This is coming from the same guy who just said Newman isn't a shut down corner because when you googled it only Cowboys blogs said he was. BTW heres the CB vs. Safety in the top list I posted that you casually ignored: I just went top 10. It would be even worse if it was the whole first.
Pro Bowls...Google...whatever he really feels like using at that moment in time... Remember...Antrel Rolle is a shut down corner (I'm still laughing at this one). Ty Law and Chris McCallister are still everyones definitions of shut down corners. These are all scientific facts.
I agree that a shut down CB is not a neccessity for long term success in the NFL. I also agree that our team had much bigger needs along both lines as well as the front 7 of the D. W/ that said, Having a shut down corner is far from a BAD thing. You give your defense alot more flexibility when you can roll coverage away from one area, and know that no big plays are gonna come from that area. By all accounts, Revis looks like a good one...a REAL good one. I'll go on record that if he keeps developing he's a better long term prospect than Trufant,Jammer, Hall, Newman, Rolle and Robinson were/are. It's hard to argue w/ his selection in a weak draft class, when CB WAS a need. Could the team have likely used another OT or NT in place of Revis? Sure...but unfortunately there werent many of those types available in the draft class...and when all else fails...go w/ BPA and a lessar need.
When they made those two picks, Kendell was still on the roster and they did make a project OL pick on Bender. Bender hasn't been able to beat out the clowns we have starting on o-line now so I don't know if we can think of him as anything other than a big project right now, but he is very young and has good physical traits. Having to trade Kendell obviously made the situation much worse. We went from an above average LG to a guy that shouldn't be starting in the NFL. That's huge. Their will be some quality young offensive linemen available in FA this off season that they could pickup to solidify the line pretty quickly. If they do that AND continue to build the lines through the draft maybe we won't be saying the same thing next off season. We can only hope. For the record I was hoping we'd stay put and pickup grubbs or blaylock. edit: p.s. - speaking of Bender, has anyone heard anything on his progress or lack there of?
Take this with a grain of salt............ but I heard he was decent enough in practice to warrant playing time. Some coaches <cough> <cough> Mangini <cough> <cough> chose not to play him for whatever reason. That was from another site, that person watched practice and openly questioned why he was not playing as he was proving himself there. Again second hand knowledge.
the only reason Ross was good was because of the pass rush of the Gints. He iwould have been picked apart uf he had the jets pass rush
I would say that once we start getting a pass rush, and Revis grows in the system you will see his true abilities. To put up those kind of numbers with the lack of that is truly outstanding.
Yeah, definitely. Cornerback's can't be measured in stats alone. He plays so tight on his man that they avoid throwing to him. Alot of his tackles were stopping the run as well.
I agree with Br4dw4y5ux. I like Harris and Revis, but they were luxury picks. Last year was deep at OL and we coud have easily solved that problem last year while trading down at the same time. So instead of giving away 4 picks we could have added an extra 1 or 2. The notion that the talent in the draft was thin is nonsense. We could have easily traded down for picks and still have gotten Harris without having to trade up. Then we could have taken a CB like Eric Wright who was very solid for the Browns AND have addressed our OL in a way that would have made it a dominant one for years to come. And we could have addressed other areas.
1. You're using hindsight on our OL problem because NO ONE thought our O-line would be this bad. 2. Last years OL class was decent at best, and why would we use more early picks on the OL? 3. How are Harris and Revis "luxury picks?" It's a luxury to have good players at other positions but the ones you and Br4dw4y5ux want? 4. The notion that the talented in the draft was thin is nonsense? Really? Why is it you guys never bother to prove what you say? Who should we have taken? 5. Wright went 5 picks before we picked Harris...but don't let that get in your way. 6. Who should we have picked for our OL?
