There are 151 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Before everyone goes out and starts drafting the legion of Boom...

Right now, with Denver and Seattle being in the Superbowl, everyone in this copy-cat league wants to re-create what these teams have done to get there. In Denver's case, that's having arguably the greatest QB of all time. So...since that's not exactly easy to recreate, everyone is looking at Seattle and wants to draft big, long corners and safeties. Before we all go crazy with that, lets take a step back and think a few things through:

  1. This happens every year. One year everyone wants a deep receiver core like NO, a d-line like NY's, LBs like in Pitt, a safety like Bob Sanders, etc etc. There are many ways to win. Seattle showed that you can do it with long DBs.
  2. These guys are going to get over-drafted like crazy. Sit back, let the dumb teams over-draft bad players because they're "the next Sherman," when in reality length is all they have in common, and instead take good football players.
  3. Richard Sherman is not good because he's 6'3". Richard Sherman is good. Richard Sherman is 6'3". And he uses that height to his advantage. He's also extremely smart, never bites on fakes, has tremendous ball skills, and reads a WR's routes as well as anyone. Lets not assume every tall player will be Sherman.
  4. We also need a smaller, quicker guy who has lateral movement skills to cover smaller, slot receivers. Seattle has Thomas, who is by no means a big guy. Looks like our secondary may go into next year with Culliver, Brock and Reid as the only 3 guys that are not primarily special teams players. They're all pretty big kids. We'll need someone smaller as well.

I'm all about length in football. I think Sherman, and Watt and Aldon and Jeffries and Kaep, have recently shown just how effective it can be. But lets not get carried away and over-draft a crappy player just because his arms are a little longer.
Who's trying to draft Richard Sherman? If you can find a tall corner who is effective, has good technique and can move well laterally, I think the size is certainly a bonus. Most of the top cornerback's in the NFL are under 6 feet tall but if you can find one that is taller and matches up well with bigger receivers, so much the better. Its not like the 49ers are limited to drafting one, and only one cornerback in the entire draft, they're likely going to be replacing Brown and Rogers, find one guy to play on the outside, one guy to play in the slot, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:24 PM ]
Agreed. When drafting - should be always BPA on your draft board, with in or above that draft tier. Worst thing you can do is overdraft a player because they fit a position need or fit a body type . Game tape don't lie
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Right now, with Denver and Seattle being in the Superbowl, everyone in this copy-cat league wants to re-create what these teams have done to get there. In Denver's case, that's having arguably the greatest QB of all time. So...since that's not exactly easy to recreate, everyone is looking at Seattle and wants to draft big, long corners and safeties. Before we all go crazy with that, lets take a step back and think a few things through:

  1. This happens every year. One year everyone wants a deep receiver core like NO, a d-line like NY's, LBs like in Pitt, a safety like Bob Sanders, etc etc. There are many ways to win. Seattle showed that you can do it with long DBs.
  2. These guys are going to get over-drafted like crazy. Sit back, let the dumb teams over-draft bad players because they're "the next Sherman," when in reality length is all they have in common, and instead take good football players.
  3. Richard Sherman is not good because he's 6'3". Richard Sherman is good. Richard Sherman is 6'3". And he uses that height to his advantage. He's also extremely smart, never bites on fakes, has tremendous ball skills, and reads a WR's routes as well as anyone. Lets not assume every tall player will be Sherman.
  4. We also need a smaller, quicker guy who has lateral movement skills to cover smaller, slot receivers. Seattle has Thomas, who is by no means a big guy. Looks like our secondary may go into next year with Culliver, Brock and Reid as the only 3 guys that are not primarily special teams players. They're all pretty big kids. We'll need someone smaller as well.
I'm all about length in football. I think Sherman, and Watt and Aldon and Jeffries and Kaep, have recently shown just how effective it can be. But lets not get carried away and over-draft a crappy player just because his arms are a little longer.
He is ALSO??? He is a good corner because of these attributes IN THE FIRST PLACE. His height is just a bonus.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Who's trying to draft Richard Sherman? If you can find a tall corner who is effective, has good technique and can move well laterally, I think the size is certainly a bonus. Most of the top cornerback's in the NFL are under 6 feet tall but if you can find one that is taller and matches up well with bigger receivers, so much the better. Its not like the 49ers are limited to drafting one, and only one cornerback in the entire draft, they're likely going to be replacing Brown and Rogers, find one guy to play on the outside, one guy to play in the slot, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal.

