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

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Not a bad point, but you have to consider that by far our best CB (Brock) is also our smallest. But I do agree with a minimum height. While my point was that 6'3" CBs will get over drafted, I don't belive in drafting anyone under 5'10"/5'11". There are exceptions, of course, but it's a rule I belive in. Learned from Ty Hill

This of course makes no sense at all. On one hand, its wrong to judge CB's because they are tall but its perfectly acceptable to judge one under 5'10", which is absolute nonsense.

Think there is a team in the NFL that wouldn't take Earl Thomas or Tyrann Mathieu right about now? LaMarcus Joyner looks like an absolute stud and playmaker, by your logic, he shouldn't be drafted because those two inches of height are absolutely insurmountable.

If the reasoning, from the refs, is "they do it every time so we can't throw a flag every time" I find that incredibly, incredibly frustrating. The NFL or the refs association need to do something about it, otherwise it calls into question the validity of the entire league and says one team can do it, because they do it too often to officiate, the rest can't. What if every team did it / were coached that way ? Suddenly that move to have higher scoring games is pointless and the rule changes a while back to facilitate that are pointless too.

What's the point of rules at all if they;re not observed (and it is true, you'll even find Seahawks fans, jeez even the players in interviews, admit it) when The Seahawks SCHEMATICALLY are getting away with breaking them every time ? No wonder they have that defence. If ever a team needed an asterix next to their name it's this team. There's a difference between the odd interference call (sometimes a smart interference call if a CB is beaten and the Wr is going to score) and bearhugging, holding, hanging onto jerseys and the cr*p that the Hawks get away with every game.

And we're not the only ones who think so...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579310500005285822

sorry if I seem like I;m moaning but I've saying this ALL Season and they've gotten away with it ALL season. So they can say they shut down Brees or they shut down Brady.

Did they hell, they cheated.

Shame because Earl Thomas is a heck of a player, maybe Sherman is too. Guess, unless changes are made, we'll never truly know though.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
You would have a point if the bolded was true. I'm just not sure getting bigger WRs is really how you would best counter big CBs like Sherman. It would seem to play right into their hands as it gives them a bigger target to latch on to, makes it easier to play illegal contact off as inadvertent and they don't have to worry about those big receivers making sharp cuts and burning them on deep routes. How you counteract this is buy getting smaller, quicker guys who are able to make sharp cuts and savy enough to get off of press coverage with the speed and acceleration to break away from the CBs once they get off the line.

There is still going to be a need for conventional smaller, shiftier CBs in the NFL imo. The only thing Seattle's DBs have proven is that it is possible to win, and be extremely successful with big CBs which was previously thought to be impossible.

Thank you, not sure why this is so hard to understand. Yes a bigger receiver will do better against press coverage, however, they are an even bigger target to be held and joustled all the way down field. A smaller fast guy, you might be able to knock him around a bit when pressing, but if he gets off press coverage and gets a step on you......goodnight.



This is how a smaller, faster receiver can light up that secondary.

If you watch that, Sherman is playing a zone defense. He in no way makes a move towards Hilton until Luck is about to throw the ball. Sherman is playing underneath and Thomas is supposed to be coming over the top to help. Thomas is late in getting there and then whiffs on the tackle, leading to the TD.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
You would have a point if the bolded was true. I'm just not sure getting bigger WRs is really how you would best counter big CBs like Sherman. It would seem to play right into their hands as it gives them a bigger target to latch on to, makes it easier to play illegal contact off as inadvertent and they don't have to worry about those big receivers making sharp cuts and burning them on deep routes. How you counteract this is buy getting smaller, quicker guys who are able to make sharp cuts and savy enough to get off of press coverage with the speed and acceleration to break away from the CBs once they get off the line.

There is still going to be a need for conventional smaller, shiftier CBs in the NFL imo. The only thing Seattle's DBs have proven is that it is possible to win, and be extremely successful with big CBs which was previously thought to be impossible.

Thank you, not sure why this is so hard to understand. Yes a bigger receiver will do better against press coverage, however, they are an even bigger target to be held and joustled all the way down field. A smaller fast guy, you might be able to knock him around a bit when pressing, but if he gets off press coverage and gets a step on you......goodnight.



This is how a smaller, faster receiver can light up that secondary.

The other thing is that unless the larger receiver has some elite speed, they rarely get away from those physical DBs. A comparison from a few eras ago would be Mel Blount in terms of aggressiveness. How do you counter a Mel Blount? The speed of a Cliff Branch and the threat of the deep pass. And the best thing about it as that it doesn't have to be a bigger name guy. If we had a guy that could get behind their defense that would change how Seattle tries to attack us. I think we need to go after two receivers that can fit that mold. Robert Herron in the third and Tevin Reese or another burner later in the draft (6th or 7th round).

I've always been of the opinion if you want to draft a dominant DB; draft the dominant DL.

