BB and Pash Rushers

[IcyPatriot]

So what good would it do for us to get a good pass rusher ... Bill would just send him out in coverage.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

Yup.

I agree. Everyone seems to see this huge problem except for Belicheck himself. I like the Chung and Butler picks but OLB was our biggest need in the off season and we missed in both FA and the Draft. I couldnt fathom why BB would draft someone to be a career back-up (Brace) when we still needed a starter at OLB. Was a back up for our best player really more important than a Starter for our weakest area? I don't think so.


And I'm baffled someone as smart as BB still places height in OLB's as something so important when some of the best OLB's in the league are under 6'2 (Dummervil, Harisson DPOY, Woodley). How are our 6'5 OLB's like Pierre Woods, Vince Redd, and Shawn Crable doing right now?

Clay Matthews is making BB look like a huge dumbass right now...

I'm not really second-guessing that trade yet. Not until the pick turns into nothing later on.

 

[Marqui]

I just want Derrick Morgan.

Pft, dream on

 

[MrNathanDrake]

The sad thing is by the time our young defense starts clicking, our offense will be in shambles.

 

[Lockdown06]

Clay Matthews is making BB look like a huge dumbass right now...

I'm not really second-guessing that trade yet. Not until the pick turns into nothing later on.

Matthews was the one player that I wanted us to draft last year - I loved the way he played and thought his do-anything-to-hit-the-qb style was exactly what the defense needed

However,

I really can't disagree with the value that belichick got at the time - at the time, if there is no one person that you love in a draft (this was evident last year) but you acknowledge that there are many more equally desirable candidates than can possibly be taken early, you have to do that trade and go down.

I have a really hard time bad-mouthing our last draft, regardless of pass-rush woes. Chung, Vollmer, Brace, and Butler are all on track to develop (even Brace - Warren and Wilfork both had a tough time finding playing time on the d-line) their rookie year) and when BB pulled this trade off, he still had Seymour - another possible reason why he was going after rushers less urgently

 

[mayoclinic]

Matthews was the one player that I wanted us to draft last year - I loved the way he played and thought his do-anything-to-hit-the-qb style was exactly what the defense needed

However,

I really can't disagree with the value that belichick got at the time - at the time, if there is no one person that you love in a draft (this was evident last year) but you acknowledge that there are many more equally desirable candidates than can possibly be taken early, you have to do that trade and go down.

I have a really hard time bad-mouthing our last draft, regardless of pass-rush woes. Chung, Vollmer, Brace, and Butler are all on track to develop (even Brace - Warren and Wilfork both had a tough time finding playing time on the d-line) their rookie year) and when BB pulled this trade off, he still had Seymour - another possible reason why he was going after rushers less urgently

I liked Matthews a lot last year. My main concern was whether his size would be sufficient to hold up for what BB looks for in a 3-4 OLB. I thought he might be better off moving inside next to Mayo, where I thought he would be terrific. No doubt he was a good player, though.

I agree with you that we can't argue with the value that BB got out of last year's draft.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I just want Derrick Morgan.

No! No! no!

Pass rushers need to be sudden and explosive. We are looking for a jack rabbit starter (like Ware) not a plowhorse (Like Thomas, Burgess, Woods, etc.)

Morgan couldn't beat his grandmother off the line with his slow first step. We want a player that is SUDDEN and EXPLOSIVE.

It is so much easier to train a sudden and explosive first step player to rush the passer than to train a slower first step player to be sudden.

 

[mgteich]

Why can't we argue with the value that Belichick derived at 34, 40 and 83? This accepts the argument that we needed to give up 124 and 199 to move up to get Butler.

Belichick chose Chung, Brace and Tate. Would we really be worse off with Laurinitis or Sintim, Levitre or Unger, and Wallace? We questioned these choices then. Why shouldn't we do so now?

.
I agree with you that we can't argue with the value that BB got out of last year's draft.

 

[carolinatony]

The sad thing is by the time our young defense starts clicking, our offense will be in shambles.


I'm afraid you may be right on this!

 

[carolinatony]

I think we missed last year on Matthews and should have grabbed him. He was all over the place for the Packers last night.
I am not sure how good Brace will be but would give him up and Chung for
Matthews.

Maybe we don't trade for Burgess either and have that pick back this year.
We would be in a better position this next draft.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

couldve traded up for cushing or orakpo too

 

[mayoclinic]

I think we missed last year on Matthews and should have grabbed him. He was all over the place for the Packers last night.
I am not sure how good Brace will be but would give him up and Chung for
Matthews.

Maybe we don't trade for Burgess either and have that pick back this year.
We would be in a better position this next draft.

I have to admit it, I think I was wrong about Matthews.

