There is a risk in every single position in the NFL. But if there is an elite prospect and you've done your homework, you can't pass on a player for that sole reason alone IMO. Haven't we heard this argument one too many times before? A team is only as strong as it's weakest link. While I agree that an improved pass-rush can help the secondary, it's not going to be the cure-all when you're completely lacking both talent and bodies back there. In other words, improving the pass-rush isn't going to help the secondary as much as addressing it directly IMO. With Cushing, Ryans, Barwin, Adibi, Diles, and Sharpton, I think we have a solid LB core and a pass rushing OLB would really be icing on the cake. Von would be a very nice addition to the squad but not at the price mentioned by the OP.
Shut. Past tense. He did it in college; he has not proven he can do that in the pros. The Texans don't play Alabama or Georgia this year. They all are at this level. But transitioning to CB in the NFL is very difficult. He might make it easily; but the degree of difficulty is much greater when compared to pass-rushing OLB. And even if he translates perfectly to the NFL, do you really want to spend two high picks, and #2 overall money, on a guy who's greatness can be negated rather easily by the opponent? Plus, if he does his job well, he doesn't inherently make the overall defense appreciably better. If Kareem Jackson is your other CB and he proves last year was no fluke, Peterson can't impact that at all. In fact, Jackson just gets picked on more relentlessly and Peterson essentially is rendered a spectator. An effective pass-rusher, though... Teams have to account for them on every passing play and they can absolutely make a defense better overall. Reduce the amount of time the QB has to scan his options, the amount of time receivers have to run their routes; if you can shift the game and have it played on one side of the field because you have to run everything away from the pass-rushing - that's game-changing. They obviously need to upgrade their secondary. But I think they can do that and improve another area of need (pass rush) with one pick.
This is a great point. It's not enough in the NFL to have one great CB and one average one, you have to have two above-average CBs. Take the case of Oakland the past few years with Nnamdi Asomugha, yes he SHUTS down half the field, but other teams still throw on the Raiders because they just go more heavily to the other side to Routt or Washington. Same thing would happen here. In fact, we've already seen this. When we had Aaron Glenn and Dunta Robinson on the field together, teams went hard after Dunta, and he was able to stand up to it and had his most INTs his rookie year (6 out 14 for his career). When AG left, and Dunta was elevated to CB1, teams stopped throwing at him and picked on Petey Faggins or whoever else we lined up next to him until Dunta got hurt. It wasn't until Dunta came back and teams found out he had lost something due to the injury that teams started throwing at him again. If we get a player the caliber of Asomugha, expect the same thing to happen to Quinn and/or Jackson.
late to the party, but no one is a sure thing in the NFL. trading multiple picks for one player is dumb considering not only the opportunity costs but the amount of money tied to him as a #2 overall pick. Von Miller is as a risky pick as anyone else. having later AND more draft picks gives you more chances of hitting on a great player that provides better return for your money.
I think I'm officially burned out on talking about the Texans. Wake me up when (if) the season starts.
But you have to factor in cost. 1:1, sure - go get a stud CB. But this paticular stud CB is going to cost you a #1, a #3 and #2 overall money. Given that, risk and short- and long-term ROI should absolutely be considered. Relatively speaking, a (rookie) pass-rushing OLB is far more likely to immediately impact your team than a (rookie) shutdown CB. So while Peterson might be the better pick 2, 3, 5 years from now; if I'm Gary Kubiak, I'm not looking a day past the end of the 2011 season. It should be all in this year. Von Miller instantly makes this team better. Patrick Peterson might.* (* For this exercise, I'm assuming all things equal and that both players will live up to their potential.) They didn't tender Diles, Adibi is always hurt, and Ryans and Barwin are coming off significant injuries. Barwin, who has yet to establish himself, will be playing a new position, as will Cushing and, really, Ryans, too. They may have more parts in place, but the linebackers are a pretty unsettled bunch with nearly as many question marks.
ok perhaps "nearly as many", but not nearly as huge. I'm just saying. We have LB who have actually succeeded in the NFL at all before. That's light years beyond the secondary.
I would not be surprised if the Texans drafted 2 OLBs and 1 ILB (if case Ryans can not regain form) in this year's draft. This is why I would be surprised if the Texans draft a NT or DE in this year's draft, especially since they also need DBs. Wade Phillips has implied as much in his DL comments.
