PDA

View Full Version : MMQB notes


tsiguy96
03-27-2011, 09:31 PM
very good article, but some things to note:
8. The fear around Nick Fairley is real. More and more I hear the "one-year wonder'' stuff. Mayock on Fairley: "Two years junior college, one year OK at Auburn, one great year. So what should you think?'' That plus Dareus has passed Fairley on most draftboards.


3. There's a chill around Marcell Dareus. I've been operating under the impression that the best defensive tackle in the draft would go one, two or three, and he probably still will. When scouts and GMs begin to go over players for the fourth and fifth time, and when they parse the words in their individual interviews, they're going to get nervous. Maybe that's what this is with Dareus. I can't put my finger on why, but he's cooling off in the eyes of several people I trust at the top of the draft. I still think he'd be the best pick for defensive-front-needy Denver or No. 3 Buffalo.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/27/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1Hri2Lb8g

almost makes me buy into peterson a bit more. if these guys are not going to be elite DTs, or the potential for it (i think fairley has more potential for greatness, dareus more potential to be a solid starter/rotational guy based on a lot of what ive read). might just be worth taking peterson and having new starting CB and taking DL. at this point, ill no longer be disappointed if they take peterson over a DL.

Broncobiv
03-27-2011, 10:33 PM
Like several other Mane posters, I am sick of having elite talent at the CB position and watching it get wasted because we have no DL. We need to pressure the QB and stop the run. Dominant DL's make average secondaries look great. It is far tougher to do the opposite.

schaaf
03-27-2011, 10:40 PM
Like several other Mane posters, I am sick of having elite talent at the CB position and watching it get wasted because we have no DL. We need to pressure the QB and stop the run. Dominant DL's make average secondaries look great. It is far tougher to do the opposite.

there is seriously nobody on this site that argues this with you.. The thing that people are arguing is that you cant just take a D-Lineman with the number 2 overall pick if he is not going to be a complete stud. Most scouts feel that Peterson is going to be a beast in the NFL and most aren't sold on either Dareus or Fairley. Just because thats what you need most doesn't mean we should take him there.

And once again there is more than one move to be made in the offseason.

HAT
03-27-2011, 10:51 PM
Liuget will be the best 3DT from this draft when it's all said and done.

cutthemdown
03-28-2011, 12:00 AM
They don't know how good they will be. These guys all drooled over Jamarcus Russell and praised Oakland for drafting him.

I will be happy with whoever we draft until they don't play well. Even a QB would make me shut up if he was really good. Sure I want dominant defensive players also. We will draft what 5 people? unless we add some picks with a trade? I'm hoping that whoever they pick are the good ones. We all know what these drafts look like after a few yrs. Bunch of busts on every team.

schaaf
03-28-2011, 12:58 AM
Liuget will be the best 3DT from this draft when it's all said and done.

I think you're right... If he is there in the mid twenties I think we need to move up and get him

Kaylore
03-28-2011, 05:29 AM
They don't know how good they will be. These guys all drooled over Jamarcus Russell and praised Oakland for drafting him.

Who? Peter King? I don't remember King doing this. I remember Mayock saying he wouldn't have gone first if the QB class wasn't so crappy that year. I also remember Greasy Al getting a lot of flack for his pick, but then again, he always does.

That One Guy
03-28-2011, 06:27 AM
there is seriously nobody on this site that argues this with you.. The thing that people are arguing is that you cant just take a D-Lineman with the number 2 overall pick if he is not going to be a complete stud. Most scouts feel that Peterson is going to be a beast in the NFL and most aren't sold on either Dareus or Fairley. Just because thats what you need most doesn't mean we should take him there.

And once again there is more than one move to be made in the offseason.

I absolutely agree with him. Everybody wants to recall Dwill being better than he was, in my opinion, but he got hung out to dry by Peyton when Champ was on the other side. That should've been a competent CB group but because there was nobody coming off the line to worry Peyton, they got lit up.

A DL can take over a game by himself. A CB can have a good game but wont win you anything single handedly. They just go elsewhere with the ball.

And quit being a prick to the guy for just expressing his opinion.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 06:29 AM
A DL can take over a game by himself. A CB can have a good game but wont win you anything single handedly. They just go elsewhere with the ball.


I'm sure Tom Brady was thinking just that after the 2005 AFC playoff game against us. Even when he tried to go elsewhere with the ball, Champ made him pay.

teknic
03-28-2011, 06:33 AM
I'm sure Tom Brady was thinking just that after the 2005 AFC playoff game against us. Even when he tried to go elsewhere with the ball, Champ made him pay.

In all fairness, a pass rush from the dline was also what stopped Tom Brady from going undefeated in 2007.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 06:38 AM
In all fairness, a pass rush from the dline was also what stopped Tom Brady from going undefeated in 2007.

That was not one guy on the DLine (which is the specific argument I'm responding to above). That was an entire rotation of 5-6 studs hammering him all game long. One great guy on the DLine can be negated at least as easily, if not easier, than one great CB.

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 06:40 AM
no one is denying what a DL can do and i agree 1000%. but at end of the day, as more information comes out, do we want to potentially draft a tyson jackson? a guy who got hyped up pre draft then does nothing for the team? that is a realistic, scary thought for this team to use a high pick on.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 06:48 AM
no one is denying what a DL can do and i agree 1000%. but at end of the day, as more information comes out, do we want to potentially draft a tyson jackson? a guy who got hyped up pre draft then does nothing for the team? that is a realistic, scary thought for this team to use a high pick on.

What a great DL can do is WAY less than people on this site have been giving them credit for.

Also, I think people have really been turning a blind eye to the horrid shelf life of DTs in the current NFL era.

...and that's not even mentioning the ridiculous bust rate.

teknic
03-28-2011, 06:55 AM
I hope the Broncos trade back and pick up Von Miller. I think he could be a stud at SLB, and he will also add to the pass rush. I would even consider him at #2 if Fox believes he could be a MLB in his defense.

srphoenix
03-28-2011, 07:14 AM
honestly, this is what we should take most from this article:

Elway's been a pleasant surprise to John Fox.
I noticed this at the Scouting Combine. John Elway, the new vice president of football operations for the Broncos, was everywhere. In the interview rooms talking to players, out in the stadium watching the workouts. Same thing at the league meetings. Chatting with other GMs and coaches. When I sidled up to new Denver coach John Fox to ask him about it, he went on like he'd discovered gold.
It was an off-the-record conversation, but it surprised me how much Fox seemed to legitimately like and admire Elway as a club executive, so I reached out to the coach Sunday to ask if I could write about it. He called back and told me, "It's not BS, what I told you. It's real. This guy works. I have fallen in love with him. A lot of people probably thought it was going to be [just a job with a title] and he wouldn't be all in. But he is.
"We went to a speaking engagement recently in Denver and one of the things John said is, 'I've discovered there's more than one 6 o'clock.' He's in at 7 most days, out at 7. When we met with players, his perspective was valuable; he understands what makes a player better than 90 percent of the people in the league. The bottom line is, he did it right. He played, he was a success in business, he raised his kids and now he's doing something he loves. I think he's going to be good at this.''
Let me make this point about what Fox just said: I've known Fox for a long time. Plenty of times -- and I mean plenty -- I'd ask him a question and he'd say we have to talk off the record for a minute, because he didn't want to lie, nor did he want to mislead me. So I do not take his words as him trying to butter up the boss, or paint a fake picture of the boss for public consumption. We'll see how it works out, but so far, so good.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/27/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1Hu5IE1XF

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 07:24 AM
What a great DL can do is WAY less than people on this site have been giving them credit for.

Also, I think people have really been turning a blind eye to the horrid shelf life of DTs in the current NFL era.

...and that's not even mentioning the ridiculous bust rate.

DL, or more specifically ability to generate pressure without sacrificing too much in the back end, is more important than cover corners. but like i said, theres no point in drafting a DL just to draft a DL, unless they feel dareus or fairley can be potential top DL, then maybe it is worth taking peterson. bust rate is high for sure, thats my bigger thing is avoiding picking that bust aka jarvis moss just to fill the position. but if they feel dareus/fairley are guys that are worthy of top 5 picks, i hope they take them over peterson.

gyldenlove
03-28-2011, 07:36 AM
no one is denying what a DL can do and i agree 1000%. but at end of the day, as more information comes out, do we want to potentially draft a tyson jackson? a guy who got hyped up pre draft then does nothing for the team? that is a realistic, scary thought for this team to use a high pick on.

Tyson Jackson wasn't hyped pre draft, he was pretty concensus not a top 10 pick, and it was widely agreed that the only reason Kansas City drafted him was that he was the only 3-4 DE player with talent to go anywhere in the top 2 rounds.

gyldenlove
03-28-2011, 07:39 AM
DL, or more specifically ability to generate pressure without sacrificing too much in the back end, is more important than cover corners. but like i said, theres no point in drafting a DL just to draft a DL, unless they feel dareus or fairley can be potential top DL, then maybe it is worth taking peterson. bust rate is high for sure, thats my bigger thing is avoiding picking that bust aka jarvis moss just to fill the position. but if they feel dareus/fairley are guys that are worthy of top 5 picks, i hope they take them over peterson.

Check out where not drafting DLs got Mcdaniels, for all the resources he spent on the secondary he still managed to leave us with the worst defense this team has ever had and the worst in the league. I don't care if we have to go Houston Texans up in this bitch, we can not keep ignoring the defensive front, the defense of the Denver Broncos has gone steadily downhill for a lot years now since we lost the last batch of talented defensive linemen we had and no amount of good intentions or talented secondary players including so far 3 future hall of famers have been able to change that.

Drunk Monkey
03-28-2011, 07:43 AM
I hope the Broncos trade back and pick up Von Miller. I think he could be a stud at SLB, and he will also add to the pass rush. I would even consider him at #2 if Fox believes he could be a MLB in his defense.

I am all over Von but not at #2. I hope a situation presents itself where we can trade back and still get him. I think a team needs a dominant MLB to set the tone for the defense. I always felt that leadership on D needed to come from that position.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 07:44 AM
Check out where not drafting DLs got Mcdaniels, for all the resources he spent on the secondary he still managed to leave us with the worst defense this team has ever had and the worst in the league. I don't care if we have to go Houston Texans up in this b****, we can not keep ignoring the defensive front, the defense of the Denver Broncos has gone steadily downhill for a lot years now since we lost the last batch of talented defensive linemen we had and no amount of good intentions or talented secondary players including so far 3 future hall of famers have been able to change that.

To be fair, outside of Raji and Suh (who we had no shot at), you'd be hard pressed to name any real impact DLinemen coming out the last two years. Even if he loaded up at the position, we'd likely look just as bad, if not worse today, than we are now.

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 08:00 AM
Check out where not drafting DLs got Mcdaniels, for all the resources he spent on the secondary he still managed to leave us with the worst defense this team has ever had and the worst in the league. I don't care if we have to go Houston Texans up in this b****, we can not keep ignoring the defensive front, the defense of the Denver Broncos has gone steadily downhill for a lot years now since we lost the last batch of talented defensive linemen we had and no amount of good intentions or talented secondary players including so far 3 future hall of famers have been able to change that.

but this is what im saying, and i agree you need to address dline, but do you draft dline just to draft it, even if with these particular people the bust potential is high?