I liked Matthews a lot last year - not as much as Barwin, but a lot. I particularly liked how fluidly he moved, which reflected his background as a safety, and his ability in coverage. My big concern was that he was too small for a Pats 3-4 OLB, and that he was maxed out in terms of his size (he went from 200 lbs. to 240 at USC). I thought people were getting carried away with his "bloodlines" and were ignoring that he was too small to play 3-4 OLB for us. I was shocked when he showed up at OTAs at 250#, 10# over his combine weight of 240. But he's clearly showed no loss of speed or fluidity at the increased weight. I'm very impressed with how he moves for a 250 lb. guy, and he's much more physical than I had expected.

I think you could make a good argument for the following draft over what we ended up getting:

1(26) - Clay Matthews, OLB. You can still do the trade with Baltimore, though I think what we got (pick 162 for trading back from 23 to 26) was too little.
2(34) - Patrick Chung, S.
2(40) - Darius Butler, CB. I'd still do the trade up with Oakland, but to take Butler, not Brace.
2(58) - Sebastian Vollmer, OT. Pick of the draft, for me.
3(89) - traded to Houston for 2010 2nd round pick.
3(97) - Tyrone McKenzie, ILB. This could also be used for a backup DT, such as Vaughn Martin or Sammie Lee Hill.
- Remainder of the draft unchanged.

We would have only 2 2nd round picks in 2010 instead of 3, but we could have avoided trading our 3rd and 5th round picks to Oakland for Derrick Burgess, so I'm not sure we'd be that much worse off in 2010. We would have missed out on Brandon Tate, who may turn into a star at some point but who has essentially missed all of 2009. And we would have missed out on Ron Brace, who is an enigma right now. But we would have a young stud at 3-4 OLB to complement a ILB core of Mayo, Guyton and McKenzie, who could probably also play 4-3 SAM and 3-4 SILB.

I would have been ok with Matthews at 23-34 last year. Not ecstatic, but ok. In retrospect, I think he would have been a fabulous pick. I still think Barwin could have been great for us in time, but Matthews clearly would have been a terrific pick and would have addressed our biggest need.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

ugh ya...BB screwed up big time by not taking an OLB last year

 

[mgteich]

I always liked Matthews. But if you are going to do better in hindsight, why not use the #34 better? If passing on Matthews and all we got for the pick is right in hindsight, I think it is right in hindsight (and foresight) to choose Laurinitis at 34.

I have to admit it, I think I was wrong about Matthews.

I liked Matthews a lot last year - not as much as Barwin, but a lot. I particularly liked how fluidly he moved, which reflected his background as a safety, and his ability in coverage. My big concern was that he was too small for a Pats 3-4 OLB, and that he was maxed out in terms of his size (he went from 200 lbs. to 240 at USC). I thought people were getting carried away with his "bloodlines" and were ignoring that he was too small to play 3-4 OLB for us. I was shocked when he showed up at OTAs at 250#, 10# over his combine weight of 240. But he's clearly showed no loss of speed or fluidity at the increased weight. I'm very impressed with how he moves for a 250 lb. guy, and he's much more physical than I had expected.

I think you could make a good argument for the following draft over what we ended up getting:

1(26) - Clay Matthews, OLB. You can still do the trade with Baltimore, though I think what we got (pick 162 for trading back from 23 to 26) was too little.
2(34) - Patrick Chung, S.
2(40) - Darius Butler, CB. I'd still do the trade up with Oakland, but to take Butler, not Brace.
2(58) - Sebastian Vollmer, OT. Pick of the draft, for me.
3(89) - traded to Houston for 2010 2nd round pick.
3(97) - Tyrone McKenzie, ILB. This could also be used for a backup DT, such as Vaughn Martin or Sammie Lee Hill.
- Remainder of the draft unchanged.

We would have only 2 2nd round picks in 2010 instead of 3, but we could have avoided trading our 3rd and 5th round picks to Oakland for Derrick Burgess, so I'm not sure we'd be that much worse off in 2010. We would have missed out on Brandon Tate, who may turn into a star at some point but who has essentially missed all of 2009. And we would have missed out on Ron Brace, who is an enigma right now. But we would have a young stud at 3-4 OLB to complement a ILB core of Mayo, Guyton and McKenzie, who could probably also play 4-3 SAM and 3-4 SILB.

I would have been ok with Matthews at 23-34 last year. Not ecstatic, but ok. In retrospect, I think he would have been a fabulous pick. I still think Barwin could have been great for us in time, but Matthews clearly would have been a terrific pick and would have addressed our biggest need.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

I always liked Matthews. But if you are going to do better in hindsight, why not use the #34 better? If passing on Matthews and all we got for the pick is right in hindsight, I think it is right in hindsight (and foresight) to choose Laurinitis at 34.

Nothing was wrong with Chung at #34.

he was drafted exactly where he was projected. We needed a SS at the time. No one knew McGown would come out of no where and play as good as he has.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Ga Tech and Morgan however have a chance to redeem themselves as they play Clemson next week and Clemson rarely runs up the middle, they prefer to work the edges and if Morgan can set his edge with authority against a dynamic, but injured, back like Spiller, then that should go along ways toward redeeming himself.

