A couple of surprises, and the positions on D that i believe need to be upgraded and ways to fix them (1 Viewer)

[Nevimeister]

By the end of the season safety will be added high to the list. Sharper is 33. Harper is a liability in coverage and offensive co-ordinators will look to isolate him and take advantage of the matchup. We have no idea what we have in Chip Vaughn.

 

[socal]

Fujita would be great as a back up, but the man is getting older and a giant liability.
I wouldn't be surprised if we draft a replacement for him sometime during next years draft. DE will def be a target next year.

What sucks is this years draft is pretty weak compared to last years at LB. I think Renny Curran is just too small for the NFL. Maybe not though, who knows?!?!? Wesley Woodyard is playing well in DEN and hes not huge either. Hes not starting though. Free Agency for OLB is weak in 2010 too.
I think Thomas Howard (OAK) and Demarcas Ware(DAL) are the only real prospects and Ware is more a JACK than a SAM.
I think going after a SAM in the 2nd round wouldnt be a bad idea, and going after a DE in the 1st would be best.

DE

Brandon Graham, Michigan
Height: 6-3. Weight: 270.
Projected 40 Time: 4.72.
Projected Round (2010): 1-2.

Sergio Kindle, Texas
Height: 6-4. Weight: 254.
Projected 40 Time: 4.54.
Projected Round (2010): 1-2.

Eric Norwood, South Carolina
Height: 6-1. Weight: 255.
Projected 40 Time: 4.71.
Projected Round (2010): 1-2.

Get one of these DE's right away, then one of these OLBs,

Rico McCoy, Tennessee
Height: 6-1. Weight: 222.
Projected 40 Time: 4.56.
Projected Round (2010): 2.

Stevenson Sylvester, Utah
Height: 6-2. Weight: 225.
Projected 40 Time: 4.60.
Projected Round (2010): 2-3.


Heres my sleeper OLB pick. Hes HUGE.
He plays faster than his 40 time would indicate.
One of those guys who plays faster on the field, than at the combine.

Clinton Snyder, Stanford
Height: 6-4. Weight: 233.
Projected 40 Time: 4.70.
Projected Round (2010): 5-6.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[bobad]

Sacks aren't the only (or even the best) measure of pass rush ability.

Go to the NFL stats and find a few sack leading DE's or OLB's, and you will usually find winning teams.

 

[blasian]

Sacks are not the best measure of pass rush ability?

Now I've heard it all.

Disrupting the timing of the QB due to pressure is a stat that's not measured. Sure a sack is nice but if you force the QB to make a horrible throw due to pressure you typically force an incomplete pass or even better... an INT.

Not sure on how to measure which is better but if the rush created INTs for capable pick 6 corners that we have... hell, it's really a win-win situation regardless. They can take it to the house or if we sack the QB and they punt, our offense will take it to the house

 

[NPs6724]

Sacks are not the best measure of pass rush ability?

Now I've heard it all.

Why are they the best measure?

I can supply several reasons for why they are not.

1. QBs who get rid of the ball quickly usually are sacked less than the average QB. You can get tremendous pressure but still not get a sack.
2. Some QBs (like our own) will try to get the pass off than take a sack, which can result in incompletions and INTs (as we've seen first-hand).
3. You can get pressure on the QB and force him to move away from you and into the arms of another defender. The player who caused the sack gets zero credit.
4. Coverage sacks have far more to do with the secondary than the pass rush.

That's 2 fairly common situations where a great pass rush doesn't show on the state sheet and 2 fairly common situations where a not-so-great pass rush shows up no the stat sheet.

Sacks aren't a horrible way to judge pass rush ability, but it isn't the best because there isn't a "best" way besides taking everything into account.

 

[blasian]

Go to the NFL stats and find a few sack leading DE's or OLB's, and you will usually find winning teams.

Most of the teams are actually 1-1 lol

And yes, I know it's too early.

 

[robb01]

Sacks aren't the only (or even the best) measure of pass rush ability.

very true

 

[blasian]

Why are they the best measure?

I can supply several reasons for why they are not.

1. QBs who get rid of the ball quickly usually are sacked less than the average QB. You can get tremendous pressure but still not get a sack.
2. Some QBs (like our own) will try to get the pass off than take a sack, which can result in incompletions and INTs (as we've seen first-hand).
3. You can get pressure on the QB and force him to move away from you and into the arms of another defender. The player who caused the sack gets zero credit.
4. Coverage sacks have far more to do with the secondary than the pass rush.

That's 2 fairly common situations where a great pass rush doesn't show on the state sheet and 2 fairly common situations where a not-so-great pass rush shows up no the stat sheet.

Sacks aren't a horrible way to judge pass rush ability, but it isn't the best because there isn't a "best" way besides taking everything into account.

 

[CantonLegend]

Sacks are not the best measure of pass rush ability?

