1st 7 picks

you beat a good qb with coverage not blitzing. look at the jets playoff run. They have horrible rushers but because of there awesome coverage they shutdown the nfls two top qbs two weeks in a row. passrushers can cause havoc yes but good coverage eliminates a qbs targets making him sit in the rush or force some throws and mabye cause turnovers.

Originally posted by philosoraptor:
you beat a good qb with coverage not blitzing. look at the jets playoff run. They have horrible rushers but because of there awesome coverage they shutdown the nfls two top qbs two weeks in a row. passrushers can cause havoc yes but good coverage eliminates a qbs targets making him sit in the rush or force some throws and mabye cause turnovers.

I'm actually glad you brought this up b/c the Jets could/can only go so far with that philosophy. Eventually, the two teams who ended up in the Superbowl were dominant pass rushing teams with outstanding schemes and physical CB’s who played up, tight at the LOS and used their safeties effectively. The team that won had both.

People forget that when we had Deion Sanders, sure it allowed Eric Davis and the rest of the secondary to focus on one side of the field but our pass rush was just as critical. You need both though. Period.

But we HAVE seen teams with average CB’s winning the Superbowl with outstanding pass rushers (Steelers, Pats, etc.). I can’t remember the last time a team won a Superbowl with average pass rushers and at least one dominant CB. Anyone?

Sounds good to me, but the Quinn pick would be quite a reach

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by philosoraptor:
you beat a good qb with coverage not blitzing. look at the jets playoff run. They have horrible rushers but because of there awesome coverage they shutdown the nfls two top qbs two weeks in a row. passrushers can cause havoc yes but good coverage eliminates a qbs targets making him sit in the rush or force some throws and mabye cause turnovers.

I'm actually glad you brought this up b/c the Jets could/can only go so far with that philosophy. Eventually, the two teams who ended up in the Superbowl were dominant pass rushing teams with outstanding schemes and physical CB’s who played up, tight at the LOS and used their safeties effectively. The team that won had both.

People forget that when we had Deion Sanders, sure it allowed Eric Davis and the rest of the secondary to focus on one side of the field but our pass rush was just as critical. You need both though. Period.

But we HAVE seen teams with average CB’s winning the Superbowl with outstanding pass rushers (Steelers, Pats, etc.). I can’t remember the last time a team won a Superbowl with average pass rushers and at least one dominant CB. Anyone?

well, of course both are important. you need both to be truly dominate. But Coverage is more important in my opinion for big time qbs.

Originally posted by philosoraptor:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by philosoraptor:
you beat a good qb with coverage not blitzing. look at the jets playoff run. They have horrible rushers but because of there awesome coverage they shutdown the nfls two top qbs two weeks in a row. passrushers can cause havoc yes but good coverage eliminates a qbs targets making him sit in the rush or force some throws and mabye cause turnovers.

I'm actually glad you brought this up b/c the Jets could/can only go so far with that philosophy. Eventually, the two teams who ended up in the Superbowl were dominant pass rushing teams with outstanding schemes and physical CB’s who played up, tight at the LOS and used their safeties effectively. The team that won had both.

People forget that when we had Deion Sanders, sure it allowed Eric Davis and the rest of the secondary to focus on one side of the field but our pass rush was just as critical. You need both though. Period.

But we HAVE seen teams with average CB’s winning the Superbowl with outstanding pass rushers (Steelers, Pats, etc.). I can’t remember the last time a team won a Superbowl with average pass rushers and at least one dominant CB. Anyone?

well, of course both are important. you need both to be truly dominate. But Coverage is more important in my opinion for big time qbs.

Two sides of the same coin...with a good pass rush, a CB only has to cover for a very short amount of time AND hav help over the top and can take chances (see Clements). With no pass rush, QB's (like we have personally seen for years now) have had all day to find open receivers no matter how well one CB covers one particular WR. You give a QB and Receiver 4+ seconds to get open in the NFL, it's easy pitch-n-catch all day long. We as 49er fans know this personally.

Buffalo switched to a 4-3. Just sayin'...

Both are equally important. The Giants won the SB with amazing pass rush. The Jets knock out top QB's with ridiculous CB play. Green Bay won with a bit of both.

