CookieG

Taking a franchise QB is like taking a spouse, you will live with the decision for years. If an Aaron Maybin or John McCargo busts, you just don't play him. It doesn't work that way with a first round QB, and mostly for QB's taken in the 2nd. They are going to get at least a year and a half of playing time, no matter how bad they are. How many times over the past 5-6 years have we heard "we have to see what this kid can do" in relation to Losman, or "he's still young, in relation to Edwards". Not saying you don't look for a franchise QB, not at all, but taking one just for the sake of taking one is...a coach and a GM killing move. The 49ers went through 2 GM's and at least 2 coaches with Alex Smith. And hell, they didn't even want to take him, but couldn't trade out of the 1st pick. It was a classic case of taking a QB for the sake of taking one. Roll the dice with Newton? Dunno. They're putting in their time studying him. If they don't take him, it won't be because they didn't want him. Gabbert- not even the best QB in the Big 12 last year, questionable as to whether he was in the top 3 in the Big 12. The production has never matched the talent. That, together with his less than 50% completion % on 3rd down, and less than 50% completion percentage against a blitz should be red flags. That's not something Mayock or Casserly brings up. Personally, he seems to be as much of a product of the NFLN as anything. Could he? Sure, physically he's there. The others - taking a 2nd round QB historically has pretty long odds of being a franchise guy. The Fins spent every 2nd round pick in the last decade, I think, looking for one. They're still looking. I agree with Chan Gailey, there probably IS a franchise QB in this draft. More than likely, someone is going to overcome their red flags. Will Mallett overcome his issues? Will Locker suddenly become accurate? Will Ponder be able to read a blitz? (He was horrible against Oklahoma). Good questions. I think everyone knows a good franchise QB is essential (or at least very close to essential). But it isn't a matter of running down to the Home Depot and just picking one up. If one isn't there, one isn't there. They're putting in their time looking for one, I don't doubt that. but I really hope they don't take someone they don't like, just for the heck of it.

Newton? or do you have someone else in mind?

Maybe we're taking a DE/OLB from Kutztown State? Don't be shocked to hear the name Greg Rotkowski called at 3 http://www.kubears.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=701&path=football

Stronger, faster, meaner. Straying from this plan will result in another decade like the last.

Watch the Nebraska game. You can find it on Youtube. Search "Missouri O vs. Nebraska D" It isn't pretty.

He posts on our site now. Thanks for the gift. I hate you all.

I didn't know that about Miller. The 1978 draft looked great on paper. Miller ran through a number of very good D's in the Big 8 (at the time). On defense, Knox said he wanted guys who were strong, fast and mean. Hardison and Hutchinson seemed to fit the bill. They were better than what we had, since the run D was about as bad as it was last season. But something seemed to be missing. Other than the eventual trade-and-Kelly-pick, the other thing that took the sting out of the Cousineau debacle was the drafting of Smerlas and Haslett. Like Hardison and Hutchinson, they were strong, fast and mean. UnlikeHardison and Hutchinson, they made a difference. The D improved to about average their first year, and went to No. 1 in the league the next. I said it at the time, and still say it, I'm not sure Cousineau would have started in front of either Haslett or Nelson on the inside.

I strongly doubt that. This is one game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_VBKVmhyAo Missouri did the same thing to him. Put speed on him and he's in serious trouble. His tech is atrocious, he stands straight up on pass protection. I'm sure there are more than one O-line coach who believe they can fix him. I'm not so sure.

That's who I'd pick too. They were the worst running team in the league the year before, and he put up nearly 1200 yards and 11 TD's (and 1600 yards from scrimmage). A hard running do-it-all little guy who made people forget Terry Miller really quick.

I think he has him rated as a DT. He has him rated at No. 1.

Using Fairley as 3-4 DE, at least as a 2 gap DE, would be as big of a waste as when Oakland put Warren Sapp at DE. Can he hold his ground? Maybe, even probably. But he's at his best when he's in the backfield, shooting through a gap. Its what he does. Silly to squander talent on a stupid scheme. That said, I'm not sure about his work ethic, as most do.

You can watch some of his games here: http://www.youtube.com/user/JoshMTD Here's what I saw after watching him against Bama, Texas A and M and Auburn Big, very fast, very good at keeping a receiver at the line. On the other hand, I saw about 5 passes that were thrown in tight coverage to him. No ints, no pb's, 4 completions. That was actually disappointing for a guy that's supposed to be the best DB of the last decade. He can be beat with regularity on a comeback route. In run support, his ability to get off a blocking WR is average. For a guy that's 225lbs...below average. He needs A LOT of coaching in that area..there were times watching him when I'm thinking "If I'm this guy's coach, I'm gonna be screaming at him on the sideline. Get off the damn WR and make the tackle!". In taking angles and hitting, he's no Ronnie Lott, Troy P or Bob Sanders. He did get dragged 10 yards by Cam Newton though. Someone in this thread made the Donte Whitner comparison in run support, and it isn't too far off. I don't see him making our run game any better. In 3 games I saw 0 big plays. 6'1" DB's that run a 4.2 don't grow on trees, but he has a lot of work to do. For a guy that runs a 4.2 and plays close to the line, you'd expect more plays at the LOS. For a guy 225lbs. you'd expect him to get off a WR better.

