OVERALL I think they'd be better with Ayers, Thomas, Paea, Doom and with Peterson at safety, rather than having some combination with Fairley at the DT. Ayers and Doom make the defense exploitable in the outside run game. per our previous discussion, I don't think Doom is totally useless in run support, but he's not going to shed tackles and blow up runners, so they better be stout up the middle and have outside backers and safteies who support the run.

But I still think they trade down to get an exta second and end up with a top 8 pick plus another first rd pick late in the round, and at least two second rd picks.

bendog
01-11-2011, 12:05 PM
Wow...

Atwater is one of the greatest safeties to ever play the game. He'd be a shoe-in for the HoF if he hadn't been a Bronco and a safety (both make it much harder to make it in). If you don't understand why it's highly unlikely Peterson ever matches him as a player then I just don't know what to say. And if you think Peterson is as good a prospect as Champ or Woodson were...well again I'm left speechless.

Clearly you think Peterson is a lock for the HoF. If I shared that assessment I'd be more inclined to support him as our pick. That said, I don't. He has great potential, but no more potential than Fairley. In fact, I don't think he has as much potential. I tend to think he'll turn out a lot like Aso: great all-around corner but not a real difference maker.

No one's a lock but Peterson is rated a better pro prospect than was Atwater. At the time, there was criticism that Den passed on Oliver to take him, and it actually was several seasons until all the pundits admitted Den made the right decision.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 12:09 PM
I understand what you're saying, and I agree Fairley can play in either scheme. (I like Dareus a LOT more in the 3-4 and 4-3 at the pro level). It's just that IF they were going to the 4-3, OVERALL I think they'd be better with Ayers, Thomas, Paea, Doom and with Peterson at safety, rather than having some combination with Fairley at the DT. Ayers and Doom make the defense exploitable in the outside run game. per our previous discussion, I don't think Doom is totally useless in run support, but he's not going to shed tackles and blow up runners, so they better be stout up the middle and have outside backers and safteies who support the run.

But I still think they trade down to get an exta second and end up with a top 8 pick plus another first rd pick late in the round, and at least two second rd picks.

You think we would be better off with Paea (we'd have to trade back into the 1st to get him) + Peterson rather than Fairley + Rahim Moore in a 4-3? Really?

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 12:10 PM
Aargh, I just addressed that on the past page in that same post! Please read that and then ask questions. Fairley will not be as unblockable if he is not allowed to penetrate in a one gap system as that is his true strength and value as a DL!

OK, I read your further posts about Fairley. Thanks for clarifying.

ICON
01-11-2011, 12:10 PM
I dont know how anybody could say Fairley looks like anything BUT a top 5 pick after this game.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 12:11 PM
No one's a lock but Peterson is rated a better pro prospect than was Atwater. At the time, there was criticism that Den passed on Oliver to take him, and it actually was several seasons until all the pundits admitted Den made the right decision.

I don't care how highly rated he is compared to Atwater as a prospect. My point is that he's unlikely to surpass Atwater as a player in the NFL. Very few top 5 picks reach the level of play of Atwater. Therefore it's unlikely.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 12:11 PM
I dont know how anybody could say Fairley looks like anything BUT a top 5 pick after this game.

Don't think anyone is saying that...

BroncoLifer
01-11-2011, 12:14 PM
No one's a lock but Peterson is rated a better pro prospect than was Atwater. At the time, there was criticism that Den passed on Oliver to take him, and it actually was several seasons until all the pundits admitted Den made the right decision.

I remember the media and fans being disappointed in taking Atwater over Oliver. Although, back then the amount of video and data accessible to the public on college players was less than 1% of what you can find on the internet today.

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 12:17 PM
Fairley isn't hard to judge. He has all the physical ability needed to dominate in the NFL. The question is whether or not he has the dedication and discipline to take his game to the next level once he's drafted. Make no mistake, the reason top prospects fail in the NFL is rarely because they don't have the talent. It's almost always because they lack the dedication and discipline necessary to take their game to the next level. If we interview Fairley and get that impression, then we should look somewhere else. Otherwise he should be the guy. That or it should be Dareus if they decide he's the better fit.

Judging by the way he brought it in the BCS Championship game, he seems like a good NFL fit. Seems like a gamer to me.

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 12:25 PM
Unlikely? Why is that? Atwater was ranked nowhere near where this kid is when he came out. Champ was not a better project and neither is Woodson...well round and round the merry-go-round we go...I think it's time to jump...I'll give you a hand:

He's 223 pounds as a college junior, and has room to get bigger. He could easily add 7 pounds in two years and play at that weight, and it's likely he will. If we can project a college lineman adding 20-30 pounds or more for the NFL we can project a few pounds on this guy when he's still a junior.
Seriously you're kind of insane with your Patrick Peterson love.[/QUOTE]
Everything I've pointed out is reasonable, and the NFL has seen plenty of college defensive linemen who flopped misserably as well. There are no guarantees.[/QUOTE]

steps, you gotta go with the percentages when you're picking #2. The percentages say you go with the DL, especially the situation Denver is in. You've said it many a time - build in the trenches. The percentages say grab a stud DL guy with #2.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 12:41 PM
Wow...

Atwater is one of the greatest safeties to ever play the game. He'd be a shoe-in for the HoF if he hadn't been a Bronco and a safety (both make it much harder to make it in). If you don't understand why it's highly unlikely Peterson ever matches him as a player then I just don't know what to say. And if you think Peterson is as good a prospect as Champ or Woodson were...well again I'm left speechless.
I was talking about where Atwater was considered when he came out of college to begin with, but as you noted there are very few safeties in the HOF, yet Peterson has what scouts think is All Pro level talent, which is what Atwater had also. It stands to reason a guy considered the highest ranked db in 10 years would be a bit more than "highly unlikely" to equate to what Atwater did on the field since as I noted scouts already project him to that level. I think you're found and determined to make sure you can pick the kids game apart till you find some perceived reason to take that feeling of risk away but it's just not the case. The fact is, nobody knows which one's going to have the bigger impact.
Clearly you think Peterson is a lock for the HoF. If I shared that assessment I'd be more inclined to support him as our pick. That said, I don't. He has great potential, but no more potential than Fairley. In fact, I don't think he has as much potential. I tend to think he'll turn out a lot like Aso: great all-around corner but not a real difference maker.
Never said anything about the HOF, you're bringing that in as if Atwater is in there and he's not, so your argument is built on a foundation of sand, don't bring that weak stuff in here OK?

