Why this draft may work.

JKool · 04-25-2004, 11:33 AM

I don\'t understand the suggestion to go to a 3-4. Such a decision would make Sully look like a bad pick - he\'s not a NT. Furthermore, LB is our weakest position; why would we put another one of these guys on the field.

If they are converting Smith to OLB, then we have Rogers (whom I don\'t think is a project - he has experience and has been successful in Miami), Smith, and Watson. IF the two new kids turn out to be good (i.e. better than Grant, Ruff, and Hodge - which shouldn\'t be too hard), then we\'re good in the 4-3 (with a pair of stud ends and two solid DTs).

Billy, I guess I was frustrated yesterday, but I\'m still not seeing this draft as that bad yet. I think we\'ve addressed the LB need (with Vilma and DJ gone, what were we going to do); we have at least one new LB, we have a bunch of 2-3 year guys, who have some potential left (Allen and Grant), and some serviceable players (D. Smith and Ruff). If W Smith turns out to be a Suggs, we\'re set. Thus, I think the only glaring problem is still at CB. I haven\'t yet been convinced that there isn\'t a trade coming - I\'m leaning toward WR as the key to the trade now.

My guess as to why we can\'t sign the big FAs is this: we are too far away from having a SB contender - thus, players who are looking to the later years of their careers won\'t be as interested if there is a similar offer elsewhere. Also, we just don\'t have a \"winning record\", and I\'m not talking about Haz - when these players were growing up, they never fantasized about playing for our boys in the black and gold; thus, there is psychological motivation to play elsewhere. Finally, I hate our FO; I believe they\'re obsessed with finding diamonds in the rough (at least over the last few years), rather than taking the obvious \"blue chip\".

The story isn\'t over yet though; just a hunch.

04-25-2004, 11:33 AM	#14
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Why this draft may work. I don\'t understand the suggestion to go to a 3-4. Such a decision would make Sully look like a bad pick - he\'s not a NT. Furthermore, LB is our weakest position; why would we put another one of these guys on the field. If they are converting Smith to OLB, then we have Rogers (whom I don\'t think is a project - he has experience and has been successful in Miami), Smith, and Watson. IF the two new kids turn out to be good (i.e. better than Grant, Ruff, and Hodge - which shouldn\'t be too hard), then we\'re good in the 4-3 (with a pair of stud ends and two solid DTs). Billy, I guess I was frustrated yesterday, but I\'m still not seeing this draft as that bad yet. I think we\'ve addressed the LB need (with Vilma and DJ gone, what were we going to do); we have at least one new LB, we have a bunch of 2-3 year guys, who have some potential left (Allen and Grant), and some serviceable players (D. Smith and Ruff). If W Smith turns out to be a Suggs, we\'re set. Thus, I think the only glaring problem is still at CB. I haven\'t yet been convinced that there isn\'t a trade coming - I\'m leaning toward WR as the key to the trade now. My guess as to why we can\'t sign the big FAs is this: we are too far away from having a SB contender - thus, players who are looking to the later years of their careers won\'t be as interested if there is a similar offer elsewhere. Also, we just don\'t have a \"winning record\", and I\'m not talking about Haz - when these players were growing up, they never fantasized about playing for our boys in the black and gold; thus, there is psychological motivation to play elsewhere. Finally, I hate our FO; I believe they\'re obsessed with finding diamonds in the rough (at least over the last few years), rather than taking the obvious \"blue chip\". The story isn\'t over yet though; just a hunch.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks