official 2014 nfl draft thread

[mraynrand]

The beauty of Shazier though is that he's also a very safe choice to play inside as well where his all-around game could shine.

[wist43]

here's an interesting idea that i haven't seen anywhere yet

shazier at safety?

he's obviously athletic and fast enough

he played around 230 this year, a bit lite for any LB, but big for a safety

what are his cover skills like? anyone know?

ok, he's pretty good in the passing game

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...ing-at-pro-day

That what I thought of him too... would only want him as a safety.

The Packers don't like physical safeties though... they want their safeties to be corners. The Packers have never cared if their DB's could tackle or not. If they can? then great, but it certainly isn't a priority for them. They want all their DB's to be able to cover, and that's it.

[wist43]

Nah, you play him inside at Brad Jones' spot, and find a bigger athlete for Hawk's spot. If he can run like a deer you'd think he could play pass coverage...but you never know. IMO the ILBs lack speed and range.

I'd like to see Mulumba on the field more... I'd prefer he start over either Jones or Hawk.

[The Shadow]

Are you old enough to remember Blackhawk?
Andre, Stamislaus, Olaf, etc?

[mraynrand]

A more likely TT pickup will be Denicos Allen from MSU. Guy played LB and hit like a hammer at 218. I was worried he was gonna bulk up to try for LB, but word is he is going the safety route. Got snubbed by the combine; will have to find pro day numbers, but his speed was around 4.5. (elsewhere listed as 4.6-8; if he's really that slow it's a no-go). Otherwise, a good SS prospect I think.

[mraynrand]

Are you old enough to remember Blackhawk?
Andre, Stamislaus, Olaf, etc?

not really. Had a few in the comic book collection back in the day, so vaguely familiar.

[mraynrand]

I'd like to see Mulumba on the field more... I'd prefer he start over either Jones or Hawk.

He's an OLB.

[mraynrand]

The Packers have never cared if their DB's could tackle or not. If they can? then great, but it certainly isn't a priority for them. They want all their DB's to be able to cover, and that's it.

Pass coverage is a top priority in a passing league. Still, I seem to remember this guy, Woodson?, who could tackle. I think he was a defensive back. Maybe he was a LB; it's been a few years and my memory is hazy. Some people thought he was pretty good.

[woodbuck27]

That what I thought of him too... would only want him as a safety.

The Packers don't like physical safeties though... they want their safeties to be corners. The Packers have never cared if their DB's could tackle or not. If they can? then great, but it certainly isn't a priority for them. They want all their DB's to be able to cover, and that's it.

That's why they seem to draw straws before one attempts a tackle.

[pbmax]

Less Likely to Take Top Rated Safety

Detroit Lions (No. 10)

The moves: Signed WR Golden Tate and (reportedly) S James Ihedigbo
What it means: Calvin Johnson has his sidekick in the passing game. Because of Tate’s versatility, the Lions still could target Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans and move Tate to the slot. The odds on that are dwindling, though, given how much Detroit already has invested in its top two receivers. This team also has ample needs elsewhere on the field and just re-signed wide receivers Kris Durham (No. 2 in targets behind Johnson last season) and Kevin Ogletree.

A reach for one of the top safety prospects — Ha Ha Clinton-Dix or Calvin Pryor — stood as a long-shot backup plan. Ihedigbo’s expected arrival crosses that idea off the list, too.


Chicago Bears (No. 15) and Pittsburgh Steelers (No. 16)

The moves: Chicago signed safeties M.D. Jennings and Ryan Mundy; Pittsburgh signed S Mike Mitchell
What it means: That two landing spots for Clinton-Dix, Pryor and other safeties might no longer be on the table. Either team conceivably could still take a safety — Jennings proved in Green Bay that he’s best-suited for a part-time role, and the Steelers kept their guaranteed-money commitment to Mitchell rather low because of worries that he was a flash in the pan with Carolina. The counter-argument is that both the Bears and Steelers have way too many needs all over the field to overload at one position.


Less Likely to trade up for remaining safety

Philadelphia Eagles (No. 22)

The move: Signed S Malcolm Jenkins
What it means: The Eagles absolutely had to improve at the safety position, where Pat Chung really faltered in 2013. Jenkins may not be a perfect defensive player, but he without question makes Philadelphia better there. This had been a prime mock-draft landing spot for a safety — Louisville’s Calvin Pryor, for example. If one of the Eagles’ next moves is to re-sign Nate Allen, the safety-to-Philadelphia gameplan will be in need of revision.