My argument is based on the fact that he's an elite talent with physical characteristics that make himi one of thoe rare players opposing coaches have to game plan for, an entirely reasonable idea given where he's been rated by scouts. I'm simply stating the obvious, that he offers opportunites with that kind of talent level that you don't have with your run of the mill shut down corner. That's not obvious to you? Well if it's not I don't know what else I can say.

The NFL has dominating defensive linemen every year who were drafted in the middle rounds of the draft. When's the last time you saw this kind of ability in the mid rounds at cornerback? You really don't...

That's as far as I'm going...this is a cicrular argument that's going nowhere.

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 12:42 PM
The Broncos might be able to trade down with the Cardinals at #5, get an extra second (or more), and still have the pick of Fairley or Dareus. Then, we'd have some juice to jump back up into the first for Paea, or Cameron Jordan, or whoever. If the Panthers take Green, the Cards would want QB. So would the Bills. The Bengals would take Peterson or Bowers. The Browns want an OT. The Broncos could still trade down again, say with the Titans, pick up more picks, and (if the Niners stick with the 3-4 under Harbaugh) still find Fairley or Dareus on the board at #8. I guess it depends if the QBs in this draft draw that kind of attention. Cam might. Locker? Gabbert? I don't know. Mallett? ??? The Broncos could benefit massively if there is a run on QBs and our FO doesn't **** it up.

razorwire77
01-11-2011, 12:43 PM
To me, it's not a question about Fairley's ability. Anyone that watched last night's game saw his motor and skill. He just has some character issues and potential red flags that indicate he might be a payday player (one year productivity, the JUCO route etc.) With Patrick Peterson the productivity has been there over multiple years. I'll be happy with either guy, but I worry that we're tying up a lot of team resources into a high risk player if we take Fairley at 2.

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 12:44 PM
Seriously you're kind of insane with your Patrick Peterson love.
Everything I've pointed out is reasonable, and the NFL has seen plenty of college defensive linemen who flopped misserably as well. There are no guarantees.[/QUOTE]

steps, you gotta go with the percentages when you're picking #2. The percentages say you go with the DL, especially the situation Denver is in. You've said it many a time - build in the trenches. The percentages say grab a stud DL guy with #2.[/QUOTE]

Actually the percentages say there are many more top tier CBs that perform early and throughout their careers then that of a DT. If you're playing the % game and going with the safe bet, you go CB. If you're playing the game to fix what has ailed you for many years, you go DL.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 12:52 PM
Nice post. An interesting dynamic for sure. If you're Elway do you go boom or bust, or do you go safe and conservative?
Look at it from Elway's persepctive. Can you be certain that the next coach's time here will last longer than the rookie contract signed by a guy with the #2 pick in the draft? There's no reason we can say for sure that's the case. If then, you select a guy who is scheme dependent, someone who has to be in one kind of defense or the other, then you run the potential risk that the next coach who might show up here if the newest hire fails, could arrive with the intention of switching yet again. We have one player already on offense that a prospective coach has to consider as in his plans, but we need to be aware that Fairley adds another one as well. Unless you really believe his talents are equally served as a five tech 3-4 DE...most people don't.

Taking Fairley runs the risk of him being out of here in three years if he doesn't fit the next system. It would be nice not to have to worry about that with the guy you're going to pay a lot for.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 12:54 PM
The Broncos might be able to trade down with the Cardinals at #5, get an extra second (or more), and still have the pick of Fairley or Dareus. Then, we'd have some juice to jump back up into the first for Paea, or Cameron Jordan, or whoever. If the Panthers take Green, the Cards would want QB. So would the Bills. The Bengals would take Peterson or Bowers. The Browns want an OT. The Broncos could still trade down again, say with the Titans, pick up more picks, and (if the Niners stick with the 3-4 under Harbaugh) still find Fairley or Dareus on the board at #8. I guess it depends if the QBs in this draft draw that kind of attention. Cam might. Locker? Gabbert? I don't know. Mallett? ??? The Broncos could benefit massively if there is a run on QBs and our FO doesn't **** it up.

That's the ideal situation. A trade like that should net us their 2nd and 3rd rounders (with another trade down being possible as well). The problem as I see it is whether or not they (or another team positioned close to them) would want to make that trade. I have a hard time believing these QBs will draw that kind of interest, but it'd be awesome if they did.

bendog
01-11-2011, 12:55 PM
You think we would be better off with Paea (we'd have to trade back into the 1st to get him) + Peterson rather than Fairley + Rahim Moore in a 4-3? Really?

As usual you didn't even try to hear what i was saying because you were too busy listening to yourself.

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 12:57 PM
Look at it from Elway's persepctive. Can you be certain that the next coach's time here will last longer than the rookie contract signed by a guy with the #2 pick in the draft? There's no reason we can say for sure that's the case. If then, you select a guy who is scheme dependent, someone who has to be in one kind of defense or the other, then you run the potential risk that the next coach who might show up here if the newest hire fails, could arrive with the intention of switching yet again. We have one player already on offense that a prospective coach has to consider as in his plans, but we need to be aware that Fairley adds another one as well. Unless you really believe his talents are equally served as a five tech 3-4 DE...most people don't.

Taking Fairley runs the risk of him being out of here in three years if he doesn't fit the next system. It would be nice not to have to worry about that with the guy you're going to pay a lot for.

Since you seem to be so into Peterson, maybe you can explain why his performance in his final college bowl game was so lackadaisacal? I got the impression that he was thinking he was ready to cash out big and be an NFL star so why continue to **** with this college bs? Might get hurt.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 12:59 PM
As usual you didn't even try to hear what i was saying because you were too busy listening to yourself.

I went back and read it again. I see what you're saying. I'm just wondering why you think Paea and Peterson would be better than Fairley and Rahim Moore (or some other combination). Especially when factoring in that Paea is very unlikely to drop out of the 1st round.

