DT, SS, or ILB with our first pick?

[Chocolate Lab]

Just wondering what people would take with our first pick, assuming no trade up, if they were running things.

For S&G, include O-line if you prefer.

Naturally, you would go BPA if one jumps out as far superior to the others. But assume for a minute they are all roughly the same.

I would go ILB simply because we have literally no one else to play there and I don't offhand know of any good FAs we could put there. I think we're in real trouble there. (I'm not a Burnett believer if you can't tell.)

I can see DE, though, by the "planet theory" that you go with big talent first. But I think that sometimes teams use that kind of thinking to reach on big underachievers at around this point. And in our case, Olshansky is IMO a reasonable possibility.

I'd go SS last, probably, because I tend to think that S is the easiest hole to fill on the defense.

What do you think?

[SLATEmosphere]

I just think the ILB's that will be left by the time we pick at 51 will be reaches. Mckillop,Phillips,Brinkley are all reaches and belong with our 3rd rounder. The top ILB's will all be gone..Rey,Cushing,Laurenitis.

So based on not reaching, I would go best value and pick Ron Brace to anchor that 3-4 for years to come. Move Rat on over to get some more 1-on-1's against guards.

[Bob Sacamano]

it really depends on who is there, our roster is shaped up so that we can take the BPA

we also have some needs though

like ILB, DE, so they have to take precedent of course

but we also need a slot receiver who can totally free himself from coverage, a LT to start grooming as Flozell's replacement, a NT to split reps with Rat, probably a safety if they cut Roy

it really just depends on who is there

[RamziD]

DT, because good NTs that can play in the 3-4 are hard to find. Plus, we can get Ratliff to play DE more which will cover up some of our lack of depth in that area. Just like on offense, everything starts with good line-play.

DT - reasons listed above
SS - we need someone who can actually tackle b/c Hamlin (and every other SS on our roster) can't... offenses are taking advantage of this in a big way
ILB - we still have James, Thomas, and Burnett... not spectacular, but not as immediate a need as the other 2 positions.

[Bob Sacamano]

Originally Posted by SLATEmosphere

I just think the ILB's that will be left by the time we pick at 51 will be reaches. Mckillop,Phillips,Brinkley are all reaches and belong with our 3rd rounder. The top ILB's will all be gone..Rey,Cushing,Laurenitis.

So based on not reaching, I would go best value and pick Ron Brace to anchor that 3-4 for years to come. Move Rat on over to get some more 1-on-1's against guards.

what is the infactuation with moving Rat to DE?

why not just draft a similar player to play that position?

[SLATEmosphere]

Originally Posted by RamziD

DT, because good NTs that can play in the 3-4 are hard to find. Plus, we can get Ratliff to play DE more which will cover up some of our lack of depth in that area. Just like on offense, everything starts with good line-play.

DT - reasons listed above
SS - we need someone who can actually tackle b/c Hamlin (and every other SS on our roster) can't... offenses are taking advantage of this in a big way
ILB - we still have James, Thomas, and Burnett... not spectacular, but not as immediate a need as the other 2 positions.

Those guys are pretty much gone..we are left with Carpenter and James.

[VACowboy]

I wouldn't shoehorn that pick into any position. It just depends which players are on the board when we're up. There's no ILB with a realistic chance of being there at #51 that I'd select at that slot. In order: Connor Barwin, Duke Robinson, Ron Brace, Sean Smith.

[dmoore]

If all talent is equal, ILB is the easy choice. I don't think it'll workout that way though, and it's just as well since a quality guy should be available later on.

[Bob Sacamano]

why is this even a discussion? we're for surely taking Ron Brace

[SLATEmosphere]

Originally Posted by iRoot4Losers

what is the infactuation with moving Rat to DE?

why not just draft a similar player to play that position?

Man,I just have to spell everything out don't I? Ratliff is a great NT but broke down last year getting all those double teams. He isn't a true NT. He had 6 sacks his first 10 games..1.5 his last 6. The tackle has to account for Ware on the outside and the center and guard account for that big NT(ala Jamal Williams,Haloti Nnata) that takes on blockers. Rat will be left with 1-on-1's with a guard. Imagine him and Ware on the same side..who do you block? Rat gets beat up playing NT and it takes a toll on your body over time.

I guarentee I'll get a gem response from you, but if you don't get this, then you don't understand 3-4 defenses and I'm sorry

[Bob Sacamano]

Originally Posted by SLATEmosphere

Man,I just have to spell everything out don't I? Ratliff is a great NT but broke down last year getting all those double teams. He isn't a true NT. He had 6 sacks his first 10 games..1.5 his last 6. The tackle has to account for Ware on the outside and the center and guard account for that big NT(ala Jamal Williams,Haloti Nnata) that takes on blockers. Rat will be left with 1-on-1's with a guard. Imagine him and Ware on the same side..who do you block? Rat gets beat up playing NT and it takes a toll on your body over time.

I guarentee I'll get a gem response from you, but if you don't get this, then you don't understand 3-4 defenses and I'm sorry

so getting him a running-mate doesn't alleviate the strain?

that seems easier to me, keep Ratliff at a position where he's dominating at, and dont' waste a 2nd on an immovable sloth, when similar players could be had later

seems like a win to me

[SLATEmosphere]

Originally Posted by iRoot4Losers

why is this even a discussion? we're for surely taking Ron Brace

There you go..now your gettin it

[SLATEmosphere]

Originally Posted by iRoot4Losers

so getting him a running-mate doesn't alleviate the strain?

No. It doesn't. Rat suffers in run defense.

[Bob Sacamano]

Originally Posted by SLATEmosphere

No. It doesn't. Rat suffers in run defense.

no he doesn't

he has his moments but he's not a weakness there

[SLATEmosphere]

Originally Posted by iRoot4Losers

so getting him a running-mate doesn't alleviate the strain?

that seems easier to me, keep Ratliff at a position where he's dominating at, and dont' waste a 2nd on an immovable sloth, when similar players could be had later

seems like a win to me

Immovable sloth?? Okayyy I'm done proving my point..I can't win with you.