Why did we choose Cunningham over Dunlap?

[Run DMC]

I'm still mulling this over and I think it was a mistake by BB to take JC over Dunlap. I remember the pundits as well as myself were shocked when we chose the 6'3" JC over the 6'6" CD. Looking back at last season, despite being injured and playing in only 12 games Dunlap recorded 9.5 sacks ( a rookie record in Cincy) and our own JC had 1 sack for the season.

Wasn't 2010 regarded as the year where "players" (ie, da Jest) triumphed over team (ie, da Pats)? Maybe we should be thinking about adding a few more "players" to the roster since we folded once again when it matters most? Please discuss.

 

[Shelterdog]

I'm still mulling this over and I think it was a mistake by BB to take JC over Dunlap. I remember the pundits as well as myself were shocked when we chose the 6'3" JC over the 6'6" CD. Looking back at last season, despite being injured and playing in only 12 games Dunlap recorded 9.5 sacks ( a rookie record in Cincy) and our own JC had 1 sack for the season.

Wasn't 2010 regarded as the year where "players" (ie, da Jest) triumphed over team (ie, da Pats)? Maybe we should be thinking about adding a few more "players" to the roster since we folded once again when it matters most? Please discuss.

For starters they play different positions.

 

[Sciz]

Better scheme fit. Where Dunlap was an elephant prospect, Cunningham is seen as a legit option to drop into coverage in more of a true OLB role. Oh yeah, and Dunlap had big character red flags.

Also, a "Cunningham" is now when you get to the QB but fail to tackle him. If Cunningham takes out the "Cunninghams," he has 8 sacks or so. It bodes well for the future as long as he learns how to wrap up the QB.

 

[TheComeback]

Cunningham is a more fluid athlete than Dunlap, which makes him better suited to playing linebacker. He also doesn't come with Dunlap's baggage in terms of personality.

It's ridiculous to say Cunningham was a mistake after one season, especially when your only evidence is pointing to a stat that really isn't that important. Jermaine had a solid rookie campaign.

Don't see how you can be disappointed with a rookie who emerged as a starter right away in a very tough system, at a position he didn't play in college (unlike Dunlap, who is doing the same thing he did at florida -- 4-3 DE), who already sets the edge against the run better than all of our other veteran OLBs, and who is a better pass rusher than his stats would you leave to believe (Peyton Manning says hi).

I think the kid is a good player, he has a great work ethic, and he'll only get better. The bottom line is that these two guys are good fits for what their respective teams are asking from them.

 

[Calciumee]

Fits better in the system maybe?

Dunlap could have come here and got nothing done on the field.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Dunlap had big character red flags.

^^THIS

Was arrested for DUI prior to the SEC Title Game and was suspended for that game as a result. Questions are often asked about his work ethic and whether he always gives 100%.

Not that you can't take a chance on someone later (like Hernandez and pot charges) but the higher the pick the more concerned you are about that stuff.

It's always stupid to get a DUI, but to do it in the days before the biggest game of the season sort of suggests the old line "football isn't so important to him"

 

[Rob0729]

Cincy runs an simple defense which makes it very easy for rookies to pick up.

Also, he would need to play DE in the 3-4 and he may not be big enough (he is height wise, but probably 10-20lbs too light). He is too big to play OLB in the 3-4. So in the Pats' defense, he might be relegated to DE in subpackages. The Pats were in the market for an every down OLB (who might play DE in sub packages). Dunlap didn't fill that role. He may not have found a role on most first and second downs on this team.

The biggest reason the Pats didn't take Dunlap is probably because back in April, they seemed to be set at the position with Ty Warren at one DE and a good rotation of Brace, Pryor, and Wright at the position. They did take Deadrick in the 7th, but that was because he was a mid round prospect who dropped to the seventh. If they took Dunlap over Cunningham, they would have had an even bigger hole at OLB than they actually had this year. They couldn't have predicted Ty Warren getting IRed before the season started and Wright missing half the season.

 

[sbpatfan]

Sacks are by far the dumbest stat around.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I'm still mulling this over and I think it was a mistake by BB to take JC over Dunlap. I remember the pundits as well as myself were shocked when we chose the 6'3" JC over the 6'6" CD. Looking back at last season, despite being injured and playing in only 12 games Dunlap recorded 9.5 sacks ( a rookie record in Cincy) and our own JC had 1 sack for the season.