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 01:01 PM
Everything I've pointed out is reasonable, and the NFL has seen plenty of college defensive linemen who flopped misserably as well. There are no guarantees.
steps, you gotta go with the percentages when you're picking #2. The percentages say you go with the DL, especially the situation Denver is in. You've said it many a time - build in the trenches. The percentages say grab a stud DL guy with #2.

Actually the percentages say there are many more top tier CBs that perform early and throughout their careers then that of a DT. If you're playing the % game and going with the safe bet, you go CB. If you're playing the game to fix what has ailed you for many years, you go DL.
I think if we were talking about any other player besides Patrick Peterson in this draft I'd be more than happy to say take Fairley, and I say that with the consideration that he'd be a somewhat risky pick for the reasons I listed earlier.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 01:01 PM
Since you seem to be so into Peterson, maybe you can explain why his performance in his final college bowl game was so lackadaisacal? I got the impression that he was thinking he was ready to cash out big and be an NFL star so why continue to **** with this college bs? Might get hurt.

I got that feeling as well. Up until that point I had been okay with Peterson as our pick if that was the way the chips fell. After that I seriously started wondering about his competitive fire. Who dogs it in a nationally televised bowl game like that?

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 01:03 PM
Since you seem to be so into Peterson, maybe you can explain why his performance in his final college bowl game was so lackadaisacal? I got the impression that he was thinking he was ready to cash out big and be an NFL star so why continue to **** with this college bs? Might get hurt.
Were you at the game?

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 01:05 PM
I got that feeling as well. Up until that point I had been okay with Peterson as our pick if that was the way the chips fell. After that I seriously started wondering about his competitive fire. Who dogs it in a nationally televised bowl game like that?
Totally don't think you saw that, but I think you want to.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 01:15 PM
Totally don't think you saw that, but I think you want to.

Err...I didn't want to. I was actually defending the guy's play in that game. But then I started noticing his lack of effort against the run. I thought he was fine for the most part in coverage, but when they ran it he was getting blown up by a WR every play. They would just push him back five or more yards and he would get completely taken out of the play. He just didn't look like he was trying.

I'm not anti-Peterson. If he was the perfect player you act like he is, I'd be fine with him as our pick. But he isn't, and seeing as we have a shot at a comparable player at a position of greater need, yeah I'm not down with picking him at #2.

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 01:20 PM
Were you at the game?

Why would that matter?

oubronco
01-11-2011, 01:25 PM
Why would that matter?

He thinks he played elite status while off screen

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 01:29 PM
He thinks he played elite status while off screen

I don't think he played badly. I focused on him much of the game. He just seemed to be going through the motions. I didn't really see any fire. Certainly not the kind of passion I saw in Dareus and Fairley in their bowl games. Maybe Peterson is so good that even on lackadaisical days he can still do well enough to win without putting himself out.

oubronco
01-11-2011, 01:34 PM
I don't think he played badly. I focused on him much of the game. He just seemed to be going through the motions. I didn't really see any fire. Certainly not the kind of passion I saw in Dareus and Fairley in their bowl games. Maybe Peterson is so good that even on lackadaisical days he can still do well enough to win without putting himself out.

I don't think he did bad either but i'm not going to ignore the fact he was getting pushed out of the play by WR's. I'm all over the DL in this draft as I am so tired of watching this defense get pushed around and raggdolled by every running team, getting records set against it just makes me sick and i've had enough

TheChamp24
01-11-2011, 01:35 PM
All this talk about trading down and picking up more picks needs to stop.

I highly, highly doubt we get a taker for the #2 pick. Who's going to trade up? Cards to take Newton? I doubt it.
If there were clear takers of moving up and players available that would be worth the move, I could see it. I just don't think its likely to see any team wanting to move up right now.

bendog
01-11-2011, 01:38 PM
btw, if there was any confusion, I think Den has to address the front 7, and there's no LB help early in the draft, and Dens' already got too much invested in Ayers and Doom to go that direction, even if Ayers is a bust. Moving to a 4-3 would require some hard decisions in terms of run support, and they'd be overpaying Doom if he was a 4-3 down lineman.

bendog
01-11-2011, 01:39 PM
All this talk about trading down and picking up more picks needs to stop.

I highly, highly doubt we get a taker for the #2 pick. Who's going to trade up? Cards to take Newton? I doubt it.
If there were clear takers of moving up and players available that would be worth the move, I could see it. I just don't think its likely to see any team wanting to move up right now.

Won't know till after the combine.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 01:40 PM
All this talk about trading down and picking up more picks needs to stop.

I highly, highly doubt we get a taker for the #2 pick. Who's going to trade up? Cards to take Newton? I doubt it.
If there were clear takers of moving up and players available that would be worth the move, I could see it. I just don't think its likely to see any team wanting to move up right now.

It is highly unlikely. I agree. Things could change, but right now it's looking like we're locked in.

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 01:40 PM
All this talk about trading down and picking up more picks needs to stop.

I highly, highly doubt we get a taker for the #2 pick. Who's going to trade up? Cards to take Newton? I doubt it.
If there were clear takers of moving up and players available that would be worth the move, I could see it. I just don't think its likely to see any team wanting to move up right now.

I wouldn't put too high of a percentage on it, but it's possible. Gabbert seems to be highly rated by some people. I was impressed with him the one Missou game I saw. There's still the combine. Teams treat the QB position differently. It's pretty much a given that the Bills will take a QB, so if you want one bad, the Broncos will be the team to call. We're talking Snyder and Bud Adams here. If they want something, they go get it, and don't really give a **** what anybody else thinks about it. For all we know, Bud dropped VY because he knows he going to go get Cam? Who knows?

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 01:43 PM
I wouldn't put too high of a percentage on it, but it's possible. Gabbert seems to be highly rated by some people. I was impressed with him the one Missou game I saw. There's still the combine. Teams treat the QB position differently. It's pretty much a given that the Bills will take a QB, so if you want one bad, the Broncos will be the team to call. We're talking Snyder and Bud Adams here. If they want something, they go get it, and don't really give a **** what anybody else thinks about it. For all we know, Bud dropped VY because he knows he going to go get Cam? Who knows?

