I hear what you're saying, but don't agree. If you keep a TE to around 50 yards, I'm okay with it. And with the recent boom in huge TEs with soft hands and good speed, you're going to have to live with the fact that those guys are going to be money on seam routes all day. On the goalline, it's even trickier because you're looking at double TEs and hard shallow outs to the flats or corners a lot of the time. There's very little anyone can do when a 6-5, 255 Greg Olson or 6-6, 263 Jason Witten walls you off on a shallow out pattern. I'm not saying Cushing shuts any of these guys down, but he's been fairly effective lining up against them because of his combination of size and range. In Wade's banzai attack defense, I'm sure you'll see both Ryans and Cushing covering TEs. There is going to be a world of pressure for that tandem to play at a Pro Bowl level next season.
This Reed pick really put us over the top of draft grades I guess. From Si, to the espn draft wrap up show I saw yesterday, people were giving us A to A-. I still don't like it though. They should of traded down a couple spots down and still could of gotten Watt imo.
But you're assuming there were teams wanting to trade up to #11. When Gabbert went at #10, that was pretty much the last of the highly sought players. I guess you could throw Fairly into that group but his stock was falling fast so I'm not sure how many teams (if any) were willing to trade up for him. It's definitely possible that we could've traded down and still gotten Watt but I don't think you can "grade" a draft based on trades that didn't happen without knowing whether there were: 1. Actual offers; and 2. What the terms of the offers were. But I agree that the Reed pick really helped our overall draft grade (for what they're worth).
not necessarily. I think Washington would have taken Watts @ 16 or Kerrigan. Plus, as the draft worked out, I think those teams from 11-15 were content with taking whomever fell to them.
He seems to be pretty nervous in front the camera..LOL <iframe width="540" height="435" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r3XpicCh9ho" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If the Texans need an emergency RB, they're set. Reed was a RB his freshman year at Arizona. He changed to D end because he was blocked on the depth chart by a stud sophmore runner. Some dude named Earl Mitchell.
in the texans defense cushing will be playing the keith brooking spot at linebacker. most of his duties are going to be shooting the gaps and manning the middle he should be fine. Also love the reed pick hopefully he and watt have an immediate effect on the defense
No one wanted to trade up to the 11-13 range. I remember Schefter reporting right around our pick that the Vikings and the Lions were desperately trying to move back but no one was willing to move up. You think the Vikings at 12, didn't try to trade back? They drafted Christian Ponder, someone they could have gotten late in the 1st or anytime after that but they couldn't move out of their spot
For what it's worth: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2011/sackseer-lets-try-again Brooks Reed, Arizona Vertical: 30.5", Short Shuttle: 4.28, SRAM: 0.34, Missed Games: 5 Projection: 15.1 Sacks by Year 5 Brooks Reed and Clay Matthews are both edge rushers with long-flowing blond locks, but Reed will likely prove to be markedly less Thor-like than the super-powered Matthews. Aside from the bench press and the 20-yard split, Reed failed to meet or exceed any of Matthews' excellent numbers from the 2009 Combine. Matthews and Reed do have similar SRAMs, but Matthews had a much better excuse for his low production. Matthews initially struggled to crack a talented lineup of linebackers at USC until the team finally deployed him as a hybrid defensive end/linebacker during his senior year. Reed, on the other hand, was anointed a starter as a full-time defensive end by his sophomore year, but failed to record more than eight sacks in any year. His two-sack junior campaign was particularly pedestrian. Reed has received some hype for his 1.54-second 10-yard split, which was the fastest among edge rushers at the Combine. This year there has been a lot of pre-Draft chatter concerning the importance of the 10-yard split for edge rusher prospects. Historically, however, there is absolutely no relationship between a prospect's 10-yard split and his success rushing the passer in the NFL. The 10-yard split is probably more a function of the efficiency of the prospect's "sprinter's start" than the speed with which he can rush the line of scrimmage.
LOL, it's not as bad as I thought it would be reading the comments. I think he was trying to play along by saying "uh.....gee...who could that be..." when asked about Manning, but the interviewer wouldn't let him finish the (admitidly awkward) joke. I think the funniest thing about that video is Mom in the background staring at the camera. WTF? Mom, why don't you go check on the potatoes, mmmkay?
Not sure what this guy's beef with Reed is but this is not a very good analysis. First, there's absolutely no mention of Reed being 25 lbs. heavier which is obviously going to effect verticals, broad jumps, etc...Second, I would say Reed's 4.68 Forty pretty much met Matthew's 4.67, which is very impressive considering the aforementioned weight differential. I guess you could say that Matthews had a better excuse for his production since playing with two other stud LBs can hurt a player's production. But at the same time, it can also help tremendously. Cushing and Maualuga were the stars of that defense and out of the 3, Matthews was probably the guy offenses focused on the least and would probably run to his side rather than up the middle or Cush's side. Other the other hand, Reed was the best player on a very poor defense. Stop Reed and you're pretty much stopping the Arizona defense. It can work both ways but the author doesn't seem to think so. Finally, there is pretty much no relationship between combine numbers and success in the NFL in general. Are there exceptions? Of course, but it's a little strange to praise Matthews' "excellent" combine numbers and then say that Reeds' won't matter. Just my two cents.
wonder if that is Dirtbags...been so long i vaguely remember what that place looks like. Arizona's defense was not "very poor". They were ranked around 36th in a lot of the key categories...there biggest problem was consistancy.
"Very poor" probably wasn't the best description but I don't think it comes close to the #1 and #4 defenses USC had while Matthews, Cush, and Ray were manning the LB core. It's an entire different level talent-wise and I don't think the author is taking that into consideration. But oh well, everyone has their opinion and mine isn't anymore valid than his. Just not a fan of this particular analysis.
that's true...the analysis is not great. Brooks was certainly the guy that defenses focused on when playing Az because their talent on the remainig front was not the best.