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:05 AM
DL, or more specifically ability to generate pressure without sacrificing too much in the back end, is more important than cover corners. but like i said, theres no point in drafting a DL just to draft a DL, unless they feel dareus or fairley can be potential top DL, then maybe it is worth taking peterson. bust rate is high for sure, thats my bigger thing is avoiding picking that bust aka jarvis moss just to fill the position. but if they feel dareus/fairley are guys that are worthy of top 5 picks, i hope they take them over peterson.

Sure it is. You go check the top 10 DT contracts against the top 10 CB ones and get back to me.

Check out where not drafting DLs got Mcdaniels, for all the resources he spent on the secondary he still managed to leave us with the worst defense this team has ever had and the worst in the league. I don't care if we have to go Houston Texans up in this b****, we can not keep ignoring the defensive front, the defense of the Denver Broncos has gone steadily downhill for a lot years now since we lost the last batch of talented defensive linemen we had and no amount of good intentions or talented secondary players including so far 3 future hall of famers have been able to change that.

Resources? The guy signed a bunch of ****ty old players that were never good, and one old one way past his prime and drafted a ****ing midget. It's not like he went out and got good players so I can't imagine how this is a valid point.

schaaf
03-28-2011, 08:06 AM
I absolutely agree with him. Everybody wants to recall Dwill being better than he was, in my opinion, but he got hung out to dry by Peyton when Champ was on the other side. That should've been a competent CB group but because there was nobody coming off the line to worry Peyton, they got lit up.

A DL can take over a game by himself. A CB can have a good game but wont win you anything single handedly. They just go elsewhere with the ball.

And quit being a prick to the guy for just expressing his opinion.

First of all I don't know how that is being a prick. And second I'm tired of hearing "a great DL fixes a bad secondary". Nobody argues this, what we are saying is that you can't just take a DL with the second pick to get a DT. He is going to have to be a gamechanger. If Dareus is just gonna be solid or Fairley is going to be a situational DT then we can't use our first pick on them. We can't afford to just get a 'solid' pick because we need DL. We cannot miss on this pick.

oubronco
03-28-2011, 08:08 AM
honestly, this is what we should take most from this article:

Elway's been a pleasant surprise to John Fox.
I noticed this at the Scouting Combine. John Elway, the new vice president of football operations for the Broncos, was everywhere. In the interview rooms talking to players, out in the stadium watching the workouts. Same thing at the league meetings. Chatting with other GMs and coaches. When I sidled up to new Denver coach John Fox to ask him about it, he went on like he'd discovered gold.
It was an off-the-record conversation, but it surprised me how much Fox seemed to legitimately like and admire Elway as a club executive, so I reached out to the coach Sunday to ask if I could write about it. He called back and told me, "It's not BS, what I told you. It's real. This guy works. I have fallen in love with him. A lot of people probably thought it was going to be [just a job with a title] and he wouldn't be all in. But he is.
"We went to a speaking engagement recently in Denver and one of the things John said is, 'I've discovered there's more than one 6 o'clock.' He's in at 7 most days, out at 7. When we met with players, his perspective was valuable; he understands what makes a player better than 90 percent of the people in the league. The bottom line is, he did it right. He played, he was a success in business, he raised his kids and now he's doing something he loves. I think he's going to be good at this.''
Let me make this point about what Fox just said: I've known Fox for a long time. Plenty of times -- and I mean plenty -- I'd ask him a question and he'd say we have to talk off the record for a minute, because he didn't want to lie, nor did he want to mislead me. So I do not take his words as him trying to butter up the boss, or paint a fake picture of the boss for public consumption. We'll see how it works out, but so far, so good.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/27/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1Hu5IE1XF


I like everything I hear so far from interviewing the Head coach to evaluating all the top prospects

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 08:10 AM
I like everything I hear so far from interviewing the Head coach to evaluating all the top prospects

Would be a classic kick to the groin if the one year they finally got their crap together was the one year there was no football.

cmhargrove
03-28-2011, 08:12 AM
no one is denying what a DL can do and i agree 1000%. but at end of the day, as more information comes out, do we want to potentially draft a tyson jackson? a guy who got hyped up pre draft then does nothing for the team? that is a realistic, scary thought for this team to use a high pick on.

We love to beat on the Chiefs for spending high picks on Dorsey and Jackson, and those guys might never be superstars, however they finished the year as the #14 ranked defense because they have a certain level of talent that the broncos don't have.

So, Jackson and Dorsey will never be Suh, but they can be a top 10 defense with a few more players around them.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 08:19 AM
We love to beat on the Chiefs for spending high picks on Dorsey and Jackson, and those guys might never be superstars, however they finished the year as the #14 ranked defense because they have a certain level of talent that the broncos don't have.

So, Jackson and Dorsey will never be Suh, but they can be a top 10 defense with a few more players around them.

One could make an argument that that ranking is more indicative of superior defensive coaching than the degree of actual talent on the field. Just look at the Broncos. Were we really that less talented on defense in 2010 vs 2009, or could one point to the difference in coaching?

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:25 AM
One could make an argument that that ranking is more indicative of superior defensive coaching than the degree of actual talent on the field. Just look at the Broncos. Were we really that less talented on defense in 2010 vs 2009, or could one point to the difference in coaching?

^ This. His point is a terrible one especially when you consider this:

Every down linemen starter (since that's what we're talking about) from the 2009 defense was either retained (Fields and McBean) or cut (Peterson) and the retained ones rode the bench behind the new "talent".

So our down linemen were upgraded at EVERY spot from 09-10, and our defense regressed by Biblical proportions.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-28-2011, 08:27 AM
One could make an argument that that ranking is more indicative of superior defensive coaching than the degree of actual talent on the field. Just look at the Broncos. Were we really that less talented on defense in 2010 vs 2009, or could one point to the difference in coaching?

Sure, coaching had soemthing to do with it, obviously luck and circumstance does too. But football is kind of funny that way since 16 games, in the grand scheme of things, is still a somewhat low sample size.

OABB
03-28-2011, 08:30 AM
We need a great MLB more than anything. Our secondary an current line with doom would look a lot better with a MLB who can make a play in the hole.

Also, a great MLB would move dj to will where he would be great.

It's too bad the options are basically nill out there...

CEH
03-28-2011, 08:38 AM
One could make an argument that that ranking is more indicative of superior defensive coaching than the degree of actual talent on the field. Just look at the Broncos. Were we really that less talented on defense in 2010 vs 2009, or could one point to the difference in coaching?

Carolina 2001 28th in points allowed. 2002 5the in points allowed. Big difference and I expect Denver in 2011 to be at worst middle of the pack in defense

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 08:38 AM
We need a great MLB more than anything. Our secondary an current line with doom would look a lot better with a MLB who can make a play in the hole.

Also, a great MLB would move dj to will where he would be great.

It's too bad the options are basically nill out there...

ruud is out there, posz from buffalo i think too..

Inkana7
03-28-2011, 08:40 AM
Why do people still let Peter King write things for them?

RhymesayersDU
03-28-2011, 09:05 AM
Why do people still let Peter King write things for them?

I know! I've been waiting for your column to hit SI but they just don't appreciate good writing and solid football takes, apparently. What can you do, right?

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 09:05 AM
rotoworld, per denver post:
The Denver Post confirms that Alabama DT Marcell Dareus is the "leader in the clubhouse" to be the No. 2 pick in the draft.
Mike Mayock confirmed as much last week. While SI's Peter King reported Monday that Dareus' stock is "cooling off," that sounds like no more than a pre-draft smokescreen leaked by teams coveting Dareus. It's not hard to imagine the Bengals at No. 4, Browns at 6, 49ers at 7, Titans at 8, and Cowboys at 9 all wanting Dareus. He's the most scheme-versatile lineman in the draft.

Mediator12
03-28-2011, 09:35 AM
I'm sure Tom Brady was thinking just that after the 2005 AFC playoff game against us. Even when he tried to go elsewhere with the ball, Champ made him pay.

Champ was relevant that whole year because of the high risk/high reward cover zero blitz scheme. Not because the secondary was able to cover downfield without pressure. In fact, they were lucky early in that year because they took away the running game and made people be one dimsensional and allowed the DLine to get into their Go's and stunts on third downs and passing situations.

Champ was involved because they had pressure on the QB. Den high pressured Brady in that game and sent the farm after him. He was not able to dink and dunk down the field, he had to make quick decisions and throw quickly or get hammered just like The Giants did to him in that SB. The coverages were heavy rolled away from Champ and he still had trouble finding Targets in the heavy zone areas all game long.

Really not sure how that game was relevant to the current situation.

Mountain Bronco
03-28-2011, 10:01 AM
Like several other Mane posters, I am sick of having elite talent at the CB position and watching it get wasted because we have no DL. We need to pressure the QB and stop the run. Dominant DL's make average secondaries look great. It is far tougher to do the opposite.

Hey, I agree, I just don't believe that Fairley or Dareus are Dominant DL's and Petersen is without a doubt a dominant CB, and you have to get a dominant player at the #2 spot. I believe there isn't much of a drop from the Top DL guys to the second round DL guys in this draft, which is why I would pick Petersen.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 10:02 AM
Med, read the exchange again. While I of course agree with everything you're saying, we're not talking about group pressure. We're talking about one guy, one DT only changing a game by himself. Period. Not about blitzing 8 guys to get pressure.

My argument was that one DT can be schemed against just as easily as one CB can.....if not more easily so. The poster I was debating this point with essentially said you can take a CB out of a game by throwing the other way. I disagreed. Great CBs can make plays even when the ball isn't thrown to their guy, as Champ showed so obviously in that AFC playoff game against Brady.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-28-2011, 10:04 AM
Hey, I agree, I just don't believe that Fairley or Dareus are Dominant DL's and Petersen is without a doubt a dominant CB, and you have to get a dominant player at the #2 spot. I believe there isn't much of a drop from the Top DL guys to the second round DL guys in this draft, which is why I would pick Petersen.

I'm not sure how anyone who has ever watched fairley can think he doesn't have the potential to be dominant. If you want to question his character, or whatever, fine, but the guy was pretty unblockable last season.

Mediator12
03-28-2011, 10:06 AM
What a great DL can do is WAY less than people on this site have been giving them credit for.

Also, I think people have really been turning a blind eye to the horrid shelf life of DTs in the current NFL era.

...and that's not even mentioning the ridiculous bust rate.

The problem is the lack of balance in the discussion. No one wants to talk objectively about Peterson as a CB, only as a one time special CB. No one wants to talk about how DL affect every play versus CB's being limited to the playcall.

The points you make are valid, DT's have a hard transition at the next level because most of them simply use their athletic ability to impact at the college level. The ones who transition quickly had superior technique coming out to go with that atheltic ability. Guys like Suh, Alualu, and Terrance Knighton were pretty skilled coming out and able to play right away. Otherwise, it takes a couple of years to develop young DT's into consistent starters.

However, knowing it takes 2 years to get a normal DT up to speed as a draftee makes no sense on passing another year from drafting an impact player if one is available. Especially, when all the great Juniors declared in this draft and if you are lucky to get a shot at one next year you would have a much smaller talent pool.

The problem here is simple. DEN had an epically poor defense last year. How do you rebuild it. From back to front, or front to back. We have not had a solid DL since 2005. The defense has regressed every year since then with some really poor defensive decisions along the way. The one thing that is a constant is the well below league average front. They have become a terrible run defense and allowed teams to control the ball by the run or the pass. They have no way of limiting or creating matchup problems for opposing offenses.