I'm not sure it's a given that Buffalo takes a QB. It's possible, but right now none of the QB prospects look like top 5 guys. They may reach though. A team trading ahead of them would be reaching even more.

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 01:43 PM
Why wouldn't Aso get a big contract?

11 INT's since 2003 when he was drafted. 3 INT's in the past four years. 26 PD's in the past four years.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 01:45 PM
11 INT's since 2003 when he was drafted. 3 INT's in the past four years. 26 PD's in the past four years.

Yes, but he is known to shutdown receivers on a regular basis. Corner is about a lot more than stats.

oubronco
01-11-2011, 01:47 PM
All this talk about trading down and picking up more picks needs to stop.

I highly, highly doubt we get a taker for the #2 pick. Who's going to trade up? Cards to take Newton? I doubt it.
If there were clear takers of moving up and players available that would be worth the move, I could see it. I just don't think its likely to see any team wanting to move up right now.

With there most likely being a rookie cap I could see alot of teams trying to move up as they won't have to break the bank for a #2 pick

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM
I'm not sure it's a given that Buffalo takes a QB. It's possible, but right now none of the QB prospects look like top 5 guys. They may reach though. A team trading ahead of them would be reaching even more.

I'm sure. They can't go anywhere without filling the chasm.

bendog
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM
[QUOTE=oubronco;3082017]With there most likely being a rookie cap I could see alot of teams trying to move up as they won't have to break the bank for a #2 pick[/QUOTE

They could have the "best qb" of the draft much cheaper than Bradford (fixed it, sorry)

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM
With there most likely being a rookie cap I could see alot of teams trying to move up as they won't have to break the bank for a #2 pick

Great point. It's going to be cheaper now to trade up.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 01:53 PM
I'm sure. They can't go anywhere without filling the chasm.

You may be right. It'll be a huge reach if they do though...

Cito Pelon
01-11-2011, 01:53 PM
Actually the percentages say there are many more top tier CBs that perform early and throughout their careers then that of a DT. If you're playing the % game and going with the safe bet, you go CB. If you're playing the game to fix what has ailed you for many years, you go DL.[/QUOTE]

Denver right now IMO has to go with the % of DL.

HEAV
01-11-2011, 01:54 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

HEAV
01-11-2011, 01:58 PM
He's a talent....but can he be controlled? Is he another headache?

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 02:00 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This just doesn't really bother me. It's the way the game used to be played. The award that's given to the best linebacker in the country is named after a guy that did that stuff on virtually every play. Obviously he needs to avoid that stuff in Goodell's flag football league, but I just don't see a problem.

bendog
01-11-2011, 02:05 PM
Actually the percentages say there are many more top tier CBs that perform early and throughout their careers then that of a DT. If you're playing the % game and going with the safe bet, you go CB. If you're playing the game to fix what has ailed you for many years, you go DL.

Denver right now IMO has to go with the % of DL.[/QUOTE]

UNLESS, the draft is deep in dline in round two. They easily could have 3 picks in the second round (orton) and one in the third. With the diline bust factor, one could argue it'd make more sense to take Peterson and address the dline and even a RT with the next 4 picks. I can see it either way. Fairley's personality, and the fact the played two years at a community college and then has on the field issues is red flag, and the risk iwth the no 2 and a team coming off mult cluster**** personnel deicions .... run away. But he could be all pro.

Pony Boy
01-11-2011, 02:06 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Just the thought of him hitting Rivers like that gives me a chubby....

Rohirrim
01-11-2011, 02:07 PM
Just the thought of him hitting Rivers like that gives me a chubby....

Hilarious!

Zoobie
01-11-2011, 02:11 PM
This just doesn't really bother me. It's the way the game used to be played. The award that's given to the best linebacker in the country is named after a guy that did that stuff on virtually every play. Obviously he needs to avoid that stuff in Goodell's flag football league, but I just don't see a problem.

Yea, I mean it's a fine line, but he isn't stomping people or trying to tear helmets off.

oubronco
01-11-2011, 02:12 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xljcMJxJZg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

You telling me you wouldn't want a mean muthafugga like that on our Defense

cutthemdown
01-11-2011, 02:13 PM
11 INT's since 2003 when he was drafted. 3 INT's in the past four years. 26 PD's in the past four years.

Yeah but do you watch football? Or do you just look at stats? It's thinking like that which makes people on the board think DJ is a good linebacker. They say well he made a lot of tackles. But when you watch him play you see him get washed out and not shed blocks very well.

Aso is probably the 2nd, or 3rd best corner in the NFL after Revis and maybe a couple other guys. Teams don't throw at him.

Kaylore
01-11-2011, 02:14 PM
I love the hysteria over this. One or the other will be available when we pick, so either way we are getting a good player. Let's let the combine and interviews play out and then see where these guys rank. They both have played great all year.

HooptyHoops
01-11-2011, 02:15 PM
I think the Draft is going to be very fun to watch this year....one thing is for sure, we are going to get a player of immense talent! It will be fun, even though, watching Mc Daniels jumping all over the place was kinda fun last year, this will be the 1st chance to really get a top grade player!!

cutthemdown
01-11-2011, 02:16 PM
I want Failey after watching that. He's dirty and just what we need. He can be our new Romo.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Yea, I mean it's a fine line, but he isn't stomping people or trying to tear helmets off.

It's classic Butkus ball. It's funny the way people react to it nowadays. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBumQdwc-tE&feature=related

2KBack
01-11-2011, 02:21 PM
It's classic Butkus ball. It's funny the way people react to it nowadays. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBumQdwc-tE&feature=related

Butkus was also a dick, and would be a liability with that stuff in today's game. I would bet if he came out today, he wouldn't be pulling that crap because it would hurt his team.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 02:24 PM
Butkus was also a dick, and would be a liability with that stuff in today's game. I would bet if he came out today, he wouldn't be pulling that crap because it would hurt his team.

Pretty much. That's why it's not a big deal to me. Fairley will adjust to the NFL. He may have some issues as a rookie like Suh did, but he'll adjust.