But you're assuming that a CB cannot instantly make this team better while a OLB will for sure. Guys like DeAngelo Hall, Dunta, Pacman, Revis, Rogers-Cromartie (all high 1st round picks) all made significant impacts on their respective teams from the start. You're also assuming that Miller has zero bust potential and that he'll live up to the hype immediately, I just don't think you can make that assumption regardless of the position. BTW, I'm not advocating that we trade up for Peterson. As I posted earlier in the thread, I'm hoping one of Quinn or Prince will fall to us at #11 and I think either one of those picks at #11 would be better for us than trading up for Miller or Peterson. I agree that the LB core does have some question marks, but I don't think we need to trade a 1st and 3rd to address them. Switching to the 3-4, really all of the players will be playing a new position (or at least have different assignments) so I'm not too concerned with playing new positions (especially for Cushing and DeMeco). In sum, I guess I'm just EXTREMELY concerned with our secondary. While our LBs have questions marks, our secondary has holes. The 5 safeties have on the current roster have a combined 4 starts last season (Nolan and Barber), 2 others played in 2 games or less, and the other 1 was on the practice squad all season. I like the idea of moving Quin to safety but that leaves Kareem and Allen manning CB.
a lot of those guys you mentioned had decent 1st years but were hardly a major reason for the team's sucess. It's not impossible for a CB to come out and be a very good player, but it is extremely rare.
For the sake of this discussion, I’m assuming both live up to their hype. This is all predicated on dealing up. If I’m going to deal a 1 and 3 plus pay #2 overall money, I want to make sure that the guy I’m getting will have an immediate impact on my defense. Generally, the transition for an OLB is far easier than CB and much harder for the opposition to nullify/exploit. And because of Kubiak’s relationship with Sherman, he’ll have unprecedented access to Miller which further mitigates the risk. No one is a sure thing but Sherman is going to shoot straight and give you honest answers; not answers that might help his recruiting efforts down the road.
I've heard this a couple times and i just don't think this relationship is all that valuable. NFL teams do so much due diligence i just find it hard to believe that sherman could somehow "hide" something from other teams looking at him. Sure it doesnt hurt to have a connection but I also dont think it gives you anything so amazingly groundbreaking news that no one else has.
If there's a flaw in Miller's game, Sherman's *more likely* to be honest and sincere with Kubiak about his worthiness. What's Les Myles' incentive? If Kubiak trades away a 1 and 3 and give tens of millions of dollars to Peterson, Myles gets to walk into every single recruit's house thereafter and say, "Come play with me: I make players NFL teams COVET!" That's where the Sherman connection could pay unique dividends.
Is there any data set to back this up or just conventional wisdom? There's an inherent bias in favor of pass rushers because if they do their job, it results in a gaudy, highlight film sack, whereas if a cornerback does his job, it generally results in a QB not throwing the ball his way, and is completely unnoticed. If you look at the list of defensive rookies of the year, it's almost ALL lineman and pass rushers - is this because it's "easier" to rush the passer, or is it becuase it's easier to be noticed while rushing the passer?
It's conventional wisdom, but it also kind of makes sense. It seems that the skillset a DE needs is a lot simpler and more physically oriented than the skillset a DB needs. Kind of like on offense how a rookie RB is far more likely to hit it big quickly than a rookie QB. Granted, I don't think that is a perfect comparison, but it kind of shows you what I'm talking about.
YOu think? I mean a man cover corner is basically performing the same role he's been asked to fulfill since Pop Warner - it's not like quarterback where they're learning a whole new set of plays or schemes or reads or whatever. I mean they are to a limited extent with respect to blitzes, safety help etc.... but in one-on-one coverage situations, there's not much difference in what Darrelle Revis is doing now from what he was doing 10 years ago, which is probably why he was successful from Day 1 onwards.
True, but I wouldn't point to Revis, or any other probable hall of famer, as an example of the rule, rather than the exception... there's a reason they're considered that good. Perhaps a better way to put it is that there is more room for error when you're part of the front 7? Seems to be a more forgiving position to rookie mistakes and inexperience. Whereas in the backfield, if you failboat, everybody knows it, because the other team just scored a touchdown.
yep, absolutely true, i think that affects the "perceptional bias" in that not only are your positives not noticed (other than ints, which have a high element of randomness built in), but your negatives are accentuated. It's naturally a higher downside-inherent position - but is the learning curve necessarily steeper towards limiting that downside? You'd measure that differently, like a yearly curve of performance in the relevant metrics, to see if it's more gradual for a Corner than for a defensive end, as there are early risers and late bloomers in both categories, so anectdotal evidence isn't that helpful here.