I have explained my thoughts about what to do about this ad hominem. I will let Bucky Brooks do it for me now:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d81eefd84/article/draft-mailbag-why-not-take-peterson-at-no-1

Draft mailbag: Why not take Peterson at No. 1?

Bucky Brooks: Scouts traditionally avoid taking cornerbacks with the No. 1 overall pick because the position isn't valued in the same light as quarterbacks, left tackles or pass rushers. Those positions have a bigger impact on the passing game, and it is important for a team to have blue-chip players in place at those positions to have a shot at winning the Super Bowl. Although shutdown cornerbacks can significantly upgrade a defense's performance, it is rare to find a cover man capable of neutralizing the league's top pass catchers on a weekly basis. Revis and Nnamdi Asomugha are exceptions to the rule, but neither of their teams reached the Super Bowl despite their outstanding play. In fact, the argument is routinely made that pass rushers impact coverage far more than corners can impact the rush.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that Peterson is the best cornerback in the draft. He might be the most athletic player at the position, but teams routinely have success throwing in his direction. Take a close look at the Cotton Bowl game against Texas A&M for proof of a team unafraid to attack his side. Also, I worry about his size (6-foot-1, 219 pounds) because you simply don't see guys that big playing for a long time at cornerback. Granted, he can always move inside to safety, but you don't want to take a project that high when you're not certain that he can make the transition. While I love his athleticism, return skills and on-field savvy, I think there are other players on the board capable of making a bigger impact as the potential No. 1 pick.

oubronco
03-28-2011, 10:34 AM
rotoworld, per denver post:
The Denver Post confirms that Alabama DT Marcell Dareus is the "leader in the clubhouse" to be the No. 2 pick in the draft.
Mike Mayock confirmed as much last week. While SI's Peter King reported Monday that Dareus' stock is "cooling off," that sounds like no more than a pre-draft smokescreen leaked by teams coveting Dareus. It's not hard to imagine the Bengals at No. 4, Browns at 6, 49ers at 7, Titans at 8, and Cowboys at 9 all wanting Dareus. He's the most scheme-versatile lineman in the draft.

I like this alot :strong:

yerner
03-28-2011, 10:45 AM
I don't think Peterson is 6'1. So that isn't a concern anymore.

cmhargrove
03-28-2011, 10:46 AM
^ This. His point is a terrible one especially when you consider this:

Every down linemen starter (since that's what we're talking about) from the 2009 defense was either retained (Fields and McBean) or cut (Peterson) and the retained ones rode the bench behind the new "talent".

So our down linemen were upgraded at EVERY spot from 09-10, and our defense regressed by Biblical proportions.

Just a point of order. You used the term "upgraded." The linemen were indeed changed, but you used the term upgraded.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 10:52 AM
Just a point of order. You used the term "upgraded." The linemen were indeed changed, but you used the term upgraded.

By definition, if you are a starter in 2009 and remain on the team, but lose your starting job to a new guy in 2010, that means the 2010 starter is better than the 2009 starter. Unless you think they were rewarding guys who were in fact inferior for some reason...or you define "upgrade" differently.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 10:58 AM
Just a point of order. You used the term "upgraded." The linemen were indeed changed, but you used the term upgraded.

Uhh

Then... what do YOU call it when the prior starters now become back ups to better players...?

mhgaffney
03-28-2011, 11:07 AM
Elway could be the best thing that happened to the Broncos since he retired.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 11:27 AM
That was not one guy on the DLine (which is the specific argument I'm responding to above). That was an entire rotation of 5-6 studs hammering him all game long. One great guy on the DLine can be negated at least as easily, if not easier, than one great CB.

But at somepoint you have to start somewhere.

When you consider our DL looks like the following we need to draft DL early and often:

DE - Doom -coming off IR will he be as explosive in the 4-3?
DE - Ayers - High pick who did little as a 3-4 OLB being moved to DE
DT - Thomas - Is he still on the team?
DT - Vickerson - Rotational guy at best has some potential but not elite
DT - McBean - Rotational backup
DT - Leonard - ???
DT - Unrein - ???
DT - Fields - Old Rotational backup

To get to the 5-6 rotational guys that the Gints had guys like Strahan or Uminoria (sp?) we need to draft early in the 1st day. If they don't like the guys listed at DT that would go in the top 5 or even 1st round then trade back and stock pile picks.

I think the most important thing is not to pick 1 of only 2 guys at 2nd overall, if they want to fill alot of holes with alot of 2nd and 3rd or even 4th rounders then trade back off of 2 overall. The key is not thinking you have to take a guy just because he is there.

Beantown Bronco
03-28-2011, 11:34 AM
I hear you, Steven, but this is what I'm thinking now:

Our starting DEs of Dumervil and Ayers have the potential to be a top 5 DE unit in this league IMO. Clearly, our DTs are not on that level, but as you say, we can deal with that in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if need be.....especially in a draft this deep. If we could snag a guy like Peterson, we'd be looking at a top 5 DE and CB tandem in the entire league. AND we could still address DT heavily in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, where there could be real good value. And it is my opinion that a new CBA would make a free agent out of Aubrayo Franklin out of San Fran. I'd back up the Brinks truck for him in a NY minute. INSTANT huge upgrade at DT and a perfect mentor for the youngins.

That leaves LB and safety. This draft sucks for both, but there's got to be at least one of each available via trade or FA that could fill in for a year or two until better draft talent comes along.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 11:44 AM
I hear you, Steven, but this is what I'm thinking now:

Our starting DEs of Dumervil and Ayers have the potential to be a top 5 DE unit in this league IMO. Clearly, our DTs are not on that level, but as you say, we can deal with that in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if need be.....especially in a draft this deep. If we could snag a guy like Peterson, we'd be looking at a top 5 DE and CB tandem in the entire league. AND we could still address DT heavily in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, where there could be real good value. And it is my opinion that a new CBA would make a free agent out of Aubrayo Franklin out of San Fran. I'd back up the Brinks truck for him in a NY minute. INSTANT huge upgrade at DT and a perfect mentor for the youngins.

That leaves LB and safety. This draft sucks for both, but there's got to be at least one of each available via trade or FA that could fill in for a year or two until better draft talent comes along.


If our 1st 3 rounds looked like this I would be happy:

1 CB - Peterson
2 DT
3 DT

As long as it was the guys they wanted to build around.

I would like to see them back off #2 stock pile a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks so we could still get a good TE, FB, and maybe some OL depth in addtion to a couple DT's.

The trap I am afraid we will fall in is that if we get Peterson it will take a couple more drafts to fill the roster whereas if we can move back we can pick up some needed depth early.

It is going to be a tough call for the FO.

schaaf
03-28-2011, 11:47 AM
If our 1st 3 rounds looked like this I would be happy:

1 CB - Peterson
2 DT
3 DT

As long as it was the guys they wanted to build around.

I would like to see them back off #2 stock pile a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks so we could still get a good TE, FB, and maybe some OL depth in addtion to a couple DT's.

The trap I am afraid we will fall in is that if we get Peterson it will take a couple more drafts to fill the roster whereas if we can move back we can pick up some needed depth early.

It is going to be a tough call for the FO.

I would be ecstatic if we could get Peterson, then when Liuget is there in the mid twenties trade up and pick him (I believe 4 years from now he will have been the best DT in this draft)

Broncoman13
03-28-2011, 12:00 PM
Would love to see the Broncos move back to around #5. Draft Fairley/Dareus or even trade down again. If we can turn the #2 into a couple of first round selections, we will be much better off. Dareus or Fairley alone won't fix this defensive line.

We would be better off getting a couple DLinemen in the first round and even still, counting on rookies to fix the DL is a dangerous expectation. I would be thrilled if we could land a guy like Fairley at #5 and then add a guy like Paea or Taylor later in the first with a trade up.

FYI, a trade from #2 to #5 would most likely gain a first in 2012 and a 2nd this year. Three 2nds would make it pretty easy to trade back into the first this year.

I also like this scenario b/c it gives Elway the ammo to move up in 2012 for his QB. I don't think he'll ever love Tim Tebow, but he sure does love Andrew Luck!

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 12:02 PM
Would love to see the Broncos move back to around #5. Draft Fairley/Dareus or even trade down again. If we can turn the #2 into a couple of first round selections, we will be much better off. Dareus or Fairley alone won't fix this defensive line.

We would be better off getting a couple DLinemen in the first round and even still, counting on rookies to fix the DL is a dangerous expectation. I would be thrilled if we could land a guy like Fairley at #5 and then add a guy like Paea or Taylor later in the first with a trade up.

FYI, a trade from #2 to #5 would most likely gain a first in 2012 and a 2nd this year. Three 2nds would make it pretty easy to trade back into the first this year.

I also like this scenario b/c it gives Elway the ammo to move up in 2012 for his QB. I don't think he'll ever love Tim Tebow, but he sure does love Andrew Luck!

I agree, I think there are more options if we trade down but if the FO thinks Peterson is what the hype says then I won't be pissed if we land him as long as they draft DT later this year.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Would love to see the Broncos move back to around #5. Draft Fairley/Dareus or even trade down again. If we can turn the #2 into a couple of first round selections, we will be much better off. Dareus or Fairley alone won't fix this defensive line.

We would be better off getting a couple DLinemen in the first round and even still, counting on rookies to fix the DL is a dangerous expectation. I would be thrilled if we could land a guy like Fairley at #5 and then add a guy like Paea or Taylor later in the first with a trade up.

FYI, a trade from #2 to #5 would most likely gain a first in 2012 and a 2nd this year. Three 2nds would make it pretty easy to trade back into the first this year.

I also like this scenario b/c it gives Elway the ammo to move up in 2012 for his QB. I don't think he'll ever love Tim Tebow, but he sure does love Andrew Luck!

Im sure AZ would balk at that trade, but i'd do it for the 2nd alone. Sure, it doesnt "match the value" but i have a feeling denver would be happy with any of the 4 defensive guys...so anything we'd get would be gravy

Broncoman13
03-28-2011, 12:34 PM
Im sure AZ would balk at that trade, but i'd do it for the 2nd alone. Sure, it doesnt "match the value" but i have a feeling denver would be happy with any of the 4 defensive guys...so anything we'd get would be gravy

It goes way against the value. At the very least I could see a 2nd this year and a 2nd next year. But historically, it's worth a first the following year and a 2nd the same year... and that was when the $$$ due to the #2 was about 40% greater than the #5 pick. The scale coming down for first round picks (2nd-7th to stay as it is currently, supposedly) will really allow teams to move up into those top 3 selections. Instead of paying a #2 $25m in bonuses and $50-60m overall, they will most likely be in the 4 year $20m range with only $5m or so guaranteed. Much less risk involved to trade up to those top 5 spots.

Mountain Bronco
03-28-2011, 12:35 PM
I'm not sure how anyone who has ever watched fairley can think he doesn't have the potential to be dominant. If you want to question his character, or whatever, fine, but the guy was pretty unblockable last season.

So were a lot of DT busts in college. Potential is a very big word.

LonghornBronco
03-28-2011, 01:14 PM
Do what it takes to pry Cincy's #1 next year from them...

Broncoman13
03-28-2011, 01:29 PM
Do what it takes to pry Cincy's #1 next year from them...