OABB
01-11-2011, 02:26 PM
He's a dirty player and a pos. I will root against that prick forever. Unless of course he's a bronco, than it's just passion and I will love him!

yeah to double standards!

bendog
01-11-2011, 02:28 PM
I have no opinion till after the combine interview any a psychological profile/test. He may be a thug, or he may be just a very aggressive guy.

Ambiguous
01-11-2011, 02:37 PM
He's a dirty player and a pos. I will root against that prick forever. Unless of course he's a bronco, than it's just passion and I will love him!

yeah to double standards!

^I'm with this guy.

TheChamp24
01-11-2011, 02:37 PM
With there most likely being a rookie cap I could see alot of teams trying to move up as they won't have to break the bank for a #2 pick

Trade up to select who though?
Gabbert? Newton? Mallet?
The Cards can sit pat and probably be able to take one of them.
None of them seem to be wow prospects. Each IMO will be scrutinized heavily.
Gabbert never had a huge amount of success but projects well.
Newton has had off the field problems, and 1 year where he performed above and beyond.
Mallett to me is a worse version of Cutler. He has the tools, but is turnover prone.

Jake Locker, Fairley, Peterson, who knows if anybody will be worth the cost of picks of other teams to move up. To me it would have to be a QB a team will move up for, and I just don't think anybody will view the move up to be worth it.

Ray Finkle
01-11-2011, 02:41 PM
He's a dirty player and a pos. I will root against that prick forever. Unless of course he's a bronco, than it's just passion and I will love him!

yeah to double standards!

aka the Romo Factor

RunSilentRunDeep
01-11-2011, 02:41 PM
I think the Draft is going to be very fun to watch this year....one thing is for sure, we are going to get a player of immense talent! It will be fun, even though, watching Mc Daniels jumping all over the place was kinda fun last year, this will be the 1st chance to really get a top grade player!!

John Elway may tweet asking for fan input on the picks.

Mediator12
01-11-2011, 02:56 PM
Here is the scout's take on this:

http://rob-rang.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/13682485


Funny how it is almost a direct rip off of what I have been saying for a week.

ro_50
01-11-2011, 03:00 PM
I've a lifelong AU fan who's obviously reveling in last night's victory.

I love Fairley but key for him this year was his line coach, ex Auburn great Tracy Rocker.

He lit a fire in his butt and his conditioning improved under the strength coach.

What he did last night, he's been doing since the Outback Bowl last year (where he showed those glimpses).

Hats off to Mr. Fairley and War Eagle.

I hope he's there when Denver picks.

bendog
01-11-2011, 03:08 PM
I want Failey after watching that. He's dirty and just what we need. He can be our new Romo.

Hey if he spits on a black guy, who can complain. (-:

OrangeSe7en
01-11-2011, 03:10 PM
I've a lifelong AU fan who's obviously reveling in last night's victory.

I love Fairley but key for him this year was his line coach, ex Auburn great Tracy Rocker.

He lit a fire in his butt and his conditioning improved under the strength coach.

What he did last night, he's been doing since the Outback Bowl last year (where he showed those glimpses).

Hats off to Mr. Fairley and War Eagle.

I hope he's there when Denver picks.

Id rather have Bo Jackson but I'd gladly settle for Nick Fairley.

srphoenix
01-11-2011, 03:15 PM
update on Fairley Big board status from Schefter:

AdamSchefter (http://twitter.com/#%21/AdamSchefter) Adam Schefter



And climbing. RT @lindacohn (http://twitter.com/lindacohn): Mel Kiper says Nick Fairley of Auburn will be Number one overall on his new NFL draft board on Espn.com.

bombay
01-11-2011, 03:17 PM
Will he get to go against Oregon's line?

Pony Boy
01-11-2011, 04:03 PM
I have no opinion till after the combine interview any a psychological profile/test. He may be a thug, or he may be just a very aggressive guy.

Exactly, if he flunks the psychological profile/test then we got to get him. :approve:

footstepsfrom#27
01-11-2011, 04:12 PM
Why would that matter?
Because unless you were there with binoculars trained on this cat the whole time you couldn't possibly see but a small part of what he was doing on the screen, and that wouldn't tell you anything about what else was going on in the defensive scheme that impacted how he played...but that begs the point anyway, as it's obviously very foolish to base your analysis of any of these guys on how they played in a single game. Jarvis Moss ring a bell? We're nowhere near knowing all we will know on these guys yet.

misturanderson
01-11-2011, 04:32 PM
update on Fairley Big board status from Schefter:

AdamSchefter (http://twitter.com/#%21/AdamSchefter) Adam Schefter



And climbing. RT @lindacohn (http://twitter.com/lindacohn): Mel Kiper says Nick Fairley of Auburn will be Number one overall on his new NFL draft board on Espn.com.
Yay! ESPN's resident draft moron is moving him up the board because he played very well in one game! How utterly shocking!

cutthemdown
01-11-2011, 04:37 PM
Ooops I mispelled his name faily. I think I don't want him now. I can just see him sucking and everyone calling him faily. Peterson a safer name.

cutthemdown
01-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Yay! ESPN's resident draft moron is moving him up the board because he played very well in one game! How utterly shocking!

In defense I would say he dominated a more then just the last game. The last few games he was pushing people around from what I read.

gtown
01-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Yay! ESPN's resident draft moron is moving him up the board because he played very well in one game! How utterly shocking!

Jarvis Moss would like to have a word with you...

Requiem
01-11-2011, 04:42 PM
Depends a lot on scheme.

CEH
01-11-2011, 04:51 PM
update on Fairley Big board status from Schefter:

AdamSchefter (http://twitter.com/#%21/AdamSchefter) Adam Schefter



And climbing. RT @lindacohn (http://twitter.com/lindacohn): Mel Kiper says Nick Fairley of Auburn will be Number one overall on his new NFL draft board on Espn.com.