Wasn't 2010 regarded as the year where "players" (ie, da Jest) triumphed over team (ie, da Pats)? Maybe we should be thinking about adding a few more "players" to the roster since we folded once again when it matters most? Please discuss.

Cunningham is a 3-4 OLB who can set the edge and play 4-3 DE. Dunlap is just a 4-3 DE it's pretty hard to make a BB team if your just a one tick pony

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Coach Belichick sent me his "2010 Draft Rationale." He even broke it down for me, categorizing all of the scouting notes, character concerns, and team needs. I'll send it to you when I'm done reading it.

 

[WelshPat]

Dunlap is a turd, sure the Bengals hit on that one but for every him there's a Andre Smith or Michael Johnson...

I'be no problem with the Pats passing on a player who was known to be very lazy, because the odds are that he will be lazy in the pros too.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Not saying Cunningham will be a bust ,but if BB was good at picking out pass rushers in the draft we would not be starting guys on many snaps like Rob Nincovich on one side and Tully Banta Cain on the other.

Wide Receivers and Pass Rushers in the draft have been the achilles heel of our future HOF coach with a few minor exceptions.....none of the selections have really worked out in the long term...thank God he isn't bad at drafting QBs

 

[Urgent]

Sacks are by far the dumbest stat around.

How about third down success?

However you measure it, the Patriots failed to consistently pressure the passer. While their defense improved a lot over the year, third-and-long performance was terrible. Marginal passers picked them apart in that situation.

We can roll eyes at stats like sacks, but the overall result was pretty poor.

Further, as Reiss has pointed out, the Pats were in sub packages more than the base 3-4. We can point out that this player and that isn't a good fit for the base 3-4, but teams forced the Patriots out of it a lot, to their advantage. Like the Patriots like to spread out teams, teams spread out the Patriots and feasted on the spoils.

Having an extra 9.5 sacks and the pressure going with that would be nice.

 

[BadMoFo]

Sacks are by far the dumbest stat around.

So we must have a very smart team.

 

[TriplecHamp]

So we must have a very smart team.

dem dere sacks don't mean nuffin

 

[Deus Irae]

Sacks are by far the dumbest stat around.

Patriots sack rankings:

2000: 25
2001: 13
2002: 20
2003: 6
2004: 3
2005: 23
2006: 5
2007: 2
2008: 14
2009: 23
2010: 14

I don't know why you'd call it "by far the dumbest stat around" when it seems to track the Patriots success and failure under Belichick pretty darned well.

 

[jsull87]

I'm still mulling this over and I think it was a mistake by BB to take JC over Dunlap. I remember the pundits as well as myself were shocked when we chose the 6'3" JC over the 6'6" CD. Looking back at last season, despite being injured and playing in only 12 games Dunlap recorded 9.5 sacks ( a rookie record in Cincy) and our own JC had 1 sack for the season.

Wasn't 2010 regarded as the year where "players" (ie, da Jest) triumphed over team (ie, da Pats)? Maybe we should be thinking about adding a few more "players" to the roster since we folded once again when it matters most? Please discuss.

a few more players?

like McCourty? Gronk? andHern? oh yeah and Spikes? and a starting rookie OLB in cunningham?

Maybe we should trade up and get that impact guy like Vernon gholston?

The draft is an inexact science we did well last year, we'll never go 100% picking right. I'll stick with BB's picks they have worked out ok so far

 

[Dufflebagz]

Are we already branding Cunningham a JAG and Dunlap a future HOFer....Cunningham ended up starting, can we give it a couple seasons before judging?

 

[Kasmir]

They had exactly the same number of sacks at Florida, and Cunningham had more pressures. Dunlap was an inconsistent player at Florida, while Cunningham was very reliable. Besides the positional differences, I think Belichick values consistency very highly.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

I'm still mulling this over and I think it was a mistake by BB to take JC over Dunlap.

Be careful asking such questions. I got a thread sh*t-canned for asking the same question.

The reasons given on this forum are mostly lame; YES sacks do matter and YES BB would have found a way to use him. It is ridiculous to think that BB could not adapt the D to use his abilities.

The real reason has to be character concerns especially given BB's relationship with Meyer. There was probably a lot more going on than the public realizes.