Depends on whether they want a QB and whether they believe the Bills will select one at #3. IF they want a QB and believe that the Bills will nab one in front of them, the #2 is well worth it for them.

Cito Pelon
03-28-2011, 01:33 PM
Hey, I agree, I just don't believe that Fairley or Dareus are Dominant DL's and Petersen is without a doubt a dominant CB, and you have to get a dominant player at the #2 spot. I believe there isn't much of a drop from the Top DL guys to the second round DL guys in this draft, which is why I would pick Petersen.

That's the big deal right there.

Chris
03-28-2011, 02:01 PM
there is seriously nobody on this site that argues this with you.. The thing that people are arguing is that you cant just take a D-Lineman with the number 2 overall pick if he is not going to be a complete stud. Most scouts feel that Peterson is going to be a beast in the NFL and most aren't sold on either Dareus or Fairley. Just because thats what you need most doesn't mean we should take him there.

And once again there is more than one move to be made in the offseason.

Why can't you? Look at how the widely panned Jags pick Alualu turned out at #10 last year.

cmhargrove
03-28-2011, 03:33 PM
Uhh

Then... what do YOU call it when the prior starters now become back ups to better players...?

Looking at the 2010 season, I would call it a step backwards.

That One Guy
03-28-2011, 03:49 PM
Med, read the exchange again. While I of course agree with everything you're saying, we're not talking about group pressure. We're talking about one guy, one DT only changing a game by himself. Period. Not about blitzing 8 guys to get pressure.

My argument was that one DT can be schemed against just as easily as one CB can.....if not more easily so. The poster I was debating this point with essentially said you can take a CB out of a game by throwing the other way. I disagreed. Great CBs can make plays even when the ball isn't thrown to their guy, as Champ showed so obviously in that AFC playoff game against Brady.

You make a valid point. I still think it's easier to take a CB out of a game than a DL but it's not as simple as I guess I portrayed. If you put 3 of me and the best D lineman on the field together, yes they could ignore me and negate his impact. However, you put a competent support cast out there and a strong overall DL corps is more influential than a strong CB corps. Maybe that's more toward what I was envisioning.

Broncobiv
03-28-2011, 04:22 PM
Well screw it, let's just trade back and stockpile picks. Then we can draft 3 DL in the first 2 rounds (so we don't put ALL our eggs in the Dareus/Fairly basket), hope that at least 2 of them pan out, and *pray* that passing on Peterson doesn't turn into another Ed Reed situation!

SonOfLe-loLang
03-28-2011, 05:09 PM
So were a lot of DT busts in college. Potential is a very big word.

Well, duh, but thats true of every player ever drafted in the history of the NFL.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 05:11 PM
Looking at the 2010 season, I would call it a step backwards.

I'm speechless. That's the conclusion you came to? You believe that and argued against this:

One could make an argument that that ranking is more indicative of superior defensive coaching than the degree of actual talent on the field. Just look at the Broncos. Were we really that less talented on defense in 2010 vs 2009, or could one point to the difference in coaching?

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 05:30 PM
Champ was relevant that whole year because of the high risk/high reward cover zero blitz scheme. Not because the secondary was able to cover downfield without pressure. In fact, they were lucky early in that year because they took away the running game and made people be one dimsensional and allowed the DLine to get into their Go's and stunts on third downs and passing situations.

Champ was involved because they had pressure on the QB. Den high pressured Brady in that game and sent the farm after him. He was not able to dink and dunk down the field, he had to make quick decisions and throw quickly or get hammered just like The Giants did to him in that SB. The coverages were heavy rolled away from Champ and he still had trouble finding Targets in the heavy zone areas all game long.

Really not sure how that game was relevant to the current situation.

So much pressure in that NE game that we netted 0 sacks :)

...and we only brought 5 on the INT game changer by Bailey. Ferguson was the only blitzer. By the way, great cover guys provide the opportunity to blitz someone like Ferguson :)

The problem is the lack of balance in the discussion. No one wants to talk objectively about Peterson as a CB, only as a one time special CB. No one wants to talk about how DL affect every play versus CB's being limited to the playcall.

Because that's just plainly not true? By all means, explain to me how in god's name you think you think that is the case?

Personally, I'd say someone who can come up and stuff the run on the edge on the LOS after making their reads, pick the ball, and tighten gap assignments by allowing an 8th man in the box to be very effective every down.

Oh... and he'd play about 100% of the snaps instead 50, soooooooooo....

The points you make are valid, DT's have a hard transition at the next level because most of them simply use their athletic ability to impact at the college level. The ones who transition quickly had superior technique coming out to go with that atheltic ability. Guys like Suh, Alualu, and Terrance Knighton were pretty skilled coming out and able to play right away. Otherwise, it takes a couple of years to develop young DT's into consistent starters.

However, knowing it takes 2 years to get a normal DT up to speed as a draftee makes no sense on passing another year from drafting an impact player if one is available. Especially, when all the great Juniors declared in this draft and if you are lucky to get a shot at one next year you would have a much smaller talent pool.

The problem here is simple. DEN had an epically poor defense last year. How do you rebuild it. From back to front, or front to back.

Neither: By taking the best ****ing player so we aren't so goddamn talent starved on the defensive side of the ball for once.

We have not had a solid DL since 2005. The defense has regressed every year since then with some really poor defensive decisions along the way. The one thing that is a constant is the well below league average front. They have become a terrible run defense and allowed teams to control the ball by the run or the pass. They have no way of limiting or creating matchup problems for opposing offenses.

I have explained my thoughts about what to do about this ad hominem. I will let Bucky Brooks do it for me now:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d81eefd84/article/draft-mailbag-why-not-take-peterson-at-no-1

Draft mailbag: Why not take Peterson at No. 1?

Bucky? Really? You can do much better than this. I'm disappointed.

FireFly
03-28-2011, 05:30 PM
I really hope we trade back - I'm not hearing consistently good things about any of the players that are expected to go top 5 - except for Peterson, and I'm in the no to a #2 overall CB camp.

I'd take BPA at #5, be that Miller, Fairley, Peterson or other

CEH
03-28-2011, 05:37 PM
So much pressure in that NE game that we netted 0 sacks :)

...and we only brought 5 on the INT game changer by Bailey. Ferguson was the only blitzer. By the way, great cover guys provide the opportunity to blitz someone like Ferguson :)



No sacks but pressure all game long. In fact after halftime BB had Brady rolling out away from the blitzer that was how they adjusted at halftime
When was the last time you saw Brady in planned rollouts

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 05:38 PM
The problem is the lack of balance in the discussion. No one wants to talk objectively about Peterson as a CB, only as a one time special CB. No one wants to talk about how DL affect every play versus CB's being limited to the playcall.

Forgot to add this part in and had to because it's funny:

Brb completely neutralizing an aggressive schemed 3T DT for the entire game by running a couple screens and draws

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 05:39 PM
No sacks but pressure all game long. In fact after halftime BB had Brady rolling out away from the blitzer that was how they adjusted at halftime
When was the last time you saw Brady in planned rollouts

I think you missed the point of Beantown's post?

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 05:43 PM
Forgot to add this part in and had to because it's funny:

Brb completely neutralizing an aggressive schemed 3T DT for the entire game by running a couple screens and draws

you are saying an effective pass rushing DT is not required for a good defense because a draw is a defense against them, but a shutdown corner IS required?

if you want peterson over the DTs because hes a better player is one thing, to want him because you convinced yourself that a CB makes a bigger difference to a defense than an effective DL is insane.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 06:02 PM
you are saying an effective pass rushing DT is not required for a good defense because a draw is a defense against them, but a shutdown corner IS required?

if you want peterson over the DTs because hes a better player is one thing, to want him because you convinced yourself that a CB makes a bigger difference to a defense than an effective DL is insane.

No. Neither are REQUIRED. Talent that can execute and effective coaching is what is required for a great defense.

And fine then, support your belief?

Because mine is supported by not only what I've said, but NFL payroll as well

tsiguy96
03-28-2011, 06:42 PM
No. Neither are REQUIRED. Talent that can execute and effective coaching is what is required for a great defense.

And fine then, support your belief?

Because mine is supported by not only what I've said, but NFL payroll as well

belief? look at the best defenses in the league, they all get pressure on the QB. look at the top draft picks over the last decades, year in and year out DL are taken before CB. 2 of the top 3 CB over last 4 years havent been to playoffs in that time, and revis made it when he got a defensive mastermind of the blitz coaching, aka getting pressure on the QB leading to true effectiveness of a CB. if a QB has all day to throw, it doesnt matter whos in the backfield, someone will get open.

orange crusher
03-28-2011, 06:45 PM
there is seriously nobody on this site that argues this with you.. The thing that people are arguing is that you cant just take a D-Lineman with the number 2 overall pick if he is not going to be a complete stud. Most scouts feel that Peterson is going to be a beast in the NFL and most aren't sold on either Dareus or Fairley. Just because thats what you need most doesn't mean we should take him there.

And once again there is more than one move to be made in the offseason.

Please list the scouts that believe Peterson is going to be a complete stud and that they aren't sold on Dareus. I'm not buying it.

oubronco
03-28-2011, 07:00 PM
belief? look at the best defenses in the league, they all get pressure on the QB. look at the top draft picks over the last decades, year in and year out DL are taken before CB. 2 of the top 3 CB over last 4 years havent been to playoffs in that time, and revis made it when he got a defensive mastermind of the blitz coaching, aka getting pressure on the QB leading to true effectiveness of a CB. if a QB has all day to throw, it doesnt matter whos in the backfield, someone will get open.

This is so true, you let a QB sit back there all day and he will find someone open even against the best DB's. You have to pressure the QB with your D-line and we haven't been able to for far too long

oubronco
03-28-2011, 07:01 PM
Please list the scouts that believe Peterson is going to be a complete stud and that they aren't sold on Dareus. I'm not buying it.

I would like to see this as well

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 07:05 PM
belief? look at the best defenses in the league, they all get pressure on the QB. look at the top draft picks over the last decades, year in and year out DL are taken before CB. 2 of the top 3 CB over last 4 years havent been to playoffs in that time, and revis made it when he got a defensive mastermind of the blitz coaching, aka getting pressure on the QB leading to true effectiveness of a CB. if a QB has all day to throw, it doesnt matter whos in the backfield, someone will get open.

Revis and Rex?

Good example. Let's look at them.

And let's not just take my word for it... let's go with the greatest defensive mind since Jimmy Johnson and Dick Lebeau

“Quite honestly, he’s the best player in football,” Ryan said, in comments distributed by the team. “That is what you saw out there. Hold Reggie Wayne, who led the league in catches, I think he had 111 catches, to one catch for one yard. That tells you how good Darrelle Revis is. I know he’s probably not going to win the Defensive Player of the Year award, but the impact he has is amazing. We were able to do some coverages during the game where we actually played man-coverage strictly on his side regardless of who the receiver was and roll their coverage away from it. You only do that if you have Darrelle Revis. He’s an amazing once-in-a-life-time player and we took advantage of him.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/10/rex-ryan-darrelle-revis-is-the-best-player-in-the-nfl/

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 07:06 PM
What you guys need to understand is that a great cover player provides more than just coverage.

It provides pressure whether in the form of a free blitz'er due to man coverage/shifted zones or coverage sacks.

It provides run support with pinched gaps.

