- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 123,128
Well, he's not. I don't even see him as Eric Berry as a safety and I don't pick him in the top five either.If he was Patrick Peterson would there be an issue taking him at 4?
Well, he's not. I don't even see him as Eric Berry as a safety and I don't pick him in the top five either.If he was Patrick Peterson would there be an issue taking him at 4?
Do you think he's the next Peterson or are you just throwing out a random question?If he was Patrick Peterson would there be an issue taking him at 4?
Mack was a pass rusher. Counts more than Lavonte David clone to me.Do you think he's the next Peterson or are you just throwing out a random question?
Looking at Ramsey, I'm not sure he's an NFL CB or safety, but I like him more as a safety. While we could use another safety to pair with Byron Jones, I don't think we need to use a top 5 pick for one. We could fill that position in FA or in the 2nd/3rd round.
As for your question, no I wouldn't have a problem with Peterson in the top 5. But I don't think Ramsey is the next Peterson.
I wouldn't have a problem with JJ Watt at #4. But I wouldn't use that as a rationale for drafting Bosa. Nor would I base taking Jack in the top 5 because Khalil Mack was a solid top 5 pick.
Just asking the question because there seems to be a lot of hate just because he is a DB.Well, he's not. I don't even see him as Eric Berry as a safety and I don't pick him in the top five either.
Any elite safety should be the ballhawk of your defense. That guy should be the person who is creating the turnovers. Is Ramsey capable of that?Looking at Ramsey, I'm not sure he's an NFL CB or safety, but I like him more as a safety.
For me Its not that he is a cb it's that we have a shot at one of the top QBs. The only way you get those is if you lose a lot the previous season and I don't want to the here again in a year or two. I know all of the other ways to get your qb but just want to hedge my bets. That time between Aikman and Romo was horrible.Just asking the question because there seems to be a lot of hate just because he is a DB.
Just asking the question because in this particular draft he might be a Peterson type.Do you think he's the next Peterson or are you just throwing out a random question?
Looking at Ramsey, I'm not sure he's an NFL CB or safety, but I like him more as a safety. While we could use another safety to pair with Byron Jones, I don't think we need to use a top 5 pick for one. We could fill that position in FA or in the 2nd/3rd round.
As for your question, no I wouldn't have a problem with Peterson in the top 5. But I don't think Ramsey is the next Peterson.
I wouldn't have a problem with JJ Watt at #4. But I wouldn't use that as a rationale for drafting Bosa. Nor would I base taking Jack in the top 5 because Khalil Mack was a solid top 5 pick.
Doesn't seem to be a ballhawk. While I prefer him at safety over CB, I don't want him in the top 5.Any elite safety should be the ballhawk of your defense. That guy should be the person who is creating the turnovers. Is Ramsey capable of that?
I'm not anti-DB in the first round. I just don't see the production from Ramsey to warrant a top 5 pick. I prefer one of the two QB's, but even if we don't take QB I'd rather trade down or go with Bosa or Jack over Ramsey even though those two also seem underwhelming at #4.Just asking the question because in this particular draft he might be a Peterson type.
In this draft Bosa is JJ Watt and Jack is Mack, not saying they are the same players just that on talent level compared to the other players in this draft they rate like those guys.
You do not seem to have any particular issue with taking a DB and Ramsey has a lot of issues when it comes to projection, I would not be surprised if he starts dropping when the real evaluaters start leaking there rankings.
This guy is going to be a beast in any system.I think Buckner goes to the 49ers at 7. The guy loves him some Oregon and it would be interesting to see him combined with former teammate Arik Armstead. I know they need everything but don't see him passing on a player he's loved in the past.
He'd be a better fit as a 1 or 3 technique DT in our scheme than a DE on either side. I don't see him winning often in space against NFL LT's.This guy is going to be a beast in any system.
He's a perfect 4-3 DE and has the frame to be a 3-4 DE as well, though he might be a bit tall for that.
He's an ideal 4-3 LDE, but I'd play him on either side. IMO he's probably better for Dallas than Bosa.
He is purely a 3-4 DE to me. If we are taking a DT for our defense I'd rather Rankins. If we are taking a DE in our defense I'd rather Spence, Bosa and probably a few other 4-3 DEs. I think Buckner has the potential to be Calais Campbell, but it's just a lot of projecting to wonder what he would look like at DT in this defense.He'd be a better fit as a 1 or 3 technique DT in our scheme than a DE on either side. I don't see him winning often in space against NFL LT's.
Yep, no reason to waste any more breath on him. I'm sure he will be a nice LT prospect for someone. Just won't be in Dallas.Nobody in their right mind would select Stanley or any other OL with the 4th pick in the draft given our roster. Theoretically I can see the argument behind Tunsil as the pure BPA, although I still would look elsewhere, but a guy like Stanley who doesn't stand out among the top 10 prospects like Tunsil does would be completely ludicrous.
Yep. Taking pure BPA when you have no need at that position is just as bad as strictly drafting for need at one position. We should always be able to identify at least 4-5 areas of need and then find BPA from among that group. This year we could target any position other than OL, especially in the early rounds.Nobody in their right mind would select Stanley or any other OL with the 4th pick in the draft given our roster. Theoretically I can see the argument behind Tunsil as the pure BPA, although I still would look elsewhere, but a guy like Stanley who doesn't stand out among the top 10 prospects like Tunsil does would be completely ludicrous.