Everyone looks awesome when the QB has only 1.5 seconds to throw.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Not a bad point, but you have to consider that by far our best CB (Brock) is also our smallest. But I do agree with a minimum height. While my point was that 6'3" CBs will get over drafted, I don't belive in drafting anyone under 5'10"/5'11". There are exceptions, of course, but it's a rule I belive in. Learned from Ty Hill

This of course makes no sense at all. On one hand, its wrong to judge CB's because they are tall but its perfectly acceptable to judge one under 5'10", which is absolute nonsense.

Think there is a team in the NFL that wouldn't take Earl Thomas or Tyrann Mathieu right about now? LaMarcus Joyner looks like an absolute stud and playmaker, by your logic, he shouldn't be drafted because those two inches of height are absolutely insurmountable.

I don't know what it is, but any time I make any statement, you seem to try and rip it apart. Not just disagree, but rip it apart as illogical. Slow down, and re-read it. I said that there are, of course, exceptions. What doesn't "make sense at all" to you, doesn't make sense to me. The media is over-hyping many long, tall corners, whose skills may not justify the hype they're getting. From the reports at the Senior bowl, it sounds like Desir may be another one of those guys. Stanley Jean Baptiste, is another guy who may be a good player, but I'm afraid could get over-drafted, due to unfair expectations that he could turn into the next Sherman. This doesn't mean I don't like tall corners, and in fact, I always prefer size in this game, but currently, due to Seattle's success, I think the stock for these players is over-inflated. That was the first point. The second point, is that having said all that, there is a minimum size requirement as a rule of thumb. Doesn't mean you don't ever make exceptions, but that player has to be an outrageous athlete for you to do so (Mathieu being such a case). Which part don't you agree with? That corners have to have a minimum height? Want to get a 5'3" to cover AJ Green?

I have not yet watched Joyner, but yes, his height does worry me. As I'm certain it does for 32 teams around the league. That's why there are weigh-ins and measurements. Teams care about height because it is a predictor of success. If I go back and carefully watch his tape (which I will as best I can), and his athleticism jumps out, then I won't be against drafting him. But would probably do it at a later point, than if he was taller. With the draft, it's not "would definitely draft" and "would never draft." It's all about where would you draft them. I'm not an Allen Robinson or Odell Beckham Jr. fan. That doesn't mean I wouldn't draft either in the 3rd or 4th, or ever. Just means that I don't think they're as good as their perceived draft positions. Benjamin scares me as a first round pick. If he's still around in the mid/late second? It's a no-brainer.

So to recap. Stock on 6'2" + corners is too high in my opinion, but stock on corners <5'10" is heavily weighted down, as it should be, in my opinion.

So perhaps, some reading comprehension would help you make some sense of this, and not look at it as if it "of course makes no sense at all"

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
You would have a point if the bolded was true. I'm just not sure getting bigger WRs is really how you would best counter big CBs like Sherman. It would seem to play right into their hands as it gives them a bigger target to latch on to, makes it easier to play illegal contact off as inadvertent and they don't have to worry about those big receivers making sharp cuts and burning them on deep routes. How you counteract this is buy getting smaller, quicker guys who are able to make sharp cuts and savy enough to get off of press coverage with the speed and acceleration to break away from the CBs once they get off the line.

There is still going to be a need for conventional smaller, shiftier CBs in the NFL imo. The only thing Seattle's DBs have proven is that it is possible to win, and be extremely successful with big CBs which was previously thought to be impossible.

Thank you, not sure why this is so hard to understand. Yes a bigger receiver will do better against press coverage, however, they are an even bigger target to be held and joustled all the way down field. A smaller fast guy, you might be able to knock him around a bit when pressing, but if he gets off press coverage and gets a step on you......goodnight.



This is how a smaller, faster receiver can light up that secondary.

The other thing is that unless the larger receiver has some elite speed, they rarely get away from those physical DBs. A comparison from a few eras ago would be Mel Blount in terms of aggressiveness. How do you counter a Mel Blount? The speed of a Cliff Branch and the threat of the deep pass. And the best thing about it as that it doesn't have to be a bigger name guy. If we had a guy that could get behind their defense that would change how Seattle tries to attack us. I think we need to go after two receivers that can fit that mold. Robert Herron in the third and Tevin Reese or another burner later in the draft (6th or 7th round).

I agree with this. I also think Abberaderis is faster in games than people think. I think he could get behind that defense with success.

so is it just a coincidence that all of their cornerbacks are 6'0 and over(Sherman, Maxwell, Browner, etc.)? or is it more that they are drafting big cornerbacks to coach up and fit their system?

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.

Hey, who is that smaller CB you like from Florida St and where is he supposed to get drafted? I remember after you talked him up I read about him and was intrigued. Joyner??
Ok, just saw above it was Joyner. But where is he projected to go and who does he most remind you of?

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Hey, who is that smaller CB you like from Florida St and where is he supposed to get drafted? I remember after you talked him up I read about him and was intrigued. Joyner??
Ok, just saw above it was Joyner. But where is he projected to go and who does he most remind you of?

Joyner? Early to mid 2nd round. He's another guy you can put pretty much anywhere, cornerback, safety....etc. If you want the perfect slot cornerback, I think Joyner can be that guy, with the speed to keep up with anyone, terrific tackling ability, hits like a linebacker, I've gone from being skeptical about him to totally buying in.