It effects EVERYTHING.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 07:27 PM
What you guys need to understand is that a great cover player provides more than just coverage.

It provides pressure whether in the form of a free blitz'er due to man coverage/shifted zones or coverage sacks.

It provides run support with pinched gaps.

It effects EVERYTHING.

How many of those does one team need? We have Champ who may not be what he was a couple years ago but he would start on every team in the NFL.

If we had 2 CB's with that kind of talent but still can't stop run what good are they?

I would keep the known quantity in Champ and try to help him out by getting pressure on the QB with the front 7.

Still not sure what is going on with Cox but between him, Squid and Goodman along with Champ we are ok at CB. Right now the pressing need is up front.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 07:34 PM
How many of those does one team need? We have Champ who may not be what he was a couple years ago but he would start on every team in the NFL.

If we had 2 CB's with that kind of talent but still can't stop run what good are they?

If we had 2 CB's that good and STILL couldn't stop the run it's either a massive coaching deficiency or they're NOT that good Ha!

I would keep the known quantity in Champ and try to help him out by getting pressure on the QB with the front 7.

Still not sure what is going on with Cox but between him, Squid and Goodman along with Champ we are ok at CB. Right now the pressing need is up front.

I would go with the BEST player considering our defensive is so talent raped.

Do me a favor and this will be fun... Name some strong 4-3 Defenses with a great DT. Or when was the last time Fox himself had one?

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 07:39 PM
Bears? No

Giants? No

Eagles? Hell no

Vikings? Yes

And I guess we could really stretch the word strong just to include the Raiders so this doesn't seem TOO one sided.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 07:44 PM
If we had 2 CB's that good and STILL couldn't stop the run it's either a massive coaching deficiency or they're NOT that good Ha!



I would go with the BEST player considering our defensive is so talent raped.

Do me a favor and this will be fun... Name some strong 4-3 Defenses with a great DT. Or when was the last time Fox himself had one?

I think Suh or Raji could play 4-3 DT well and be difference makers with teams going to the 3-4 I have to go back to the past.

Keith Traylor and Ted Washington made a great pair. Duh bear had a good DT in Harris before he got hurt. Sapp contributed to a great Buc's D. Neil Smith got Denver's D over the hump and made an impact at KFC for years before that.

I agree the DE's may be game changers (guys like Peppers) but without one good DT or a stable of rotational guys you are never going to stop the run in the 4-3.

oubronco
03-28-2011, 07:48 PM
If we had 2 CB's that good and STILL couldn't stop the run it's either a massive coaching deficiency or they're NOT that good Ha!

Are you saying that if you have 2 good cb's that makes the run defense better? How so? Cause if your CB's are making tackles which makes your run defense better then your front seven are sucking and we've seen that before

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 07:50 PM
I think Suh or Raji could play 4-3 DT well and be difference makers with teams going to the 3-4 I have to go back to the past.

1. Suh kinda DOES play in a 4-3...

2. What does that have to do with it?

Keith Traylor and Ted Washington made a great pair. Duh bear had a good DT in Harris before he got hurt. Sapp contributed to a great Buc's D. Neil Smith got Denver's D over the hump and made an impact at KFC for years before that.

So you're using the past 15 years of history to find examples and you could only come up with 4?

I meant right NOW, but okay.

I agree the DE's may be game changers (guys like Peppers) but without one good DT or a stable of rotational guys you are never going to stop the run in the 4-3.

So we need to sacrifice talent with #2 overall or we'll never be able to achieve this extremely high bench mark!?!?!?!?!

orange crusher
03-28-2011, 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12
We have not had a solid DL since 2005. The defense has regressed every year since then with some really poor defensive decisions along the way. The one thing that is a constant is the well below league average front. They have become a terrible run defense and allowed teams to control the ball by the run or the pass. They have no way of limiting or creating matchup problems for opposing offenses.

I have explained my thoughts about what to do about this ad hominem. I will let Bucky Brooks do it for me now:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000...terson-at-no-1

Draft mailbag: Why not take Peterson at No. 1?


Bucky? Really? You can do much better than this. I'm disappointed.

Bucky Brooks isn't one of my favorite analysts, but I don't disagree with anything he said there. Anyone have any thoughts on why Peterson struggled against Fuller in the Cotton Bowl. Did A&M take advantage of a weakness in his game? Did he just have a bad game?

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 07:56 PM
Are you saying that if you have 2 good cb's that makes the run defense better? How so? Cause if your CB's are making tackles which makes your run defense better then your front seven are sucking and we've seen that before

Yes. And I've already explained this multiple times.

Do you know what gap assignments are?

A seven man front requires some solid play and discipline to maintain those assignments.

An eight man front tightens the assignments (in simple-ist terms I can think of for you: in some ways it's like going from 2 gap to 1 gap) and allows for more aggressive attacking of running lanes.

A great cover player allows an 8th (and sometimes 9th) man in the box. Like Rex said "The impact he has is amazing and we took advantage of him"

oubronco
03-28-2011, 07:58 PM
Yes. And I've already explained this multiple times.

Do you know what gap assignments are?

A seven man front requires some solid play and discipline to maintain those assignments.

An eight man front tightens the assignments (in simple-ist terms I can think of for you: in some ways it's like going from 2 gap to 1 gap) and allows for more aggressive attacking of running lanes.

A great cover player allows an 8th (and sometimes 9th) man in the box. Like Rex said "The impact he has is amazing and we took advantage of him"

Dude you just need to get off your knees and give Peterson a break he really isn't that good

driver
03-28-2011, 07:58 PM
[QUOTE]I think the most important thing is not to pick 1 of only 2 guys at 2nd overall, if they want to fill alot of holes with alot of 2nd and 3rd or even 4th rounders then trade back off of 2 overall. The key is not thinking you have to take a guy just because he is there.

You got it! There are no SUH"s in this draft, everyone knows this, but there are a lot of good DT's and DE's and some Lb's with some ability that will be available in the later rounds. We need more picks. Trade back! Peterson might be the best player but he won"t make a nickels worth of difference to our run D.
We have to draft for need. Our weaknesses are glaring on the line and LB's.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:02 PM
Bucky Brooks isn't one of my favorite analysts, but I don't disagree with anything he said there. Anyone have any thoughts on why Peterson struggled against Fuller in the Cotton Bowl. Did A&M take advantage of a weakness in his game? Did he just have a bad game?

Because he didn't. Fuller also only had 83 yards for 7 catches on the day, compared to Tolliver's 112 and 3 TDs. They were having success staying away from Peterson who was NOT man to man on Fuller all day.

Not that he was perfect: From my notes he gave up 2 man catches to Fuller.

Edit: And potentially 1-2 more from zones that I can't tell if it was his responsibility from TV angles.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:02 PM
Dude you just need to get off your knees and give Peterson a break he really isn't that good

Great post. Thanks for bringing that astounding take to the discussion since you couldn't post anything of actual value.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:05 PM
1. Suh kinda DOES play in a 4-3...

2. What does that have to do with it?



So you're using the past 15 years of history to find examples and you could only come up with 4?

I meant right NOW, but okay.



So we need to sacrifice talent with #2 overall or we'll never be able to achieve this extremely high bench mark!?!?!?!?!

Won't you give me credit for using my aging memory and not relying on google searches to back my argument?

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:07 PM
Yes. And I've already explained this multiple times.

Do you know what gap assignments are?

A seven man front requires some solid play and discipline to maintain those assignments.

An eight man front tightens the assignments (in simple-ist terms I can think of for you: in some ways it's like going from 2 gap to 1 gap) and allows for more aggressive attacking of running lanes.

A great cover player allows an 8th (and sometimes 9th) man in the box. Like Rex said "The impact he has is amazing and we took advantage of him"

How many amazing cover guys do you need? We have one already? We have Thomas, Vickerson, Fields and McBean at DT the best thing for this D is getting guys that keep those 4 scrubs on the bench or in limited rotational situations.

oubronco
03-28-2011, 08:07 PM
Great post. Thanks for bringing that astounding take to the discussion since you couldn't post anything of actual value.

Man seriously you've been on a crusade for a month about Peterson being the best ever and how he's going to make the defensive line better and impact the run defense and all , I mean come on he's a corner did having champ impact the run defense? Did Assamuncha or Revis impact the run defense? No the front seven impacts the run defense because they are the run defense it doesn't matter gap this or gap that if your front seven suck your run defense sucks plain and simple

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:08 PM
Won't you give me credit for using my aging memory and not relying on google searches to back my argument?

Always and forever sweetheart.

And if Dareus or Fairley were Warren Sapp, then he'd clearly be the best player in the draft and I'd be dying to get our mitts on him.

This isn't about position vs position (though CB is way more valuable in a 4-3 :) ), it's about the getting the best ****ing player on our defense.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:08 PM
Man seriously you've been on a crusade for a month about Peterson being the best ever and how he's going to make the defensive line better and impact the run defense and all , I mean come on he's a corner did having champ impact the run defense? Did Assamuncha or Revis impact the run defense? No the front seven impacts the run defense because they are the run defense it doesn't matter gap this or gap that if your front seven suck your run defense sucks plain and simple

I think Rev needs a hug.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:10 PM
Man seriously you've been on a crusade for a month about Peterson being the best ever and how he's going to make the defensive line better and impact the run defense and all , I mean come on he's a corner did having champ impact the run defense? Did Assamuncha or Revis impact the run defense? No the front seven impacts the run defense because they are the run defense it doesn't matter gap this or gap that if your front seven suck your run defense sucks plain and simple

Best ever?

No, I've saying he's the best player in the draft. I'm sorry for your illiteracy issues. Must be embarrassing.

Quite a few people agree with me:

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=97506

And, yes, do I have to post the Rex quote a-****ing-gain? Is your reading THAT bad?

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:13 PM
Always and forever sweetheart.

And if Dareus or Fairley were Warren Sapp, then he'd clearly be the best player in the draft and I'd be dying to get our mitts on him.

This isn't about position vs position (though CB is way more valuable in a 4-3 :) ), it's about the getting the best ****ing player on our defense.

Can I give you something to think about.

Who where the CB's on the 85 bears, the 2002 Ravens? 2 of the best D's in the modern era?

Would you say that their front 7's defined who they were?

oubronco
03-28-2011, 08:15 PM
Best ever?

No, I've saying he's the best player in the draft. I'm sorry for your illiteracy issues. Must be embarrassing.

Quite a few people agree with me:

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=97506

And, yes, do I have to post the Rex quote a-****ing-gain? Is your reading THAT bad?

Your the one saying he's the best cb since sliced bread and I don't give a shyt what Ryan ****ing said so go ahead and quote it a-****ing-gain

Peterson is good but he isn't a pimple on Champ, Woodson, Assamuncha, or Revis's ass's

Missouribronc
03-28-2011, 08:15 PM
Can I give you something to think about.

Who where the CB's on the 85 bears, the 2002 Ravens? 2 of the best D's in the modern era?

Would you say that their front 7's defined who they were?

Oh, hell no. Patrick Peterson is the greatest cornerback to ever live. Bow down.

oubronco
03-28-2011, 08:15 PM
Can I give you something to think about.

Who where the CB's on the 85 bears, the 2002 Ravens? 2 of the best D's in the modern era?

Would you say that their front 7's defined who they were?