Now I've heard it all.

lol you are lost if you think sacks are everything

interceptions happen a lot of the time because the QB is getting rushed to make a decision.....incompletions happen because of good pass rush.....DTs dont get a lot of credit but if they collapse the pocket it requires the QB to move out and possibly get sacked by another player or let another player make a play......while stats my not show everything for a defensive linemen, the game footage does not lie

 

[Loose Cannon]

Over the course of the season, you don't think a team that generates a consistent pass rush is going to end up with better sack numbers than a team that doesn't?

Absurd.

This is the same thing as the debate I had about forced fumbles. On an individual basis, there is some luck involved in each fumble and who recovers. On each individual pass play, there are several factors, some including luck, that decide the outcome and whether a sack occurs or not. But over a period of time, once you have a reasonable sample size (IE 16 games), the cream will rise to the top just about every time.

Nothing but rationalization. Can't believe anyone would even attempt to make this argument.

I'm sure someone somewhere in the city of Oakland is attempting to make the argument that completion percentage is not a good measure of a QB either.

 

[CantonLegend]

Why are they the best measure?

I can supply several reasons for why they are not.

1. QBs who get rid of the ball quickly usually are sacked less than the average QB. You can get tremendous pressure but still not get a sack.
2. Some QBs (like our own) will try to get the pass off than take a sack, which can result in incompletions and INTs (as we've seen first-hand).
3. You can get pressure on the QB and force him to move away from you and into the arms of another defender. The player who caused the sack gets zero credit.
4. Coverage sacks have far more to do with the secondary than the pass rush.

That's 2 fairly common situations where a great pass rush doesn't show on the state sheet and 2 fairly common situations where a not-so-great pass rush shows up no the stat sheet.

Sacks aren't a horrible way to judge pass rush ability, but it isn't the best because there isn't a "best" way besides taking everything into account.

i guess i should've read the whole thread before posting nearly the exact same thing......great post

 

[CantonLegend]

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/rSsLkBG_64Y&hl=en&fs=1& width=560 height=340 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

this was more of a knock on the tackle than it was a credit to the DE....he is supposed to be a great prospect and really hasnt done much.....he will get his numbers but he hasnt shown a lot up to this point

the Right tackles job is to take the DE where he wants to go.....the RT didnt have his head in the game and was more concerned with pressure coming on the inside than he was with kindle coming from the outside

 

[blasian]

Over the course of the season, you don't think a team that generates a consistent pass rush is going to end up with better sack numbers than a team that doesn't?

Absurd.

This is the same thing as the debate I had about forced fumbles. On an individual basis, there is some luck involved in each fumble and who recovers. On each individual pass play, there are several factors, some including luck, that decide the outcome and whether a sack occurs or not. But over a period of time, once you have a reasonable sample size (IE 16 games), the cream will rise to the top just about every time.

Nothing but rationalization. Can't believe anyone would even attempt to make this argument.

I'm sure someone somewhere in the city of Oakland is attempting to make the argument that completion percentage is not a good measure of a QB either.

You're not going to get a sack every play or even on most plays or half of the plays. That's where pressure comes into play.

 

[moe1967]

<EMBED height=340 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=560 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/rSsLkBG_64Y&hl=en&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

WOW!!! Now thats the kind of football I like!! I love the way he put his head against the QBs and then drove it all the way to the ground. Yet, you couldn't really say that it was a diliberate head shot.

Great Play!!

Edit: Gotta give the refs props for not throwing a flag on that.

 

[NPs6724]

Over the course of the season, you don't think a team that generates a consistent pass rush is going to end up with better sack numbers than a team that doesn't?

Absurd.

This is the same thing as the debate I had about forced fumbles. On an individual basis, there is some luck involved in each fumble and who recovers. On each individual pass play, there are several factors, some including luck, that decide the outcome and whether a sack occurs or not. But over a period of time, once you have a reasonable sample size (IE 16 games), the cream will rise to the top just about every time.

Nothing but rationalization. Can't believe anyone would even attempt to make this argument.

I'm sure someone somewhere in the city of Oakland is attempting to make the argument that completion percentage is not a good measure of a QB either.

If a team is always behind, they will more likely allow more sacks than teams who aren't always behind. If a team is always ahead, they will more likely have more sacks because they rush more. Some teams only rush 4 as a philosophy while others blitz and blitz and blitz. These will work depending on the opponent, not to mention a myriad of other factors. Teams that are run-oriented can allow fewer sacks against even great pass rushes. Teams with a decent pass rush but in a division with weak OLs can increase their sack total without having superior talent. Every once in a while, one player is up against a poor player on the OL and he puts up 5 sacks (Antwan Odom) and increases their sack total with superior talent.

As you can see, there is a lot that goes into sack totals. To judge anything based on that alone is ludicrous.