Brockers vs. Still vs. BPA

[jungleking]

He's not a 'project with no experience' though. He was one of the best at his position last year, which puts him in the discussion by default. His name jumped a little bit higher when everybody realized that being one of the best players in college was still only scratching the surface of his potential. He had six tackles against Georgia, two for a loss, one forced fumble and a pass breakup, and then had seven more and blocked a kick in the national championship game. He played well against great competition.

Brockers and Jenkins are my two favorite targets in the first round. They are both great players with elite physical attributes that play best on big stages. They are both guys that fill a big need, and neither one has the durability concerns that Still has. They also have definite positions, unlike Kirkpatrick.

[Ivan The Awesome]

I want us to trade that pick away. More and more each day.

[rayzor]

Here's some stuff on Dre if you (and anyone else) care to do some studying on him..

you need to attach links to those unless you want this place sued and shut down.

kthx.

[Guest Bwood15]

you need to attach links to those unless you want this place sued and shut down.

kthx.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1664145/dre-kirkpatrick

[SuperMan]

Kirkpatrick can't cover NFL WR's. You want a good example, take a look at Antrel Rolle. He was drafted to be a CB and was awful, so they moved him to FS. Now he's a good FS, but certainly not an elite safety. Worth a top-10 pick?

Kirkpatrick is a name, that's all. Biggest name at a position of need from a national championship team. I didn't like Patrick Peterson last year for all the same reasons I don't like Kirkpatrick as a cover corner and, based on early results, I was right about Peterson.

If we want a true cover corner, we'd better take Jenkins, otherwise just take Michael Floyd and at least get proper value for the pick.

You think Floyd is top 10 worthy? lol

[Rags]

This draft is deeper in CBs than DLineman, so taking a CB not named Morris Claiborne in the top 10 just seems unnecessary when there are players like Still, Brockers, Ingram and even Coples on the board seems silly when there are plenty other starting caliber CBs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Especially Kirkpatrick, who may not even stay at CB.

Brockers is not a top 10 pick, and neither is Still.

Based on...?

[Guest Bwood15]

This draft is deeper in CBs than DLineman, so taking a CB not named Morris Claiborne in the top 10 just seems unnecessary when there are players like Still, Brockers, Ingram and even Coples on the board seems silly when there are plenty other starting caliber CBs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Especially Kirkpatrick, who may not even stay at CB.

Based on...?

Based on the fact that he literally just came out of nowhere. I'm not a Brockers hater I actually wouldn't mind the pick, I've even mocked him to us before. I just don't like that fact that he appeared on a couple mock drafts right after the national championship, and that he's being hyped basically off of potential. What exactly has he done to earn a top 10 pick? And isn't this only his first year playing college ball? Sounds sketchy to me.

Hurney does not reach, and until Brockers backs up the hype at the combine we will be taking BPA, and that sure isn't Brockers.

[rayzor]

Based on the fact that he literally just came out of nowhere. I'm not a Brockers hater I actually wouldn't mind the pick, I've even mocked him to us before. I just don't like that fact that he appeared on a couple mock drafts right after the national championship, and that he's being hyped basically off of potential. What exactly has he done to earn a top 10 pick? And isn't this only his first year playing college ball? Sounds sketchy to me.

Hurney does not reach, and until Brockers backs up the hype at the combine we will be taking BPA, and that sure isn't Brockers.

quite a few would have argued that newton was a reach. in fact they did.

he's not a reach if he's got what they are looking for. quite a few are noticing that about him...that he has the makings of a star DT. even mayock is on the bandwagon. kiper has us picking him up. people are seeing what is on the tape, but also realizing that not only does he have elite potential, but he also has the work ethic and drive to reach that potential. he's shown to be just as talented as any other DT prospect and he's just begun to learn.

the mistake that people make when they look at raw prospects is that they don't care if he is coachable, has the ability to learn and grow, and has the desire and discipline to reach their potential. in brockers they see a kid that played LB in high school, was recruited as a DE, and after redshirting a year became one of the best DTs in the country after 2 years playing the position.

you take someone that can do that and give them pro level coaching and you are looking at a dominant player. he may be rough in his first year, but after he adapts to the speed of the game could be elite.

[Guest Bwood15]

quite a few would have argued that newton was a reach. in fact they did.

he's not a reach if he's got what they are looking for. quite a few are noticing that about him...that he has the makings of a star DT. even mayock is on the bandwagon. kiper has us picking him up. people are seeing what is on the tape, but also realizing that not only does he have elite potential, but he also has the work ethic and drive to reach that potential. he's shown to be just as talented as any other DT prospect and he's just begun to learn.

the mistake that people make when they look at raw prospects is that they don't care if he is coachable, has the ability to learn and grow, and has the desire and discipline to reach their potential. in brockers they see a kid that played LB in high school, was recruited as a DE, and after redshirting a year became one of the best DTs in the country after 2 years playing the position.

you take someone that can do that and give them pro level coaching and you are looking at a dominant player. he may be rough in his first year, but after he adapts to the speed of the game could be elite.

And what does that mean for the other young DT's that we invested in? They haven't exactly been given that chance to "adapt" to the speed of the game yet either but they all show promise.

If Rivera said "Yeah we like Jimmy Clausen and we really think he can be a good QB for us for years to come", like he did for the DT's, Cam Wouldn't have been the #1 pick or our best player available. He was there because there was no promise or hope in Jimmy.

Why draft ANOTHER defensive tackle and hope that his potential pans out? Borckers is not Suh, we do not know what we are getting exactly. And when you are taking someone with a top 10 pick, and investing money in them hoping they become a starter and hoping they make an immediate impact like we should be doing, why would you take a guy that really isn't the obvious #1 player at the position you need most?

Hell, he just might blow the combine up though and be recognized as a top ten lock. But at this time of the year, and the situation we are in, it just doesn't seem like the smart move to make.

[jungleking]

I think that people are confusing the term 'high-ceiling' with 'raw.' Brockers was one of the best players on a top defense. He had great games against Georgia and Alabama--teams that feature offensive lines with multiple NFL prospects. In the SEC, which has the most talent on both offensive and defense lines, he was one of the better players. The fact that he has yet to reach his potential does not indicate that he is not an NFL-ready player.

No, he played defensive line for two years. He played all over the line in a rotational role in 2010, and was moved into the starting lineup last year.