No they sucked cause they didn't have Peterson :approve:

oubronco
03-28-2011, 08:18 PM
Good night all

Mediator12
03-28-2011, 08:19 PM
So much pressure in that NE game that we netted 0 sacks :)

...and we only brought 5 on the INT game changer by Bailey. Ferguson was the only blitzer. By the way, great cover guys provide the opportunity to blitz someone like Ferguson :)

Pressure is 12 hurries and 7 knockdowns with those zero sacks.

On the INT, how about it was Disguised pressure? It was an eight men on the LOS with cover zero look that turned into cover 3 zone blitz. Brady rolled right into the coverage and made a bad throw.

Because that's just plainly not true? By all means, explain to me how in god's name you think you think that is the case?

Personally, I'd say someone who can come up and stuff the run on the edge on the LOS after making their reads, pick the ball, and tighten gap assignments by allowing an 8th man in the box to be very effective every down.

If you play him in press man every down and he is the shutdown CB you think he is, then maybe, just maybe that could be true. However, he got his ass kicked versus Texas A&M and a solid pro pass offense and gameplan where he got left on an island. Jeff Fuller ate him alive for 7 catches and 5 first downs. He also made 3 run support tackles 7 yards down the field, not at the LOS like you are dreaming about because he turned his head and RAN WITH the WR in off man coverage. That is what happens when you play press man, the CB's CAN NOT pinch the Edge because they are busy being run out of the play. So, is he going to play shutdown on an island or zone?

Oh... and he'd play about 100% of the snaps instead 50, soooooooooo....

Yeah he would play about 100% of the snaps, yet he would influence less than 50 with a real gameplan ;D And, those he does influence are nowhere near as effective as Revis or Asomugha right now. Could he be that good, absolutely. Will he be, no one knows. However, if he never becomes the elite SD CB then taking him at one is a complete waste just like drafting an average DT at one would be. It is all about risk, and Peterson has just as much at #1 as any DT.


Neither: By taking the best ****ing player so we aren't so goddamn talent starved on the defensive side of the ball for once.

Talent Starved is talent starved. The guys at the top of the draft are NOT talent starved. Peterson is good, but he is not that much better than Dareus to even try this argument. That is simply reactionary. You would think you played DB or something :wave:

Bucky? Really? You can do much better than this. I'm disappointed.

Bucky is a solid Former NFL scout. Not the greatest in the world, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. Trying to dismiss his argument out of hand by saying "really" does not even come close to addressing the fact he is only re-iterating what I said 3 months ago. It is a solid argument that no one has refuted, including you.

DL affect every single play because they line up right beside the damn ball. They have to be accounted for every time you run or pass unless you play a zone running scheme. And then, the DE's on the back side are left free, not the DT's. CB's can be taken completely out of the game by running right at them in man coverage, away from their side altogether, and by designing a passing game that exploits the other weaknesses in a teams coverages.

The top CB's play in almost exclusively press/bail man scheme's. They do allow teams to rotate coverage to the other side of the field, but guess what, almost every coverage rotates one way or the other and it is just as easy to design a gameplan to exploit that if you know before hand which side of the field that rotation will go. The problem is facing a team that can execute it and Run the ball.

However, this crap about shutdown CB's affecting the running game is just that, crap. Shutdown CB's do not directly affect a running game like Dominant DT's. They shut down a top WR and possibly slightly influence the running game. DT's can affect both every play. Stop trying to make Peterson superman. All he is right now is a prospect, and a damn good one. However, he is not going to change football. He might not be good enough to even be in the same league as Revis and Asomugha.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:19 PM
Rev is either typing up a long meltdown reply which may or may not include threats to leave the Mange forever or he is googling the rosters of the 85 and 2000 teams and is stumped as to why neither of the best D's in the modern history of the league had shutdown CB's.


That or he found something better to do.
I kid because I love...

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:20 PM
Can I give you something to think about.

Who where the CB's on the 85 bears, the 2002 Ravens? 2 of the best D's in the modern era?

Would you say that their front 7's defined who they were?

1. Year 2000 Ravens.

2. They had Chris McAlister (2x all pro 3x probowler) and Rod ****ing Woodson (playing safety--HoF'er, 8x all pro, 11 time pro bowler)

3. Bears had Wilbur Marshall (2x all pro 3x probowler)

4. Both teams were defined by their LBs (Ray Lewis and Mike Singletary)

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:21 PM
Rev is either typing up a long meltdown reply which may or may not include threats to leave the Mange forever or he is googling the rosters of the 85 and 2000 teams and is stumped as to why neither of the best D's in the modern history of the league had shutdown CB's.


That or he found something better to do.
I kid because I love...

Why would I meltdown because you have yet to make a successful point?

Brb, reading and replying to Med's since the rest of you clearly aren't worth my time.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:22 PM
Bucky is a solid Former NFL scout. Not the greatest in the world, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. Trying to dismiss his argument out of hand by saying "really" does not even come close to addressing the fact he is only re-iterating what I said 3 months ago. It is a solid argument that no one has refuted, including you.

DL affect every single play because they line up right beside the damn ball. They have to be accounted for every time you run or pass unless you play a zone running scheme. And then, the DE's on the back side are left free, not the DT's. CB's can be taken completely out of the game by running right at them in man coverage, away from their side altogether, and by designing a passing game that exploits the other weaknesses in a teams coverages.

The top CB's play in almost exclusively press/bail man scheme's. They do allow teams to rotate coverage to the other side of the field, but guess what, almost every coverage rotates one way or the other and it is just as easy to design a gameplan to exploit that if you know before hand which side of the field that rotation will go. The problem is facing a team that can execute it and Run the ball.

However, this crap about shutdown CB's affecting the running game is just that, crap. Shutdown CB's do not directly affect a running game like Dominant DT's. They shut down a top WR and possibly slightly influence the running game. DT's can affect both every play. Stop trying to make Peterson superman. All he is right now is a prospect, and a damn good one. However, he is not going to change football. He might not be good enough to even be in the same league as Revis and Asomugha.

Rep for quality football analysis that makes this place worth wading through daily crapola.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:24 PM
1. Year 2000 Ravens.

2. They had Chris McAlister (2x all pro 3x probowler) and Rod ****ing Woodson (playing safety--HoF'er, 8x all pro, 11 time pro bowler)

3. Bears had Wilbur Marshall (2x all pro 3x probowler)

4. Both teams were defined by their LBs (Ray Lewis and Mike Singletary)

You forgot Sam Adams and some dude people called "The Fridge".

BTW Safety's don't count cause if they did you forgot the dude who the 46 D was named after.

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:26 PM
Why would I meltdown because you have yet to make a successful point?

Brb, reading and replying to Med's since the rest of you clearly aren't worth my time.

Admit it, you at least thought about your "Goodbye world" thread!

broncosteven
03-28-2011, 08:32 PM
Good night all

It's past my bed time also.

Night Rev.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:39 PM
Pressure is 12 hurries and 7 knockdowns with those zero sacks.

I wouldn't be thumping my chest over 12 whole pressures in 36 drop backs, but that's just me.

On the INT, how about it was Disguised pressure? It was an eight men on the LOS with cover zero look that turned into cover 3 zone blitz. Brady rolled right into the coverage and made a bad throw.

Absolutely true. It was also a missed block.

If you play him in press man every down and he is the shutdown CB you think he is, then maybe, just maybe that could be true. However, he got his ass kicked versus Texas A&M and a solid pro pass offense and gameplan where he got left on an island. Jeff Fuller ate him alive for 7 catches and 5 first downs. He also made 3 run support tackles 7 yards down the field, not at the LOS like you are dreaming about because he turned his head and RAN WITH the WR in off man coverage. That is what happens when you play press man, the CB's CAN NOT pinch the Edge because they are busy being run out of the play. So, is he going to play shutdown on an island or zone?

Didn't get his ass kicked at all. See previous post on subject. And does NOT have to be playing press for that to be true at all and you know it! And kind of irrelevant since we won't be playing a majority of press.

I think zone is BENEFICIAL for him. More opportunities to get the balls in his hands and with his returning skills that's ****ing dangerous and game changing.

Yeah he would play about 100% of the snaps, yet he would influence less than 50 with a real gameplan And, those he does influence are nowhere near as effective as Revis or Asomugha right now. Could he be that good, absolutely. Will he be, no one knows. However, if he never becomes the elite SD CB then taking him at one is a complete waste just like drafting an average DT at one would be. It is all about risk, and Peterson has just as much at #1 as any DT.

Agree with this and not ready to put him at that level before he takes a pro snap. Same goes for the DTs naturally.

However, your last statement is very false. CB success rate is extremely high in relation to draft status. DT success rate? Not so much. They bust higher than ANY other position in the NFL including QB.

Talent Starved is talent starved. The guys at the top of the draft are NOT talent starved. Peterson is good, but he is not that much better than Dareus to even try this argument. That is simply reactionary. You would think you played DB or something

I disagree. In fact, the more I watch Dareus, the more I'm cooling on him, and the more I watch Luiget, the more I warm up to him and think HE (thanks to Fairley's potential pitfalls) is the best DT for Fox's defense.

Bucky is a solid Former NFL scout. Not the greatest in the world, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. Trying to dismiss his argument out of hand by saying "really" does not even come close to addressing the fact he is only re-iterating what I said 3 months ago. It is a solid argument that no one has refuted, including you.

See earlier.

DL affect every single play because they line up right beside the damn ball. They have to be accounted for every time you run or pass unless you play a zone running scheme. And then, the DE's on the back side are left free, not the DT's. CB's can be taken completely out of the game by running right at them in man coverage, away from their side altogether, and by designing a passing game that exploits the other weaknesses in a teams coverages.

Every player on the defense is accounted for in every play!

A CB "taken away" in man coverage is taking away at least one potential downfield blocker with him... And since we're talking about man coverage, theres a good chance we now have a safety in the box as well so now that corner has provided an entire extra man to be accounted for.

Running away from them was the silliest of your "rationale". Running away from them isn't accounting for that player? Because it sounds like it's dictating the play calling to me!

The top CB's play in almost exclusively press/bail man scheme's. They do allow teams to rotate coverage to the other side of the field, but guess what, almost every coverage rotates one way or the other and it is just as easy to design a gameplan to exploit that if you know before hand which side of the field that rotation will go. The problem is facing a team that can execute it and Run the ball.

The better teams with more options like the Colts and Pats? Absolutely. Even more of a reason to stay deep at the position.

However, this crap about shutdown CB's affecting the running game is just that, crap. Shutdown CB's do not directly affect a running game like Dominant DT's. They shut down a top WR and possibly slightly influence the running game. DT's can affect both every play. Stop trying to make Peterson superman. All he is right now is a prospect, and a damn good one. However, he is not going to change football. He might not be good enough to even be in the same league as Revis and Asomugha.

We covered this in the rest of the post. However, you completely contradicted your bolded statement earlier, soooooooooooooo...

And he very well might NOT be in the same league as Revis and Aso, but it's a ****load more likely that he will than Dareus will even sniff someone like Suh.

TheReverend
03-28-2011, 08:46 PM
You forgot Sam Adams and some dude people called "The Fridge".

BTW Safety's don't count cause if they did you forgot the dude who the 46 D was named after.

Nope. I didn't forget them at all. You just didn't ask about them.

You asked about the corners, I answered.

And I said the LBers were what defined the defensive units... that's neither the outstanding secondary both team had or the great DL.

