Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinsHokieFan
We could have, but who was trying to move up? Do you move down from the number 6 spot to the number 21 spot and pick up a 3rd only for the hell of it?
The most ideal scenario was a trade down which yielded a few other first day picks. That scenario unfourtantley did not matieralize and thusly Landry was the pick
Yea, ideally it would have been nice to trade down with Miami and pick up a 2nd. Or a 3rd and 4th. But if Miami was only offering a 4th, do you make that trade, or take the best guy you can at the spot you are in?
Its clear the D coaching staff felt the bigger problem was with the back 7. Sending a house blitz with Mike Rumph covering clearly isn't going to cut it. The blitzing worked real well in 2004 and 2005 because the secondary was actually covering guys
[View Full Quote]The logic (you and myself may not agree with this) is the back 7 needs to be as strong as ever and versitile so we can bring different blitz and coverage packages. The d-line simply needs to be able to fill to stop the run, and the lb's make the tackles. The upgrade of Fletcher-Baker over Marshall should help. Highway 57 in Warrick Holdman is gone. Landry has the speed and hip movement to cover, unlike AA
Now I am one who feels a d-lineman would have been better served, just not at the number 6 spot. No d-lineman in this draft was worth a 14 million dollar bonus. Unfourtantley the trade down scenario did not matieralize |
why even try? some people just critize for the sake of critizing. No logic is used.