Originally posted by joeymac49s:
For all those people out there that are saying a good pass rusher (Von Miller/Rober Quinn) is much better then a shut down corner (Peterson/Prince) how well did it do for the pass rush specialist Pittsburgh Steelers?? Who lead the league in sacks. If your secondary is swiss cheese you have no chance. Which is why since day 1 I've been saying if Peterson or Prince are at #7 we have to take them over a pass rusher. Lets face it, the Steelers have Harrison at 10.5 sacks, Woodley at 10 sacks and Farrior at 6 sacks this year and they were non-existent during the Super Bowl. Peterson/Prince in 2-3 years will be shut down CB's. Its much harder to find one of those then a pass rusher.
This argument is really getting annoying. Not that it doesn't have any validity, but the reality is Superbowl teams have BOTH a good pass rush AND secondary. One or the other is not going to solve the defensive problems of the 9ers. The argument should really be, which is weaker on the 9er defense? Pass rush or secondary and choose to improve the weaker with the first pick. Based on what I have read so far, our secondary has been weaker than our pass rush. Therefore, you would want to select the best CB available before the best pass rusher. However, if you have a stud pass rusher and P. Peterson is gone, and that pass rusher was rated higher or was more talented than Prince, you take the pass rusher. This approach is commonly known as best player available.