New Orleans Saints (No. 27)

The move: Signed S Jairus Byrd
What it means: A few of the free-agency dominoes fell early this week, including here where the Saints rather surprisingly landed Byrd shortly after Jenkins bolted for Philly. Many of the teams on this list could consider drafting positions at which they’ve already signed players this offseason. This is not one of those situations. With Byrd joining Kenny Vaccaro at safety, the Saints are in better shape there than any team this side of Seattle.

Denver Broncos (No. 31)

The move: Signed everyone
What it means: That Denver can hone in sharply on the best player available. By signing CB Aqib Talib, S T.J. Ward and DE DeMarcus Ware, the Broncos upgraded their defense to a ridiculous degree. (They’ll also have a healthy Von Miller back for 2014.) Talib replaced one of their expected free-agent losses: CB Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie. What Denver has yet to do is find a fill-in for WR Eric Decker, who signed with the Jets on Wednesday. Solving that problem could be the plan at No. 31.

Safeties might be falling down the board. http://nfl.si.com/2014/03/13/2014-nf...act-nfl-draft/

[bobblehead]

That what I thought of him too... would only want him as a safety.

The Packers don't like physical safeties though... they want their safeties to be corners. The Packers have never cared if their DB's could tackle or not. If they can? then great, but it certainly isn't a priority for them. They want all their DB's to be able to cover, and that's it.

Now you are entering Red territory with overstating your point.

[call_me_ishmael]

I feel awful for Wist's wife. Sorry man.

[smuggler]

Just got done looking through all the inside linebacker prospects in the draft. not a single one looks like a good coverage option to usurp Brad Jones (well, there is maybe one guy, but read below). THAT is probably why he got paid so damn much in free agency. And yet Buffalo has Kiko Alonso... Why can't we find a coverage linebacker?

Telvin Smith of FSU is only about 220#, maybe he could sneak up toward 230#, but he would actually be a pretty advertising nickel linebacker and I bet he'd kick ass on special teams. He almost looks like a WR out there on defense. He's 6'3. Sort of a hybrid SS-LB, but without actual safety experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfuLAR2gDes

[woodbuck27]

I'd like to see Mulumba on the field more... I'd prefer he start over either Jones or Hawk.

Ohh CANADA !

He'll be just fine afterall...he's in TT ad MM's Developmental Program. It's the envy of the entire NFL.

[Smidgeon]

Obviously TT knows they need safety help this year. Cutting McMillian because of regression and letting Jennings walk in FA means he has one starting-caliber safety on the roster, one maybe, and one project. I think he knows he needs to pick up another and this time with relative certainty of success. Even if he grabs a bargain bin safety in the fading days of free agency, I think he's targeting one in the draft. BUT, being what our draft history always seems to be, the two teams in front of the Packers will select Clinton-Dix and Pryor, leaving us scrambling.

So what to do then? Trade down? BPA? The biggest hole on the team seems to be safety. It's like a field medic, patching up all sorts of hemorrhaging holes in front of them. If the Packers don't get Clinton-Dix or Pryor, I don't think I'll have a lot of faith in the pass defense again. Of course, this is barring the unlikely: that the seventh round safety plays like a first round pick...

[mraynrand]

I feel pretty good about Richardson near the LOS. Hyde has shown some good stuff in the slot, but I'de prefer Hayward there. APRH, between Richardson, Hyde, Hayward, and Burnett, I think they can field an adequate safety rotation, but they have no depth.

[3irty1]

I feel pretty good about Richardson near the LOS. Hyde has shown some good stuff in the slot, but I'de prefer Hayward there. APRH, between Richardson, Hyde, Hayward, and Burnett, I think they can field an adequate safety rotation, but they have no depth.

That's how I feel too.

[The Shadow]

What think ye all of Max Bullough, LB?

[mraynrand]

What think ye all of Max Bullough, LB?

big and slower. 242lbs, 4.78 40 I think at pro day. Character problems! Good instincts, good tackler, good ILB. Would be adequate replacement for Hawk, but would be less agile.

[3irty1]

big and slower. 242lbs, 4.78 40 I think at pro day. Character problems! Good instincts, good tackler, good ILB. Would be adequate replacement for Hawk, but would be less agile.

Not sure I agree with character problems. He violated team rules and was held out of the rosebowl but nobody knows his side of the story. We also know that he's a two-time team captain and a good student. He doesn't strike me as a troubled kid or anything. He's from snobby wine-country Michigan.

It wouldn't surprise me if he made the top 100. He's not as physical as he should be for a guy his size and strength but he's got a good all-around game and gives good effort. Very decisive player.