Stink and Alfred say this is a good thing. Let him go #1 and we will draft the best defensive football player. Not being blocked by a popgun offense is not that impressive. They said he seemed to be a straight line guy who if you get him off his path he's not as good. Brought up Big Daddy and Dorsey . Stink said he broke down tape with Gilmore at ESPN. That is a liability they see so far. Not saying it's the end all be all just a perpective from a couple old Broncos

misturanderson
01-11-2011, 05:18 PM
Stink and Alfred say this is a good thing. Let him go #1 and we will draft the best defensive football player. Not being blocked by a popgun offense is not that impressive. They said he seemed to be a straight line guy who if you get him off his path he's not as good. Brought up Big Daddy and Dorsey . Stink said he broke down tape with Gilmore at ESPN. That is a liability they see so far. Not saying it's the end all be all just a perpective from a couple old Broncos

I don't trust a thing those two blowhards say. Half of what they say goes completely against common knowledge. They were claiming the other day that Clady wasn't a good run blocker, at any point in his career.

~Crash~
01-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Yeah but do you watch football? Or do you just look at stats? It's thinking like that which makes people on the board think DJ is a good linebacker. They say well he made a lot of tackles. But when you watch him play you see him get washed out and not shed blocks very well.

Aso is probably the 2nd, or 3rd best corner in the NFL after Revis and maybe a couple other guys. Teams don't throw at him.

Impact plays is his problem ! He never has them. The last two years were better but he is getting paid for way more that he is giving out . Before last year he did not have one impact play . not one.

Play2win
01-11-2011, 07:34 PM
Impact plays is his problem ! He never has them. The last two years were better but he is getting paid for way more that he is giving out . Before last year he did not have one impact play . not one.

On the field or at the bar?

~Crash~
01-11-2011, 07:38 PM
Just the thought of him hitting Rivers like that gives me a chubby....

:sunshine:

Dedhed
01-11-2011, 07:40 PM
Impact plays is his problem ! He never has them. The last two years were better but he is getting paid for way more that he is giving out . Before last year he did not have one impact play . not one.

If the QB doesn't even look to his side of the field, it's and impact play.

Dedhed
01-11-2011, 07:42 PM
Stink and Alfred say this is a good thing. Let him go #1 and we will draft the best defensive football player. Not being blocked by a popgun offense is not that impressive. They said he seemed to be a straight line guy who if you get him off his path he's not as good. Brought up Big Daddy and Dorsey . Stink said he broke down tape with Gilmore at ESPN. That is a liability they see so far. Not saying it's the end all be all just a perpective from a couple old Broncos
This will fall on deaf ears here.

Beantown Bronco
01-11-2011, 07:45 PM
Will he get to go against Oregon's line?

Pretty much. He'll get to go against the Broncos interior line every day in practice.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 08:48 PM
Stink and Alfred say this is a good thing. Let him go #1 and we will draft the best defensive football player. Not being blocked by a popgun offense is not that impressive. They said he seemed to be a straight line guy who if you get him off his path he's not as good. Brought up Big Daddy and Dorsey . Stink said he broke down tape with Gilmore at ESPN. That is a liability they see so far. Not saying it's the end all be all just a perpective from a couple old Broncos

And I thought I had heard some stupid criticisms regarding Tebow. That takes the cake...

McDman
01-11-2011, 09:25 PM
I don't trust a thing those two blowhards say. Half of what they say goes completely against common knowledge. They were claiming the other day that Clady wasn't a good run blocker, at any point in his career.

Actually they are right, Clady has been an average run blocker during his career. He got popular bc he was stoning pass rushers. You may not like them but they do provide pretty good insight into football.

I'd say stink knows something about offensive line as well. I know people will bring p shim saying our offensive line was garbage but bfv that year it was. Also Cutler made a lot of pass rushers miss. We saw a huge rise in sacks when the statue Orton got here.

The reason they're not high on Fairly is bc he has one move, that's bull rush forward and use his great speed and strength to dominate. That's fine in college but in the pros it won't happen. They went ove different schemes in the pros that would stop him dead in his tracks.

They made some good points and after hearing it I also believed it would be an error to draft him that high. It scares me drafting a DT at the #2 spot anyways, their bust potential is huge.

I really hope we just trade down.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 09:33 PM
Actually they are right, Clady has been an average run blocker during his career. He got popular bc he was stoning pass rushers. You may not like them but they do provide pretty good insight into football.

I'd say stink knows something about offensive line as well. I know people will bring p shim saying our offensive line was garbage but bfv that year it was. Also Cutler made a lot of pass rushers miss. We saw a huge rise in sacks when the statue Orton got here.

The reason they're not high on Fairly is bc he has one move, that's bull rush forward and use his great speed and strength to dominate. That's fine in college but in the pros it won't happen. They went ove different schemes in the pros that would stop him dead in his tracks.

They made some good points and after hearing it I also believed it would be an error to draft him that high. It scares me drafting a DT at the #2 spot anyways, their bust potential is huge.

I really hope we just trade down.

So the sum of their point was that he needs to learn other techniques to get by guys in the NFL, and that he won't just be able to do what he did in college and succeed? Just...wow... Hilarious!

That could be said of every college player that has ever been drafted, especially every d-lineman. Glad we don't have these geniuses on our payroll...

mhgaffney
01-11-2011, 09:36 PM
We need to pass on Fairley. The guy plays dirty. End of story.

Consider the consequences of winning at any cost. There will be games when Fairley blindsides a QB AFTER the whistle -- or shows his nastiness by shoving a player's face into the turf -- as he did in the Oregon game.

The penalty yards are secondary. Do we want Denver to get a bad rep for late hits?

No way you can justify a bad character just because of obvious talent.

We have a triple AAA character in Tebow. We need the same on Defense.

At the #2 position we can have anyone we want. There is lots of Defensive talent.

Pass on Fairley.

serious hops
01-11-2011, 09:43 PM
Good point. Being a really nice guy is always the top thing I look for in a defensive player.



I keed, I keed.

Agamemnon
01-11-2011, 09:44 PM
We need to pass on Fairley. The guy plays dirty. End of story.

Consider the consequences of winning at any cost. There will be games when Fairley blindsides a QB AFTER the whistle -- or shows his nastiness by shoving a player's face into the turf -- as he did in the Oregon game.

The penalty yards are secondary. Do we want Denver to get a bad rep for late hits?

No way you can justify a bad character just because of obvious talent.

We have a triple AAA character in Tebow. We need the same on Defense.

At the #2 position we can have anyone we want. There is lots of Defensive talent.

Pass on Fairley.

There's a big difference between a player that is overly aggressive and plays dirty at times, and a player that has genuine character issues. His on field issues are coachable, and are far from deal breaker. With your philosophy Detroit shouldn't have drafted Suh. That would've been a mistake...

Broncoman13
01-11-2011, 09:46 PM
He thinks he played elite status while off screen

I don't know that I would say Peterson played "elite status" during the Cottonbowl, but they did throw away from him a lot. After the 2nd half they rarely even threw to his side. Gave the other DBs a lot of opportunities to make plays. How nice would it be to have a CB that forces you to throw to Champs side? Nah, I still want DL!

Dedhed
01-11-2011, 10:21 PM
So the sum of their point was that he needs to learn other techniques to get by guys in the NFL, and that he won't just be able to do what he did in college and succeed? Just...wow... Hilarious!

That could be said of every college player that has ever been drafted, especially every d-lineman. Glad we don't have these geniuses on our payroll...
That can't be said about every d-lineman, but it was the exact take on Jarvis Moss, who won a few of the same awards as Fairley, dominated a championship game. Only difference is that Moss was a one-dimensional speed guy where Fairley is a one-dimensional bull guy.

I think Fairley will be more successful in the NFL, but only moderately. He will in no way be the next Suh.

Traveler
01-12-2011, 06:42 AM
As well as Failey has played this season, doesn't the fact that he's been a one year wonder give anyone pause?

I'm not an expert on defensive linemen. But wouldn't it be better for all if Fairley had consistently played this well during his college career?

OrangeSe7en
01-12-2011, 07:50 AM
As well as Failey has played this season, doesn't the fact that he's been a one year wonder give anyone pause?
I'm not an expert on defensive linemen. But wouldn't it be better for all if Fairley had consistently played this well during his college career?

Even if.

Kaylore
01-12-2011, 07:55 AM
There's a big difference between a player that is overly aggressive and plays dirty at times, and a player that has genuine character issues. His on field issues are coachable, and are far from deal breaker. With your philosophy Detroit shouldn't have drafted Suh. That would've been a mistake...

John Lynch had a reputation for playing dirty and mean on the field and off the field he made Mr Rogers look like a thug. James Harrison is widely considered a big ole' douche bag of a man on the field, but he also completely dominates and intimidates his opponents. I would be just fine with Fairley. This defense needs a little nasty and you can coach him to lay off the cheap shots, or at the very least pick how and when you take them.

Mediator12
01-12-2011, 08:51 AM
I don't know that I would say Peterson played "elite status" during the Cottonbowl, but they did throw away from him a lot. After the 2nd half they rarely even threw to his side. Gave the other DBs a lot of opportunities to make plays. How nice would it be to have a CB that forces you to throw to Champs side? Nah, I still want DL!

He did not, and they did not in the second half. They actually stayed away from him a lot early and lulled him to sleep. He was not a shutdown CB in that game, he gave up 5 first down catches to Fuller. He was a total non-factor in the game, and displayed poor overall effort. He did not display any Elite quality skills in that game, he played soft and was a detriment versus the run.

I went back and charted his game and he got a minus score on 13 plays and only 2 pluses the WHOLE game. That's a negative 11 effort in a bowl game. I have seen him play much better and showcase those skills, however he did not bring them against a real Pro offense in his Bowl game. Kid is a phenomenal talent, but if Fairley gets the inconsistency label by some scouts, Peterson gets the "plays when he wants to" label.

Rohirrim
01-12-2011, 09:03 AM
As well as Failey has played this season, doesn't the fact that he's been a one year wonder give anyone pause?

I'm not an expert on defensive linemen. But wouldn't it be better for all if Fairley had consistently played this well during his college career?

I think it depends on the reason behind the sudden growth. Is he just looking for a payday, or was he influenced by a new coach (Rocker) to suddenly morph into the player he is now. Coaches can have a huge influence on players. Maybe Fairley was getting lost in the shuffle and when Rocker came in, he saw something special there and was able to bring it out? I'm sure scouts for teams will do their homework and answer your question, because they'll have that question too.

bendog
01-12-2011, 09:07 AM
He's only been at Auburn for two years. He was in a communtiy college working on eligibility for two years.

~Crash~
01-12-2011, 09:14 AM
As well as Failey has played this season, doesn't the fact that he's been a one year wonder give anyone pause?

I'm not an expert on defensive linemen. But wouldn't it be better for all if Fairley had consistently played this well during his college career?

This does give me pause... I will say that I like football players . Not one year wanders so I would not take him if the coach's in his past told me he was just that a one year wonder. Out of no were. oh and to the guys that talk **** about him taking a play off are silly it could be by design .

Pony Boy
01-12-2011, 10:35 AM
John Lynch had a reputation for playing dirty and mean on the field and off the field he made Mr Rogers look like a thug. James Harrison is widely considered a big ole' douche bag of a man on the field, but he also completely dominates and intimidates his opponents. I would be just fine with Fairley. This defense needs a little nasty and you can coach him to lay off the cheap shots, or at the very least pick how and when you take them.

Cheap shots cost 15 yds in college but they cost big bucks in the NFL so it won't be too hard to break that habit.

bendog
01-12-2011, 12:02 PM
lynch never had cheap shot artist lable. He had a hit you so hard you don't wake up til Monday lable.

2KBack
01-12-2011, 12:26 PM
lynch never had cheap shot artist lable. He had a hit you so hard you don't wake up til Monday lable.

I don't think he was a cheap player...but he 100% had that label. Hence the infamous message from the league to have officials "keep and eye on him," during the 2004 playoff game with the colts. Which was totally unethical IMO.

point being, you don't have to be a dirty player to earn that reputation all the time.

gtown
01-12-2011, 12:49 PM
Just read that Rivera is gonna keep the 4-3 in Carolina, featuring an attacking style. There is a chance that Fairley is not gonna be there with our pick.

bombay
01-12-2011, 01:59 PM
Illinois' Corey Liugit is coming out, as is Cameron Heyward (Ironhead's kid) from Ohio St. Both are very good D-linemen that should be available a little later. Just somewhere to put this.

OABB
01-12-2011, 02:14 PM
Just read that Rivera is gonna keep the 4-3 in Carolina, featuring an attacking style. There is a chance that Fairley is not gonna be there with our pick.