If you want safe then trade back a few spots and grab Prince. Peterson has all the potential and would be my choice, start him at CB for a few years and then transition him into a rover like Charles Woodson.

Miller will most likely be gone and Quinn has some question marks with health and a year lay-off.

Peterson is the best value at our pick if he is gone then we either take Prince or trade down and gamble that Prince will still be there. (Unlikely given Balke's determination to get the guy he wants ie: Davis)

Originally posted by PTulini:
I want Quinn!

Haha-And I want Von Miller. Unfortunately this ain't Burger King, so you can't have it your way.

In any case, I know that the chances are slim but my preferences is

Von Miller then Peterson
but will be okay with
Prince or Quinn.
However no QBs!
-otherwise trade back

Get a Kerrigan, and an extra pick to move back up and take the QB JH wants, use the then target a CB, then go accordingly.

Quinn's own coach said he's MUCH better suited as a 4-3 DE, not a 3-4. PETERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by philosoraptor:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by philosoraptor:
you beat a good qb with coverage not blitzing. look at the jets playoff run. They have horrible rushers but because of there awesome coverage they shutdown the nfls two top qbs two weeks in a row. passrushers can cause havoc yes but good coverage eliminates a qbs targets making him sit in the rush or force some throws and mabye cause turnovers.

I'm actually glad you brought this up b/c the Jets could/can only go so far with that philosophy. Eventually, the two teams who ended up in the Superbowl were dominant pass rushing teams with outstanding schemes and physical CB’s who played up, tight at the LOS and used their safeties effectively. The team that won had both.

People forget that when we had Deion Sanders, sure it allowed Eric Davis and the rest of the secondary to focus on one side of the field but our pass rush was just as critical. You need both though. Period.

But we HAVE seen teams with average CB’s winning the Superbowl with outstanding pass rushers (Steelers, Pats, etc.). I can’t remember the last time a team won a Superbowl with average pass rushers and at least one dominant CB. Anyone?

well, of course both are important. you need both to be truly dominate. But Coverage is more important in my opinion for big time qbs.

Two sides of the same coin...with a good pass rush, a CB only has to cover for a very short amount of time AND hav help over the top and can take chances (see Clements). With no pass rush, QB's (like we have personally seen for years now) have had all day to find open receivers no matter how well one CB covers one particular WR. You give a QB and Receiver 4+ seconds to get open in the NFL, it's easy pitch-n-catch all day long. We as 49er fans know this personally.

but if you have excellent corners you can overload the blitzes to make up for a lack of elite passrushers.

hey philosoraptor, you should come post in the parking lot sometime. I don't like most noobs, but you seem to have that rare "i dont want to slap your noob candyass quality"

See you in the post whore thread

Originally posted by PTulini:
But there are people debating whether or not Patrick Peterson will be a CB in the NFL? Ultimately, he may be moved to Safety. Plus, his value as a return man is deminished with the new special teams rule.

A. No one is really doubting Peterson's ability to play corner, it's just that his skill set gives him the potential of making the bigger impact at safety than cb. For example; we could move Patrick Willis to OLB with his speed and strength, linemen would have going against him every down, but he brings more to the table playing MLB. I'm sure Peterson will be just fine at corner, if the concern of him not being able to play corner in the NFL was that serious he would not be the number one rated corner on pretty much everyones draft board.

B. It would be dumb for us to have our number one corner returning kicks, that's why we have Ginn and Kyle Williams. I promise you if we draft Pat Pete it would NOT be because he can return kicks. Kicking off from the 35 won't be that bad IMO, most kicks that are returned would have been returned regardless due to speed of the return man and bad coverage by the kicking team.

Originally posted by KRS-1:
No he is not and far from it IMHO. Marcel Dareus is the safest top 10 pick in the draft class. Peterson can be argued as the best player in the class but in no way should that be confused with safest.

Not trying to argue a point that neither on of us can prove, but... Before the combine there were legit concerns about Dareus because his play at Alabama had been so inconsistent, not to say that he is not a solider player but there was a bit of reason for concern. His draft stock did not jump until his solid combine/pro day, compiled with Fairley's poor combine and Bowers injury concerns. Patrick Peterson was considered to be the top corner before, during, and of course now AFTER the combine. Thus making him the safest pick IMHO based on consistency.