Please follow at least YOUR OWN end of the discussion.

HAT
03-28-2011, 08:51 PM
Rep for quality football analysis that makes this place worth wading through daily crapola about some NASA dude from the 60's.

I FYP, space-monkey.

SoCalBronco
03-29-2011, 12:17 AM
I would prefer Dareus. I don't like Peterson due to some recruiting drama he pulled against my team a few years ago, but even on the true merits, I'm not sure its a great idea to keep investing at cornerback. He is a very gifted prospect...yes, but from what I've heard, Fox is more of a 2 deep and 3 deep zone kind of guy, rather than a man guy. Even if he were a man guy, any offense worth its salt in the passing game should be able to move the ball through the air, even against two very good man to man corners. I've never really believed in using wide recievers as the primary option against man coverage, since by their very nature, the cornerbacks are usually the best man to man defenders in the defense. No....you focus on the backs and the tight ends, as linebackers are generally very weak in man to man coverage. Even when you have to use a wide reciever as the chief response to man coverage, the prevalence of a number of artificial aids in today's college and pro game make it easier for the offense to overcome a good cornerback. The widespead use of rubs (picks) and compressed formations (bunching three recievers together within a foot of each other) creates artificial but nonetheless effective seperation and even simple motion and counter-motion means that when the ball is snapped you don't have a stationary WR having to fight off a stationary press corner to get off the line of scrimmage. Simple formationing can also devalue a shutdown man corner, as many teams often deploy specific cornerbacks only to a specific side of the field (left or right) and the offense can react by formationing their best threat consistently against the weaker cornerback (2008 OAK, season opener).

Putting aside the problems of man-underneath defenses, if we are going to be a 2 deep and 3 deep team, I'm not sure that fits Peterson's strengths. The traditional 2 deep zone means the cornerback also has run force responsibilities and is simply a flat player against the pass and I dont think that's really his game. The more modern 2 deep zone is a matchup zone defense, where the cornerback, safety and OLB diagnose the routes based on the stem of the first reciever inside the widest reciever (usually TE or slot reciever) and then the stem of the widest reciever as the routes develop and communicate to account for all the routes on that side of the field, rather than simply eyeing the quarterback and dropping to a predesignated landmark. I'm not sure that fits Peterson, either. The three deep zone is a conservative defense where he will play off and to the outside of his man, backpedaling on the snap and making sure he maintains a cushion of at least 3 steps so that the reciever cannot get behind him in the deep outside third. That too seems like kind of a waste for a No. 2 overall pick.

I would really prefer to just focus on the DL at this point, specifically DT. We have tried to snake around the problem for at least 10 years. If we could just grab the best DT available, pair him with a solid, credible FA DT, we would have potentially a very solid DL, with Doom and Ayers on the outside. The ends are not complete players, sure, but each brings a great deal of specialty. We've got a pass rusher and then a run stuffer on the other side.

Hogan11
03-29-2011, 12:27 AM
I just don't want Fairley...a cheap shot SOB that'll spend more time suspended than playing. I'll never forgive him for that cheap shiat he laid on Aaron Murray

Mediator12
03-29-2011, 06:31 AM
I wouldn't be thumping my chest over 12 whole pressures in 36 drop backs, but that's just me.

19 out of 36. Pressures are not counted if they are knockdowns in this instance.

Absolutely true. It was also a missed block.

Didn't get his ass kicked at all. See previous post on subject. And does NOT have to be playing press for that to be true at all and you know it! And kind of irrelevant since we won't be playing a majority of press.

I have seen both tapes and the numbers Are 10 pass attempts, 7 completions, 5 first downs. That is getting your ass kicked in your bowl game. I have no idea where you got your numbers, but I checked mine.

I think zone is BENEFICIAL for him. More opportunities to get the balls in his hands and with his returning skills that's ****ing dangerous and game changing.

The problem is you think Peterson will be as effective as a zone CB as he is in man. I do not assume he is as smart and football savvy as Champ was and is. He has all the physical talent in the world, yet I really question his football smarts to play zone at the next level. LSU played 80% of their coverages in man according to their staff, and only 20% in zone. It is not like he has extensive experience doing it. In theory, he would be great in zone if he could see the ball and break on it. Yet, I do not see him understanding and executing it like you envision him being able to do. I think it would be a tremendous waste to put a pure Man press CB in a heavy zone scheme and take away his strengths.


Agree with this and not ready to put him at that level before he takes a pro snap. Same goes for the DTs naturally.

However, your last statement is very false. CB success rate is extremely high in relation to draft status. DT success rate? Not so much. They bust higher than ANY other position in the NFL including QB.

I am not talking about bust rate. Too many teams gamble on greatness with athleticism and not mentality with DT's. The DT bust rate IS much higher. What I am talking about is what happens if Peterson is NOT a shutdown CB, and I am not convinced he is at this point. Using a top 5 pick on very good CB limits your defense and does not change the way teams will play you. The risk is not that Peterson will bust, its just that he will be another starting CB. You have now wasted a top 5 pick.

I do think teams bust so high on DT's because they chase the athleticism and potential too much early at the position. They chase the pass rushing DT and not the complete DT. However, I think Dareus is a complete DT just like Kris Jenkins was coming out of College. I think Dareus could be better than Jenkins and at less weight. We see these 2 players very differently and that's OK.



I disagree. In fact, the more I watch Dareus, the more I'm cooling on him, and the more I watch Luiget, the more I warm up to him and think HE (thanks to Fairley's potential pitfalls) is the best DT for Fox's defense.



See earlier.



Every player on the defense is accounted for in every play!

A CB "taken away" in man coverage is taking away at least one potential downfield blocker with him... And since we're talking about man coverage, theres a good chance we now have a safety in the box as well so now that corner has provided an entire extra man to be accounted for.

Running away from them was the silliest of your "rationale". Running away from them isn't accounting for that player? Because it sounds like it's dictating the play calling to me!

This is not true. It is simply not, and I explained it earlier with zone runs and all back side running plays in an angle blocking scheme. Also, when teams layer routes and flood zones they do not consider the backside coverages at all unless they check down.

What you call Dictating the Play calling, is actually called gameplanning in the NFL. You run to the weakness in the defense, you throw at the weakness in the defense, it's all about matchups. And, Peterson is not at that level to dictate matchups until he proves it at the next level.

Is he a solid run defender? Yes, when he sees the run and does not turn his head to play the pass. However, when you play man and the DE's suck so bad that they can not set the edges and teams routinely beat you at the POA with guys having their heads turned on the back end, that is not affecting the run defense. That is the effect of a poor DL, despite the CB play.

The better teams with more options like the Colts and Pats? Absolutely. Even more of a reason to stay deep at the position.

Deep at the position or overextended at the position? I hope DEN can get talent at every level and be balanced enough on defense that they can stop the run and play the pass at the same time. Right now, they can not do either really well. Getting another top CB may improve the back end numbers of the passing game, but it will not improve the poor front seven that struggles to stop the run EVEN in an eight man front. Just because you get an eight man front, does not stop the run. In fact, that is where most 20+ runs come from in the NFL. Teams committed to stopping the run with eight, get blocked and have no help until 20 yards downfield.

CB's do improve the pass numbers, but do not influence the gap integrity of poor DL. Just because you can commit eight to the run in 21 personnel, does not stop the run. Getting into manageable second and third down situations with solid run defense is what makes a good defense. Yes the passing game can cure a lack of a running game, but not being able to stop the Raiders running game sucks when they still can not pass on you effectively.

We covered this in the rest of the post. However, you completely contradicted your bolded statement earlier, soooooooooooooo...

This you are going to have to explain to me. I explained ways to eliminate a CB's effectiveness over a game. Not that he can stop the run by simply being on the field. Teams in the NFL play the run with eight guys in the box all the time WITHOUT a shutdown CB. It is called disguised coverages and walking a man into the box at the last second before the snap. Teams are pretty complex at this level. The last I checked if your DL still gets destroyed at the POA, even in an eight man front, teams will still run all over you. Watch DEN and the Raiders the last 4 years. Totally inept DL with solid pass numbers and destroyed versus the run. Scheme will not help you if teams can blow you up one on one in the run game.

That is why every defense is designed to stop the run first and then play the pass. Sure, there are extreme plays in situational football where the run is not as heavily played, but every defense still has an inside out play design. Even dime backs get run assignments ;D

And he very well might NOT be in the same league as Revis and Aso, but it's a ****load more likely that he will than Dareus will even sniff someone like Suh.

Suh, most likely not. But, I would take a Kris Jenkins type DT over Revis any day. I also think this comes down to preference. You would more likely have the stud secondary and I want a stud DL. It's a front to back debate, even though you seem to have an issue with that. The problem is this one player is NOT going to be enough to turn this defense around no matter who they take. It will take the whole draft and FA, plus a couple of years realistically to do that.

As for talent, just as many people I know think Dareus is the equal or better to Peterson. There are a lot of people who fall in love with his measurables, and yet just as many who question his mental ability to impact at the next level. He has not Received the highest grades you make him out to be around the league. He is up there, but he is not the concensus #1 player by any means, even defensively.

CEH
03-29-2011, 06:43 AM
I think you missed the point of Beantown's post?

Was commenting on this quote from you

"So much pressure in that NE game that we netted 0 sack"

Belicheck had to adjust to the constant pressure.

TheReverend
03-29-2011, 07:51 AM
I have seen both tapes and the numbers Are 10 pass attempts, 7 completions, 5 first downs. That is getting your ass kicked in your bowl game. I have no idea where you got your numbers, but I checked mine.

Those are Fuller's finishing numbers, yes, but they're not totally reflective of Peterson. They did NOT play man all game long. In fact, they were beating A&M so f'ing badly by halftime there was a TON of 2nd half zones.

The problem is you think Peterson will be as effective as a zone CB as he is in man.

Absolutely. He's exhibited strong performance after strong performance playing zone. This isn't just "projecting" like you're doing with Dareus (ex: "well I GUESS he COULD penetrate in a 3T")

I do not assume he is as smart and football savvy as Champ was and is. He has all the physical talent in the world, yet I really question his football smarts to play zone at the next level. LSU played 80% of their coverages in man according to their staff, and only 20% in zone. It is not like he has extensive experience doing it. In theory, he would be great in zone if he could see the ball and break on it. Yet, I do not see him understanding and executing it like you envision him being able to do. I think it would be a tremendous waste to put a pure Man press CB in a heavy zone scheme and take away his strengths.

Who is saying he's as savvy as Champ?!?!

I am not talking about bust rate. Too many teams gamble on greatness with athleticism and not mentality with DT's. The DT bust rate IS much higher. What I am talking about is what happens if Peterson is NOT a shutdown CB, and I am not convinced he is at this point. Using a top 5 pick on very good CB limits your defense and does not change the way teams will play you. The risk is not that Peterson will bust, its just that he will be another starting CB. You have now wasted a top 5 pick.

Like YOU said earlier: "However, if he never becomes the elite SD CB then taking him at one is a complete waste just like drafting an average DT at one would be."

I do think teams bust so high on DT's because they chase the athleticism and potential too much early at the position. They chase the pass rushing DT and not the complete DT. However, I think Dareus is a complete DT just like Kris Jenkins was coming out of College. I think Dareus could be better than Jenkins and at less weight. We see these 2 players very differently and that's OK.

