Corey Liuget

[Coach42]

His stock is rising very quickly and he seems to have the size/playing style that fits the Pats 3-4 DE. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlprPUyKL8M

 

[dryheat44]

His stock is rising very quickly and he seems to have the size/playing style that fits the Pats 3-4 DE. Thoughts?

I've heard that quite a bit in the last week, but I think he's a 3-tech and nothing else.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Besides being a boring pick? He is a solid player all around. Versatile in every position on the front. Has got the size and strength we are looking for. Stops the run well and can get a good push to the passer. Not an exciting guy who who is going to crush QB's but definately a Warren type of player that brings his lunch pail to work. In other words he is a safe pick.

 

[Peachhead]

Isn't Liuget kinda short for 5-tech? He's listed at 6'3" at his school's site which probably means he's closer to 6'2".

I don't want us falling into a "Well Wilfork did OK at DE so I guess NT sized guys will be OK there too" mindset.

#1 it was Vince Wilfork! Not just any ol' NT.

#2 Vince did OK there, and he wasn't there full-time. IMO Vince is the best NT in the business, but at DE he's was out of place. He may have been the best option there under the circumstances. But I think BB was just doing the best he could with what he had. 6'6" Richard Seymour dominated at DE. I know people get tired of the "he's not prototypical size" talk. But there's a reason why there is a prototype.

Now, if we could get Liuget a couple rounds back as a backup NT that's a whole different story. Then I'd be pretty darn happy.

 

[Coach42]

Isn't Liuget kinda short for 5-tech? He's listed at 6'3" at his school's site which probably means he's closer to 6'2".

I don't want us falling into a "Well Wilfork did OK at DE so I guess NT sized guys will be OK there too" mindset.

#1 it was Vince Wilfork! Not just any ol' NT.

#2 Vince did OK there, and he wasn't there full-time. IMO Vince is the best NT in the business, but at DE he's was out of place. He may have been the best option there under the circumstances. But I think BB was just doing the best he could with what he had. 6'6" Richard Seymour dominated at DE. I know people get tired of the "he's not prototypical size" talk. But there's a reason why there is a prototype.

Now, if we could get Liuget a couple rounds back as a backup NT that's a whole different story. Then I'd be pretty darn happy.

I think if you use Seymour as the starting point for judging DE's you're going to be disappointed every year. Seymour was a rare find and I think you could make a strong case that a better 3-4 DE has not been drafted since Seymour was in '01.

I have no idea if he is actually 6-3 and won't know for sure until the combine but just dismissing a player because you have a hunch he is 6-2 is kinda dumb.

 

[MaineMan]

I think if you use Seymour as the starting point for judging DE's you're going to be disappointed every year. Seymour was a rare find and I think you could make a strong case that a better 3-4 DE has not been drafted since Seymour was in '01.

I have no idea if he is actually 6-3 and won't know for sure until the combine but just dismissing a player because you have a hunch he is 6-2 is kinda dumb.

Though it's admittedly a small sample size, it seems like BB has shown a preference for length in starting DEs, roughly 6050+. However, I think it's relative. For instance, I think he'd take a 6047 player who grades out at 7.5 over a 6062 player who grades out at 6.9. OTOH, I think he might also take a 6047 player who grades out at 6.9 over a 6025 player who grades out at 7.0.

 

[Coach42]

Though it's admittedly a small sample size, it seems like BB has shown a preference for length in starting DEs, roughly 6050+. However, I think it's relative. For instance, I think he'd take a 6047 player who grades out at 7.5 over a 6062 player who grades out at 6.9. OTOH, I think he might also take a 6047 player who grades out at 6.9 over a 6025 player who grades out at 7.0.

Totally agree, kinda. Other than Warren and Seymour who have they drafted or acquired over 6'4" on the DL? No one on the DL roster is currently over 6'4" except for Ty Warren. The point I'm trying to make is that if the guy can play at 6'3" I don't think the Pats are going to get too caught up in his height.

 

[Sciz]

And there's a reason that there are no true starting-caliber DEs on the roster other than Warren if he's healthy.

 

[MaineMan]

Totally agree, kinda. Other than Warren and Seymour who have they drafted or acquired over 6'4" on the DL? No one on the DL roster is currently over 6'4" except for Ty Warren. The point I'm trying to make is that if the guy can play at 6'3" I don't think the Pats are going to get too caught up in his height.

Well, if you're talking about guys BB has drafted in the first two rounds, besides Warren and Seymour, there's only been the late Marquise Hill. All the rest of the guys BB has acquired as DL who are shorter have been from the other end of the draft or even UDFAs, or aging vets cut from their last gigs. IOW, not any huge investment. The fact that the current DL roster doesn't have anyone 6'5"+/300lbs may be less a matter of choice and more a matter of lack of supply - at least of highly talented guy in that size range.

Also, looking back at the 2008-09-10 drafts, there have been maybe a total of 5-6 guys (1-2 per class) at +/- 6'5" and around 300 lbs who anyone has thought highly enough to draft in the first two rounds and, IIRC, a couple of those were taken way before BB's first pick (mathematically impossible trade-up). In this draft, though, at #17, there may be 3-4 guys within those height/weight parameters still available who are widely regarded as 1st-2nd round talent.

All I'm really saying is IF (for instance) Watt, Heyward, Wilkerson, Jordan and Liuget are all still available at #17, but appear likely to be gone, by #28, Liuget might be at the bottom of that list for BB, because the others have some edge over him in length. No slam on Liuget who may well be a fine player.

 

[patchick]

Well, if you're talking about guys BB has drafted in the first two rounds, besides Warren and Seymour, there's only been the late Marquise Hill. All the rest of the guys BB has acquired as DL who are shorter have been from the other end of the draft or even UDFAs, or aging vets cut from their last gigs. IOW, not any huge investment. The fact that the current DL roster doesn't have anyone 6'5"+/300lbs may be less a matter of choice and more a matter of lack of supply - at least of highly talented guy in that size range.

Well put. No individual measurable is an absolute -- e.g. I'm sure Belichick would have been happy to grab Suh as a DE, despite his short arms. But that doesn't mean that size/length isn't a factor. Every DE Belichick has taken in the top half of the draft has been > 6'4". Even 7th-rounders Deaderick and Weston are 6'4" & 6'5" respectively, with long arms.

 

[satz]

Look at this way

a 6 4 + guy can see over the top a gaurd and located a QB and on passing downs can pass rush. When you put shorter and bigger guys you not only lose the qb location factor but also ability to chase a qb.

also people forget how many balls seymour used to bat down as being tall he can see over the gaurd when and where the qb is passing.

 

[Sciz]

also people forget how many balls seymour used to bat down as being tall he can see over the gaurd when and where the qb is passing.

Yeah, and getting a hand on the ball is a great way to knock it into the air and force interceptions. Those two or three inches there are huge.

 

[MaineMan]

Yeah, and getting a hand on the ball is a great way to knock it into the air and force interceptions. Those two or three inches there are huge.

That's one of the reasons Watt became an early binky for me. He's knocked down a lot of passes (and kicks). But that accomplishment speaks not only to his physical measurements, but also to his awareness. He's already paying attention to that part of his role.