Use the Planet Theory to your advantage.

well, there's only been 4 DB's taken in the Top 5 in the last decade (Berry, Taylor, Newman and Jammer. Of course, the Bills only had one top 5 pick during that period, or the percentage would be a lot higher.

He was terrible with the Chiefs, didn't play much again until this year with the Jags. I doubt he's gotten any better.

The problem is we're not talking about drafting a 70's rated player vs. a 90's rated player. You're really talking about, depending on who is doing the rating....you may be talking about taking a 95 in a position of non-need vs. taking a 90 rated player in a position of need. Fairley Bowers Dareus Each can be dominant if used correctly and if they play to their potential. As with every top 5 pick, each comes with a bust factor. Fairley has the Warren Sapp first step and can take over a game, like he did in the NC game. He comes with a bust factor, probably higher than the other 2. Bowers looks to have the big DE athleticism of Mario Williams or Julius Peppers. If you watch him, he can hold his ground against a RT, but is better getting in the backfield. Dareus can be used in a number of positions, can definitely hold his own in a 2 gap system, but for a guy that strong, has the ability to get in the backfield and move laterally very well. I'm really curious as to how each tests out at the Combine, but these aren't average players. The key is finding the least lazy one and then using him correctly.

Good. I nailed it on Bradford and Suh too, if it makes you feel any better. I thought the 300 lb. statement was kinda strange too. Almost sounds like something Dick Jauron would say.

I think they did try to trade up for Rothlesberger. But that was a Rooney call. They were planning on drafting an OL, but Rooney said he always regretted passing on Marino and didn't want to do it again.

No, I don't think I am. On the other hand, I question whether some know what makes a player elite, outside of what they read in draft reports.

They considered Whitner an elite talent, that's why they drafted him at 8. He was supposed to be the Troy P, Bob Sanders guy they were looking for. Nagata was passed over due to the uber stupid theory of "he doesn't fit our scheme". The problem was both of the top DT's were off the board towards the end of the round, and they considered McCargo the best before a big drop off, as well as his quick first step being "better fitted for our scheme" (there it is again.). The problem the Bills have had is...when they are evaluating elite prospects, they always gravitate towards the little guy. There's always that little guy with the measurables that are too good to pass up. It has been going on for 10 years. It comes partly due to not knowing what makes a big guy elite. I think some just look at it as "well, he's 6'5" and 300 lbs., he should be able to play." It doesn't work that way. That's why we keep choosing mediocre big guys in later rounds and watch them rarely come through. If you watch a Dareus, you see a guy with an extremely powerful lower body coupled with the first step quickness that isn't seen every day. More importantly, you've got a guy with lateral quickness for someone that is 300+. Suh's lateral speed may be once in a decade, but I can say that Dareus' lateral quickness doesn't come along every year. He's also a guy with the versatility to move easily from DT to DE. That type of versatility doesn't come along every year either. Based on physical gifts, he's far from mediocre, and on physical talent alone, I'd use the word "elite". It'd be nice if we took an elite talent in a big guy for a change.

2 of the 4 listed (Rice and Holmes) went to the defending SB champion the year they were drafted. San Fransisco had won 2 SB's in the 80's before Rice was drafted in 85. The Steelers won a SB in Swann's rookie year, when he accumulated 200 yards in receptions. Would the 49er's have won a SB without Rice? Well yeah, they did. Twice. Would the Steelers have won a SB without Holmes? Well yeah, they did. That doesn't disparage any of those mentioned, and 2 of the 4 (Rice and Swann) are 2 of my all time favorites. But to pretend that drafting them was the reason their teams went to the SB isn't factually correct.

You can add Brian Waters to that list. When Haley first came on, Waters asked for a meeting to see where the team was headed. Haley blew him off. Waters asked some of the Cards vets what they thought of him and they hated him. he begged for a trade, but Pioli wouldn't allow it. His defense sucked until he brought in Crennel, probably his second smartest move after bringing in Weis. Like a good owner, he really needs to bring in good assistants and stay out of their way.

Depending on what they've uncovered as evidence, the "daddy working for a major sports network" is really a pretty good angle, from a legal perspective, to show actual malice. With Times v. Sullivan protection...public figure cases are never easy. But if they can show how much crybaby Craig James influenced their reporting, malice is there. That's what makes it different from many other cases, the key employee of the defendant with a grudge to bear. It will be an interesting case.

No, guys like him don't come around every year, or every decade. He just happened to come around at the same time as Reggie White. There haven't been 2 with the combination of speed and power as those two since...well, forever. After LT became a star, every year you would hear about the "next Lawrence Taylor". Some good players, Bisquit, Derrick Thomas, and some busts...Aundray Bruce, Duane Bickett, Quentin Coryatt, etc. None ever were, but there were also comparisons. But the comparison seemed to be an annual thing for a while. But you rarely heard anyone talk about "the next Bruce Smith" or "the next Reggie White". There were none who were worthy of the comparison. Just a whole different level.

Its also what a Matt Millen-led team looks like. Why are you so sure it isn't the latter?