Guess that didn't happen. Spiller ran wild for over 230 yards. GT still won the game, but it was a close one and very high scoring.

I would have been ok with Matthews at 23-34 last year. Not ecstatic, but ok. In retrospect, I think he would have been a fabulous pick. I still think Barwin could have been great for us in time, but Matthews clearly would have been a terrific pick and would have addressed our biggest need.

I was pretty high on the Matthews kid and said he could easily turn out to be the best of the USC linebackers. Looks like all of them turned out pretty well though. Cushing has been very impressive for the Texans as well. Mauluga is contributing for the Bengals, although he hasn't had as eye opening a year as either matthews or cushing.

 

[Lockdown06]

I always liked Matthews. But if you are going to do better in hindsight, why not use the #34 better? If passing on Matthews and all we got for the pick is right in hindsight, I think it is right in hindsight (and foresight) to choose Laurinitis at 34.

I don't think laurinaitis would have addressed the same weaknesses in our defense that matthews would have.

Laurinaitis is having a fantastic year for the Rams, but he's not a pass-rusher - On our D, laurinaitis would replace Guyton, and while he would almost certainly be an upgrade, I think this season has proved that Guyton isn't the most pressing issue on our defense. The pass rush is killing our team right now.

If you mean select Laurinaitis instead of Chung, and still take Matthews, then I misunderstood and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you - knowing what we know now, I'd be pretty comfortable with meriweather, mcgowan, and sanders as our top 3 safeties, with a linebacking corps of TBC, Mayo, Laurinaitis, and Matthews looking pretty formidable, given that we could then use Thomas in sub-packages where he'd probably be most effective at this point.

 

[cstjohn17]

I was pretty high on the Matthews kid and said he could easily turn out to be the best of the USC linebackers. Looks like all of them turned out pretty well though. Cushing has been very impressive for the Texans as well. Mauluga is contributing for the Bengals, although he hasn't had as eye opening a year as either matthews or cushing.

I liked Matthews too, I thought he could help out on 3rd downs (rushing the passer), was athletic enough to cover TEs and could play special teams.

I was concerned that he is a little light but seeing the way Green Bay is using him reminds me of how the Pats used Rosie Colvin. Colvin played on Seymour's side while the bigger OLB/DE played to the defensive left.

The sad thing is that Matthews would be the 2nd best pass rusher on the team with far more upside than TBC or anyone else.

 

[mayoclinic]

I always liked Matthews. But if you are going to do better in hindsight, why not use the #34 better? If passing on Matthews and all we got for the pick is right in hindsight, I think it is right in hindsight (and foresight) to choose Laurinitis at 34.

Funny how we all now liked Matthews. Patsnutsme was his most vocal supporter that I can recall. I think many of us genuinely liked Matthews, but a lot us (certainly me, for one) had other guys we liked even more.

I assume you are not suggesting that Matthews and Laurinaitis are interchangeable, since they bring different skills. We clearly needed a pass rushing 3-4 OLB, and Laurinaitis just does not fit that bill.

But we also needed depth (and possibly a starter next to Mayo) at ILB, and you were one of the most vocal people pushing Laurinaitis for that role. I think that you can ask the question as to whether we would have been better off taking Chung at 34 and McKenzie at 97, or Laurinaitis (or possibly Maualuga) at 34 and someone like Chip Vaughn at 97. It's certainly a reasonable question.

In that scenario, our draft would have looked something like:

26 Clay Matthews, OLB
34 Patrick Chung S or James Laurinaitis ILB (or Rey Maualuga, for those who favored Maualuga)
40 Darius Butler, CB
58 Sebastian Vollmer, OT
97 Tyrone McKenzie ILB or Chip Vaughn S

We would have missed out on Brandon Tate and on a DT, and we would have acquired only 1 extra 2nd round pick for 2010 (Tennessee's, which was acquired by trading our #89 pick in the 3rd round). But we would have 3rd and 5th round picks in 2010 which we lost in the Derrick Burgess trade.

Time will tell how good Chung and McKenzie are for us. For 2009, we clearly could have benefitted from Matthews at OLB and Laurinaitis/Maualuga at ILB next to Mayo.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Jerry Hughes, Jason Pierre Paul, and George Selvie video...

YouTube - DraftParty's Week 11 Highlights/Lowlights Part 1 2009

Hughes is an absolute beast in this footage. His variety of moves is impressive. Speed rush, bull rush, spin move. Doesnt look to have the most textbook tackling though. The best pure pass rusher this year IMO.

The latter two are not impressive at all. What happened to Selvie? Did injuries hurt him that much or was he just a 1 year wonder. His stock has fallen significantly.