Originally posted by 24plus25er:

Originally posted by PTulini:
But there are people debating whether or not Patrick Peterson will be a CB in the NFL? Ultimately, he may be moved to Safety. Plus, his value as a return man is deminished with the new special teams rule.

A. No one is really doubting Peterson's ability to play corner, it's just that his skill set gives him the potential of making the bigger impact at safety than cb. For example; we could move Patrick Willis to OLB with his speed and strength, linemen would have going against him every down, but he brings more to the table playing MLB. I'm sure Peterson will be just fine at corner, if the concern of him not being able to play corner in the NFL was that serious he would not be the number one rated corner on pretty much everyones draft board.

B. It would be dumb for us to have our number one corner returning kicks, that's why we have Ginn and Kyle Williams. I promise you if we draft Pat Pete it would NOT be because he can return kicks. Kicking off from the 35 won't be that bad IMO, most kicks that are returned would have been returned regardless due to speed of the return man and bad coverage by the kicking team.

Originally posted by KRS-1:
No he is not and far from it IMHO. Marcel Dareus is the safest top 10 pick in the draft class. Peterson can be argued as the best player in the class but in no way should that be confused with safest.

Not trying to argue a point that neither on of us can prove, but... Before the combine there were legit concerns about Dareus because his play at Alabama had been so inconsistent, not to say that he is not a solider player but there was a bit of reason for concern. His draft stock did not jump until his solid combine/pro day, compiled with Fairley's poor combine and Bowers injury concerns. Patrick Peterson was considered to be the top corner before, during, and of course now AFTER the combine. Thus making him the safest pick IMHO based on consistency.

Is it really a bad thing if he can emulate Ronnie Lott, play Corner 5-6 years then mmove to safety so he can do to Fritz what Lott did to Flipper in the NFC Championship game?

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by 24plus25er:

Originally posted by PTulini:
But there are people debating whether or not Patrick Peterson will be a CB in the NFL? Ultimately, he may be moved to Safety. Plus, his value as a return man is deminished with the new special teams rule.

A. No one is really doubting Peterson's ability to play corner, it's just that his skill set gives him the potential of making the bigger impact at safety than cb. For example; we could move Patrick Willis to OLB with his speed and strength, linemen would have going against him every down, but he brings more to the table playing MLB. I'm sure Peterson will be just fine at corner, if the concern of him not being able to play corner in the NFL was that serious he would not be the number one rated corner on pretty much everyones draft board.

B. It would be dumb for us to have our number one corner returning kicks, that's why we have Ginn and Kyle Williams. I promise you if we draft Pat Pete it would NOT be because he can return kicks. Kicking off from the 35 won't be that bad IMO, most kicks that are returned would have been returned regardless due to speed of the return man and bad coverage by the kicking team.

Originally posted by KRS-1:
No he is not and far from it IMHO. Marcel Dareus is the safest top 10 pick in the draft class. Peterson can be argued as the best player in the class but in no way should that be confused with safest.

Not trying to argue a point that neither on of us can prove, but... Before the combine there were legit concerns about Dareus because his play at Alabama had been so inconsistent, not to say that he is not a solider player but there was a bit of reason for concern. His draft stock did not jump until his solid combine/pro day, compiled with Fairley's poor combine and Bowers injury concerns. Patrick Peterson was considered to be the top corner before, during, and of course now AFTER the combine. Thus making him the safest pick IMHO based on consistency.

Is it really a bad thing if he can emulate Ronnie Lott, play Corner 5-6 years then mmove to safety so he can do to Fritz what Lott did to Flipper in the NFC Championship game?

LMAO. You said what I was trying to say with a lot less words. Good one Bill.

Originally posted by 24plus25er:
Not trying to argue a point that neither on of us can prove, but... Before the combine there were legit concerns about Dareus because his play at Alabama had been so inconsistent, not to say that he is not a solider player but there was a bit of reason for concern. His draft stock did not jump until his solid combine/pro day, compiled with Fairley's poor combine and Bowers injury concerns. Patrick Peterson was considered to be the top corner before, during, and of course now AFTER the combine. Thus making him the safest pick IMHO based on consistency.

Top player at your position doesn't equal safest however. Dareus was and is still a top 10 prospect, that has not changed. Many consider Newton the top QB prospect however Gabbert would be a safer pick at QB.