1. Hardly hindsight, read my previous posts. I called for OL all along. The FO knew that the Kendall situation was brewing. If we had reasonable talent on the team Kendall's perceived negotiating chip is much small and could possibly been avoided all together. 2. Decent compared to what? We could have traded down and still picked up Staley, Grubbs, Blalock, Yanda, Sears, Ugoh all of which were significant contributors starting most of the season for their respective teams. Not to mention the others picked who are being groomed, like we would have done behind Kendall. It is reasonalbe to take 3. It is a luxury to trade up and Cherry pick. We had too many other holes that could have been filled in addition to getting a guy like Wright. We had 7 picks and we ended up with 4. We should have traded down and taken gotten an exta 1 or 2 picks and picked up 8 players 4-5 of which would have been rounds 1-3. 4. Well for OL you can see any of the guy I listed in point 2. If you want other positions I can list them too. 5. I listed them, see point 2 6. Actually, Wright went 6 picks after Harris. So if we traded our 1 down, we could have still got Blalock and Harris and Wright and still kept our other picks and maybe have taken another OL like Allenman, Ramirez, or Beekman, plus all the other opportunities.
G's in the 1st and 2nd again? Why? Plus: Staley = Future LT Grubbs = Would have been nice, but more OL in the first is just annoying. Blalock = Would have loved him, Harris is better. Yanda = Would have been nice, I like Harris and Revis better. Sears = We couldn't possibly have picked him unless we picked him at 25. In which case, I would have been OK with it but...Revis is better. Ugoh = Was thought of as a project, and looks like a good LT. And again...Revis and Harris >>>>> Any of these guys Why? Do you know how huge a physical shutdown corner is in a 3-4? That isn't a "luxury" it's a huge need and we got just that guy. Corners in the 3-4 are often asked to play man to man and they must be able to support the run D. Revis did that better than anyone in the draft, and looks like every coaches dream corner back. And for the millionth time...what 4 players would you have picked? So thats it...you'd trade down...get more picks...and go strictly OL? Great plan. True on Wright. Allenman, Ramirez, and Beekman didn't even see the field this year I'm pretty sure. We have that in Bender. Why not write up a mock of last years draft on what you'd rather have? Who would you have traded down with? What would you expect to get in return? Say we stay put in the first...which seems like the only other major option because the Pats jumped our pick and Revis would have been gone...we take Sears or Harris. What do we do with the 59th pick? Francis, Wright, Abiamiri, and Leonard are gone (amongst others). Yea I have no idea what your draft would look like, but I doubt it's better than what we have.
Mangini hit the jackpot with this kid a cornerback who can cover and defend against the run. No one else even close.
Your arguments are never all that convincing, but this is one of the worst yet... More OL in the first is just annoying? Is it more annoying than having a terrible OL, and subsequently getting very little production out of all your offensive talent, having a poor time of possession, and accordingly limiting the effectiveness of the defense? Give me a break... Just saying "Harris and Revis are better" is the most blind way to look at it I've ever seen. ILB was a minor need. CB was a moderate need. OL and DL were major needs. Upgrade the DL, and the LBs and DBs who were already decent starters look even better. I'd rather settle for a slightly 'worse' (even though how you're comparing across positions is beyond me) player in a major area of need, along with keeping later picks to bolster depth, than get one better player, while ignoring the team's major areas of need.
Yes. Revis was best and I think Harris was the best LB, just started too late in the season. Ross was better than I thought he would be. He would be ours if we didn't trade up and he scared me a little.
Uh huh...and using first and second round picks to build a great OL is genius? Yes, it is annoying. Why isn't it possible (in your world) to build an OL with less than a couple first rounders on it? True...with Vilma's dominant season last year (and Barton's age/contract) and a loaded CB position with stars like Dyson (severely injured), Barrett, Miller, and Poteat...those weren't positions of need at all. And itd be nice to see an argument as to why Revis/Harris aren't better than those guys. Please list the DL players we should have signed/drafted last offseason. And the OL situation wasn't terrible until after the Kendall situation...we needed up upgrade obviously...but the line wasn't disturbingly bad. Who should we have signed last offseason after trading Kendall? I'd rather just get great players and not see people whine because they weren't the right great players. So you'd take losing Revis/Harris and drafting an OL man to be slightly better in '07? Thats not enough to convince me, sorry.