Bunkley
Travis Johnson
Dewayne Robertson
Johnathan Sullivan
Jimmy Kennedy
Ryan Sims
Wendell Bryant
Gerrard Warren

...just to name a few.

Know what they all have in common? People called them complete DTs...

What you call Dictating the Play calling, is actually called gameplanning in the NFL. You run to the weakness in the defense, you throw at the weakness in the defense, it's all about matchups. And, Peterson is not at that level to dictate matchups until he proves it at the next level.

Yes, and in this hypothetical scenario, running away from him is dictating the matchups, and I didn't say he was.

Is he a solid run defender? Yes, when he sees the run and does not turn his head to play the pass. However, when you play man and the DE's suck so bad that they can not set the edges and teams routinely beat you at the POA with guys having their heads turned on the back end, that is not affecting the run defense. That is the effect of a poor DL, despite the CB play.

Irrelevant. He'll get read steps in a Fox D.

Deep at the position or overextended at the position? I hope DEN can get talent at every level and be balanced enough on defense that they can stop the run and play the pass at the same time. Right now, they can not do either really well. Getting another top CB may improve the back end numbers of the passing game, but it will not improve the poor front seven that struggles to stop the run EVEN in an eight man front. Just because you get an eight man front, does not stop the run. In fact, that is where most 20+ runs come from in the NFL. Teams committed to stopping the run with eight, get blocked and have no help until 20 yards downfield.

Yes I'm aware that once you've broken through the second level it's off to the races in an 8 man front. We had this same discussion in the mock draft discussion thread only I brought up those points in there.

And 8 man fronts don't guarantee stopping the run, but it sure as **** helps.

CB's do improve the pass numbers, but do not influence the gap integrity of poor DL. Just because you can commit eight to the run in 21 personnel, does not stop the run. Getting into manageable second and third down situations with solid run defense is what makes a good defense. Yes the passing game can cure a lack of a running game, but not being able to stop the Raiders running game sucks when they still can not pass on you effectively.

Check out some Carolina under Fox. Guy has had poor DTs for YEARS since he sent Jenkins packing. Frankly he doesn't even USE gap integrity. He lines them both up in a 3 and single gaps.

This you are going to have to explain to me. I explained ways to eliminate a CB's effectiveness over a game. Not that he can stop the run by simply being on the field. Teams in the NFL play the run with eight guys in the box all the time WITHOUT a shutdown CB. It is called disguised coverages and walking a man into the box at the last second before the snap. Teams are pretty complex at this level. The last I checked if your DL still gets destroyed at the POA, even in an eight man front, teams will still run all over you. Watch DEN and the Raiders the last 4 years. Totally inept DL with solid pass numbers and destroyed versus the run. Scheme will not help you if teams can blow you up one on one in the run game.

I THINK this is the disconnect. My point is certainly not to ignore the DT position. My point is that Peterson (if he's available at #2 god willing), is the BPA. We have many, many more picks, a deep DL draft class, and some really good vets on the FA market. There are second tier guys that can fit Fox's system every bit as good as Dareus. I'm not sure, for example, that Liuget could do it as well as Fairley could, but that would definitely be safer.

That is why every defense is designed to stop the run first and then play the pass. Sure, there are extreme plays in situational football where the run is not as heavily played, but every defense still has an inside out play design. Even dime backs get run assignments

...and?

Suh, most likely not. But, I would take a Kris Jenkins type DT over Revis any day. I also think this comes down to preference. You would more likely have the stud secondary and I want a stud DL. It's a front to back debate, even though you seem to have an issue with that. The problem is this one player is NOT going to be enough to turn this defense around no matter who they take. It will take the whole draft and FA, plus a couple of years realistically to do that.

1. Rex wouldn't.
2. So you won't compare him to the best DT in the game today, but you have no problem comparing him to the best DT 6 years ago? Odd.
3. This isn't a front to back debate. We have MANY selections. It's a BPA debate.

As for talent, just as many people I know think Dareus is the equal or better to Peterson. There are a lot of people who fall in love with his measurables, and yet just as many who question his mental ability to impact at the next level. He has not Received the highest grades you make him out to be around the league. He is up there, but he is not the concensus #1 player by any means, even defensively.

This is far from about measurables. This about a SIGNIFICANTLY better playing career as well.

BroncoInferno
03-29-2011, 08:33 AM
Suh, most likely not. But, I would take a Kris Jenkins type DT over Revis any day.

It depends. Jenkins had about 3-4 seasons of domination, but injuries have plagued him since. DTs have an EXTREMELY short shelf life, and even top of the line guys are usually washed up by 30. A guy like Sapp who can play at an All-Pro level for more than a decade is EXTREMELY rare. Those guys take so much abuse. It isn't a good sign to me that Dareus is already being plagued by little nagging injuries on the college level. In short, I'd take a decade + of Revis over 3-4 years of Jenkins. I think Dareus will be good, but I'm not sure for how long because of the nature of his position. Peterson's position will allow him to play at a high level for a long time. And, as has been pointed out, he has the phyical tools and mentality to move to safety a la Lott or Woodsen once he starts to lose a step.

Mountain Bronco
03-29-2011, 09:32 AM
Petersen immediatly upgrades the D from a laughing stock to middle of the pack.

Petersen forces more balls towards champ = win for denver, he allows multiple coverage packages with most allowing for 8 in the box because of his coverage skills, which helps stop the run, not to mention that the guy is a great tackler so he helps in run stopping much like Champ does. This doesn't even take into consideration the punt return skills (kickoffs you won't see him on because of the new rule) where he is a field possition changer. He is a legit once in 5 years player, Fairley and Dareus type players come around ever year, in fact Suh and McCoy were both better prospects last year.

Mountain Bronco
03-29-2011, 09:39 AM
Suh, most likely not. But, I would take a Kris Jenkins type DT over Revis any day.

Wow. Not sure many NFL coaches would agree, Rex Ryan certainly wouldn't.

broncosteven
03-29-2011, 09:47 AM
Petersen immediatly upgrades the D from a laughing stock to middle of the pack.

Petersen forces more balls towards champ = win for denver, he allows multiple coverage packages with most allowing for 8 in the box because of his coverage skills, which helps stop the run, not to mention that the guy is a great tackler so he helps in run stopping much like Champ does. This doesn't even take into consideration the punt return skills (kickoffs you won't see him on because of the new rule) where he is a field possition changer. He is a legit once in 5 years player, Fairley and Dareus type players come around ever year, in fact Suh and McCoy were both better prospects last year.

I don't agree with that at all.

I am guessing that the 1st time Peterson goes into a game he will be targetted over Champ until he makes teams pay and proves his ability.

Then if you read Socal's post above teams with good TE's or pass catching RB's would likely stay away from both Champ and Peterson and dink and dunk and run the ball. As of right now wouldn't you want to isolate a TE on Joe Mays down the seam rather than try to pick on any of our CB's?

If it were up to me and I had some lower round DT targets I would trade down, stock pile picks and take quantity over potential quality. Plus we could then go after a TE in the top of the 2nd round and some LB/RB/OL depth later after grabbing a couple DT's

TheReverend
03-29-2011, 09:54 AM
I don't agree with that at all.

I am guessing that the 1st time Peterson goes into a game he will be targetted over Champ until he makes teams pay and proves his ability.

Obviously. But isn't that the point in drafting him? Let them throw at Peterson. When he gets the ball in his hands, it'll be 6. Amazing player with the ball in his hands, and NO ONE will dispute that.

Then if you read Socal's post above teams with good TE's or pass catching RB's would likely stay away from both Champ and Peterson and dink and dunk and run the ball. As of right now wouldn't you want to isolate a TE on Joe Mays down the seam rather than try to pick on any of our CB's?

1. Can't isolate player v player as well in zones. Especially LBs.

2. How is forcing a team into a one dimensional dink and dunk offense seen as a negative? That's a MASSIVE impact.

If it were up to me and I had some lower round DT targets I would trade down, stock pile picks and take quantity over potential quality. Plus we could then go after a TE in the top of the 2nd round and some LB/RB/OL depth later after grabbing a couple DT's

I wouldn't mind that at all, but I'd probably avoid TE all together this year.

broncosteven
03-29-2011, 09:59 AM
2. How is forcing a team into a one dimensional dink and dunk offense seen as a negative? That's a MASSIVE impact.


.

2 dimentional if they are running the ball in addition to the dink and dunk and our CB's are forced to make tackles 8-15 yards downfield.

TheReverend
03-29-2011, 10:02 AM
2 dimentional if they are running the ball in addition to the dink and dunk and our CB's are forced to make tackles 8-15 yards downfield.

Where the hell do you get that from?

Also dink and dunk and the running game go hand in hand and are played virtually the same exact way.

Hulamau
03-29-2011, 10:35 AM
Like several other Mane posters, I am sick of having elite talent at the CB position and watching it get wasted because we have no DL. We need to pressure the QB and stop the run. Dominant DL's make average secondaries look great. It is far tougher to do the opposite.

Agree with that, but the question in detail that has to be answered is are either Fairley or Dareus truely worthy of a 2nd round pick (correction #2 pick :-) in such a deep DL draft?

Might we not score a DL guy or two in the second who can become pretty much as good as either of them on the DL with Foxy coaching and still go for a guy at the #2 pick (assuming the CBA isnt resolved by draft day so no trades are happening) who might make more of a splash for years to come in Peterson (assuming the FO is absolutely convinced the kid has far more football IQ than implied by his wonderlic?) or even Miller??

If there was a Julius Peppers in the draft no question. Dareus seems the best odds of being a stud but its possible he has more or less plateaued at the college level as well becoming a solid but not necessarily dominant player in the NFL. Though I am concered wth the low wonderlic on Peterson, IF Elway and company can assure themselves he does have the practical smarts and can think on his feet such to take full advantage of his considerable talents at the next level he still might be the best bet for long term home run for us... but no question taking Peterson is only a viable option IF we have an ironcald plan for revamping the DL too bring them up to elite status.

Its a tough one....but one we have to get right.

Beantown Bronco
03-29-2011, 10:38 AM
Agree with that, but the question in detail that has to be answered is are either Fairley or Dareus truely worthy of a 2nd round pick in such a deep DL draft?

I feel confident saying that not one poster here would hesitate to draft either of them in the 2nd round. :)

Hulamau
03-29-2011, 10:41 AM
I feel confident saying that not one poster here would hesitate to draft either of them in the 2nd round. :)

Ha! I stand corrected :-) The 2nd PICK! :peace:

broncosteven
03-29-2011, 10:48 AM
Where the hell do you get that from?

Also dink and dunk and the running game go hand in hand and are played virtually the same exact way.

I meant in the run game, unless they are keying on run they aren't going to be making the majority of their tackles until the RB gets beyond the front 7 downfield.

TheReverend
03-29-2011, 10:53 AM
I meant in the run game, unless they are keying on run they aren't going to be making the majority of their tackles until the RB gets beyond the front 7 downfield.

Completely false.

Check out how many of these are tackles at or behind the LOS without blitzing (obviously over shadowed by flashy picks, but he's been an AMAZING in run support on the edge his entire career):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P-Zc-APZAA

Do I think Peterson is going to step in with this level of play recognition? Nope. Can he? Absolutely. A lot of is going to come down to how good the secondary coaches and DC is and what the defensive play call is.