"Attacking" style? I prefer Dennison's "aggressive" style.

Agamemnon
01-12-2011, 04:24 PM
lynch never had cheap shot artist lable. He had a hit you so hard you don't wake up til Monday lable.

Oh come on, Lynch habitually speared people with his helmet. His bad rep was well earned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_1Qsqo5w9M&feature=related

bendog
01-13-2011, 08:39 AM
according to your standard, Atwater was dirty player.

Old Dude
01-13-2011, 09:42 AM
Fairley's performance has probably moved him up into a top 3 pick. That could change a bit after the combine, but not too much.

I think he's definitely a villainous and "dirty" player and some of that will carry over to the NFL. But that won't hurt his draft standing. If anything, it will probably enhance his standing.

I can see a strong argument for Denver taking him at #2, unless someone else is willing to trade a load up to get him.

bendog
01-13-2011, 10:13 AM
It is dirty to hit after the whistle or blindside some guy who doesn't have the football ... unless you do it to Rapesburger or the PhillyDogkiller. But if Fairley has that in his regular set of tricks, I'd pass on him. I'll be surprised if someone doesn't want Car's leftovers of Mallet, Cam, Gebbart before Buf. I wouldn't be horribly surprised if Buf proposes swapping picks with Den getting 400 draft value chart pts.

serious hops
01-13-2011, 12:45 PM
Fairley's performance has probably moved him up into a top 3 pick. That could change a bit after the combine, but not too much.

I think he's definitely a villainous and "dirty" player and some of that will carry over to the NFL. But that won't hurt his draft standing. If anything, it will probably enhance his standing.

I can see a strong argument for Denver taking him at #2, unless someone else is willing to trade a load up to get him.

You have Don Corleone as your avatar. I can only assume that "villainous" isn't a problem for you.

;D

oubronco
01-13-2011, 12:50 PM
It is dirty to hit after the whistle or blindside some guy who doesn't have the football ... unless you do it to Rapesburger or the PhillyDogkiller. But if Fairley has that in his regular set of tricks, I'd pass on him. I'll be surprised if someone doesn't want Car's leftovers of Mallet, Cam, Gebbart before Buf. I wouldn't be horribly surprised if Buf proposes swapping picks with Den getting 400 draft value chart pts.

He try's that to Tom Terrific and he'll be banned from the NFL

Requiem
01-13-2011, 01:19 PM
The only argument for taking Fairley at #2 is if our defense changes schemes to the 4-3. Same goes for Bowers. That is where those players will have the chance to be the best players than can be.

If we keep the 3-4, looking to get Dareus is probably our best option, or moving down in the draft more and taking a player like Cameron Jordan who would be very worth the selection in the middle half of the first round if you want a stud 5T.

ColoradoBuff
01-13-2011, 01:27 PM
Fairley to announce Friday!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6018884

bap454
01-13-2011, 05:24 PM
Fairley to announce Friday!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6018884

Is there really any doubt.

srphoenix
01-14-2011, 09:48 AM
Fairley officially going pro per Schefter:

AdamSchefter (http://twitter.com/#%21/AdamSchefter) Adam Schefter



Another top pick from Auburn, Nick Fairley, will turn pro. http://es.pn/ezhyRi

bendog
01-14-2011, 10:00 AM
Since it's fox and we're back to the 4-3 with two DEs on the smallish side, I think Paea and Thomas seem a better fit. Ayers may be an injury bust, as well as being the guy McD passed over Mathews for, but he did project as being a capable down lineman, so I guess that's what they have to try him as. Bowers would be nice, but the defense absolutely sucks.

Cito Pelon
01-14-2011, 10:58 AM
Yeah but do you watch football? Or do you just look at stats? It's thinking like that which makes people on the board think DJ is a good linebacker. They say well he made a lot of tackles. But when you watch him play you see him get washed out and not shed blocks very well.

Aso is probably the 2nd, or 3rd best corner in the NFL after Revis and maybe a couple other guys. Teams don't throw at him.

Champ: 9 INT's, 45 PD's the past 4 years
Revis: 14 INT's, 73 PD's the past 4 years
Samuel: 26 INT's, 70 PD's the past 4 years
Charles Woodson: 22 INT's, 58 PD's the past 4 years
Asomugha: 3 INT's, 26 PD's the past 4 years

Helluva lot of disparity there. Asomugha has 11 INT's total since 2003. Champ has 33.

bendog
01-14-2011, 10:59 AM
Damn they won't even throw in Alphabet's direction. Interesting stat. I wonder why teams challange Revis?

Cito Pelon
01-14-2011, 11:08 AM
Damn they won't even throw in Alphabet's direction. Interesting stat. I wonder why teams challange Revis?

Aso must be the least targeted CB in NFL history.

Inkana7
01-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Damn they won't even throw in Alphabet's direction. Interesting stat. I wonder why teams challange Revis?

Because he's hugely overrated, especially by himself.

bendog
01-14-2011, 11:25 AM
Because he's hugely overrated, especially by himself.

Well, he's damn good but overpaid even at that.

Bronco Boy
01-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Since it's fox and we're back to the 4-3 with two DEs on the smallish side, I think Paea and Thomas seem a better fit. Ayers may be an injury bust, as well as being the guy McD passed over Mathews for, but he did project as being a capable down lineman, so I guess that's what they have to try him as. Bowers would be nice, but the defense absolutely sucks.

Fairley's the exact type of player Fox loves to use on his D lines and is a serious weakness on this team assuming we go to a 4-3. If CAR passes I would think DEN would have to take him. Sucks though because Peterson is probably the best CB to come into a draft in the last 10 years and Fairley isn't even the best DT in the last 2 years, but that's the way it works sometimes.

bendog
01-14-2011, 12:15 PM
I know Fairley has a huge upside, and his lack of time at Auburn is short just because he had to do two years at a community college before getting admission. He's got a mean streak, but I don't see any criminal stuff. Still with only one real season of starting in DivI, you can't overlook the bust factor. Peterson doesn't have any bust factor beyond possible injury, but Fairley doesn't have a track record beyond a failure to get his academic ship in order. So, I hope they trade down.