I agree that size helps. I'm just hearing a lot -- on this board and on NFL network and various draft sites -- about guys that are longer and taller and resemble the players that Seattle has in their secondary, who may not be all that great on tape. Lots of people are getting overly excited about someone like Keith McGill, whose length may be much more impressive than what I've seen from him in practice or from game clips.
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Right now, with Denver and Seattle being in the Superbowl, everyone in this copy-cat league wants to re-create what these teams have done to get there. In Denver's case, that's having arguably the greatest QB of all time. So...since that's not exactly easy to recreate, everyone is looking at Seattle and wants to draft big, long corners and safeties. Before we all go crazy with that, lets take a step back and think a few things through:

  1. This happens every year. One year everyone wants a deep receiver core like NO, a d-line like NY's, LBs like in Pitt, a safety like Bob Sanders, etc etc. There are many ways to win. Seattle showed that you can do it with long DBs.
  2. These guys are going to get over-drafted like crazy. Sit back, let the dumb teams over-draft bad players because they're "the next Sherman," when in reality length is all they have in common, and instead take good football players.
  3. Richard Sherman is not good because he's 6'3". Richard Sherman is good. Richard Sherman is 6'3". And he uses that height to his advantage. He's also extremely smart, never bites on fakes, has tremendous ball skills, and reads a WR's routes as well as anyone. Lets not assume every tall player will be Sherman.
  4. We also need a smaller, quicker guy who has lateral movement skills to cover smaller, slot receivers. Seattle has Thomas, who is by no means a big guy. Looks like our secondary may go into next year with Culliver, Brock and Reid as the only 3 guys that are not primarily special teams players. They're all pretty big kids. We'll need someone smaller as well.
I'm all about length in football. I think Sherman, and Watt and Aldon and Jeffries and Kaep, have recently shown just how effective it can be. But lets not get carried away and over-draft a crappy player just because his arms are a little longer.
He is ALSO??? He is a good corner because of these attributes IN THE FIRST PLACE. His height is just a bonus.

I don't think we're saying anything different, are we? I'm trying to say that Sherman's height, while a bonus, is not what makes him good, it's all the other stuff. I think we agree on this point, and I'm not sure if my wording implied otherwise.
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
I agree that size helps. I'm just hearing a lot -- on this board and on NFL network and various draft sites -- about guys that are longer and taller and resemble the players that Seattle has in their secondary, who may not be all that great on tape. Lots of people are getting overly excited about someone like Keith McGill, whose length may be much more impressive than what I've seen from him in practice or from game clips.


So you're mad because people such as myself like Keith McGill, who's a talented cornerback that happens to have good size and length? I don't like McGill because he's like Sherman, I like him because he's a quality cornerback prospect who happens to have terrific size for the position. I've also been fond of McGill for quite awhile now, check my post history.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM ]
Drafting big corners was already popular before the legion of douche they just got famous from it cause they hold on every play and know how to get it away with it take away there down field muggings and there no better than any other secondary.
[ Edited by Raul98 on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:07 PM ]
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Right now, with Denver and Seattle being in the Superbowl, everyone in this copy-cat league wants to re-create what these teams have done to get there. In Denver's case, that's having arguably the greatest REGULAR SEASON QB of all time. So...since that's not exactly easy to recreate, everyone is looking at Seattle and wants to draft big, long corners and safeties. Before we all go crazy with that, lets take a step back and think a few things through:

  1. This happens every year. One year everyone wants a deep receiver core like NO, a d-line like NY's, LBs like in Pitt, a safety like Bob Sanders, etc etc. There are many ways to win. Seattle showed that you can do it with long DBs.
  2. These guys are going to get over-drafted like crazy. Sit back, let the dumb teams over-draft bad players because they're "the next Sherman," when in reality length is all they have in common, and instead take good football players.
  3. Richard Sherman is not good because he's 6'3". Richard Sherman is good. Richard Sherman is 6'3". And he uses that height to his advantage. He's also extremely smart, never bites on fakes, has tremendous ball skills, and reads a WR's routes as well as anyone. Lets not assume every tall player will be Sherman.
  4. We also need a smaller, quicker guy who has lateral movement skills to cover smaller, slot receivers. Seattle has Thomas, who is by no means a big guy. Looks like our secondary may go into next year with Culliver, Brock and Reid as the only 3 guys that are not primarily special teams players. They're all pretty big kids. We'll need someone smaller as well.
I'm all about length in football. I think Sherman, and Watt and Aldon and Jeffries and Kaep, have recently shown just how effective it can be. But lets not get carried away and over-draft a crappy player just because his arms are a little longer.

fixed
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
I agree that size helps. I'm just hearing a lot -- on this board and on NFL network and various draft sites -- about guys that are longer and taller and resemble the players that Seattle has in their secondary, who may not be all that great on tape. Lots of people are getting overly excited about someone like Keith McGill, whose length may be much more impressive than what I've seen from him in practice or from game clips.


So you're mad because people such as myself like Keith McGill, who's a talented cornerback that happens to have good size and length? I don't like McGill because he's like Sherman, I like him because he's a quality cornerback prospect who happens to have terrific size for the position. I've also been fond of McGill for quite awhile now, check my post history.

This was not a personal attack on you. In fact, I didn't know who likes McGill and who doesn't. This is a general feeling I have about certain "types" of players getting over-hyped, by fans, media and NFL people because they share some traits with players that have been successful lately. I also got really excited about McGill until I went and watched him on draftbreakdown. That fascination was short lived. Also, reports from the Sr. bowl are not great. I'm also not "mad" about anything. I simply shared my view on how players are getting over-hyped. Why did you think this was personal?
Originally posted by Raul98:
Drafting big corners was already popular before the legion of douche they just got famous from it cause they hold on every play and know how to get it away with it take away there down field muggings and there no better than any other secondary.

lol. i hat their success as much as anyone, but they're absurdly good. Maybe the best I've seen
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Originally posted by Raul98:
Drafting big corners was already popular before the legion of douche they just got famous from it cause they hold on every play and know how to get it away with it take away there down field muggings and there no better than any other secondary.

lol. i hat their success as much as anyone, but they're absurdly good. Maybe the best I've seen

ya there good but they rely a lot on pushing the rule as far as they can get there the most penalized team in the NFL i have a feeling once the NFL figures out how to play them or if the NFL starts to not let them hold then they will drop a little in there success.
If i was to draft s CB, i would look at somebody who is a starter with a low tackle count… which may point to the fact that they cover so well the ball never comes their way..just a thought
he's also good because every time he's getting beat (or about to get beat) he holds - watch the bearhugs, watch the pushing people off their routes downfield, watch him him the player before the ball gets there, watch the "inadvertent contact" happen time and time again. 7th (equal) most penalised player in The NFL this year (and it should have been much, much worse).

He's no Revis, heck he's no Peterson, heck he might only be the third best player in their LOB - he's no Earl Thomas that's for sure.
Originally posted by forty9ers:
If i was to draft s CB, i would look at somebody who is a starter with a low tackle count… which may point to the fact that they cover so well the ball never comes their way..just a thought

I tried to look for a pattern with that earlier, and while some really NFL corners had low tackle counts in college, others had high ones. It's an interesting theory though, and if I had a more systematic way to study the data, would definitely be a variable i'd look at