Universaldraft.com's Updated Mock Draft 4/4/09 - 2 Rounds

[Conuficus]

I actually think those videos hurt your arguement. I agree with the poster I would take Larry English WAY before Kruger he just looks much more athletic in those videos to me than Kruger

So those videos show that Kruger is terrible in the linebacking drills? Really? Terrible? Cause the other guy said he's terrible - he's not terrible by any means.

Cause that's what I'm arguing against, not that he's the best. The videos show that he is in fact not terrible, which was the other guy's quote.

 

[Conuficus]

I live in AZ and it was just in the paper last week that Wiz will be running a 3-4 MOST of the time cause sports casters were worried that Dockett would have a hard time but Wiz said not to worry he has a few tricks up his sleeve for using Dockett and it wont always be a 3-4

So you don't run a 3-4 all the time? It is something they shift out of and into. Is the base going to be 4-3 or 3-4? Last time I checked they use a 4-3 base, but switch into a 3-4 look a great deal. Which is something Pendergast did when he was there.

The same as when teams switch to a nickel etc. or is it that the team is now a 3-4 base that aligns as a 4-3? Cause the Dolphins were a 4-3 teams under Saban, but we lined in looks similar to a 3-4, but we weren't a 3-4 defense.

I ask because whatever your base is then thats typically what you'll be called. From my understanding they will be 4-3 team that switches to a 3-4 a great deal of the time. They could be in a 3-4 look a great deal and it still not be a base defense, which is what most use to define a defense in terms of scheme.

They did the same thing last year switching up alignments a great deal, and they were a 4-3 team last year too.

 

[hoops]

Kruger looked terrible? Really?

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f30c37

Compare it to Sidbury:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f34a69

I mean yeah, Kruger looks absolutely awful out there. :wink: He looked terrible out there compared to Sidbury if that is your definition of a more "fluid" or "less terrible" in space and moving around. Really? They are that far apart? Seriously? I don't think you can Kruger looked terrible at all. You may prefer Sidbury, which is fine and good, but don't say a guy look terrible when it's pretty plain that he is not terrible at all.

By the way, here's English:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f3060c

His doesn't have the back pedal portion etc. but he doesn't look light years ahead of Kruger either from the same drills.

terrible may have been a strong word but i watched him in lb drills and thought that guys a 4-3 end. just not athletic and fluid enough for me as an olb. looks stiff.

sidbury has way more upside and is a much better athlete.

english is the best edge rusher of the 3 right now but he even doesn't have sidburys first 3 steps off the edge however sidbury is gonna have to work at setting the edge in the run game.

i really hope we stay away from paul kruger.

 

[Pinkboy]

terrible may have been a strong word but i watched him in lb drills and thought that guys a 4-3 end. just not athletic and fluid enough for me as an olb. looks stiff.

sidbury has way more upside and is a much better athlete.

english is the best edge rusher of the 3 right now but he even doesn't have sidburys first 3 steps off the edge however sidbury is gonna have to work at setting the edge in the run game.

i really hope we stay away from paul kruger.

So what you're saying is Paul Kruger is just another Matt Roth with longer arms.

The thing with English is that he had almost half his sacks last year against one crappy team in one game. I am not saying I don't like English, but there's some questions about him as well.

 

[jim1]

Kruger looked terrible? Really?

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f30c37

Compare it to Sidbury:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f34a69

I mean yeah, Kruger looks absolutely awful out there. :wink: He looked terrible out there compared to Sidbury if that is your definition of a more "fluid" or "less terrible" in space and moving around. Really? They are that far apart? Seriously? I don't think you can Kruger looked terrible at all. You may prefer Sidbury, which is fine and good, but don't say a guy look terrible when it's pretty plain that he is not terrible at all.

By the way, here's English:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80f3060c

His doesn't have the back pedal portion etc. but he doesn't look light years ahead of Kruger either from the same drills.

Kruger looked fine as a DE- as an OLB, I don't know. A bit stiff, and I don't know if I'd want him covering a RB in space as per the issues that we have with Matt Roth. Sidbury looked significantly, markedly better in terms of speed, fluidity, quickness, change of direction, everything except maybe hands. English looked prety good, but it was clearly Sidbury/English/Kruger. That was my first exposure to Sidbury, and it's a case of me instantly admiring him athletically moreso than being down on Kruger. It's all relative- Kruger looked ok, Sidbury looked great.

 

[hoops]

So what you're saying is Paul Kruger is just another Matt Roth with longer arms.

The thing with English is that he had almost half his sacks last year against one crappy team in one game. I am not saying I don't like English, but there's some questions about him as well.

i just don't think kruger has much upside. reminds me of roth somewhat but i'm not so sure he's gonna set the edge like roth. but i don't think sidbury or english will right now either. i think krugers a 4-3 end.

as far as athletically and upside its lawrence sidbury by a landslide imo. i think he's a terrific olb prospect. strong fast speed off the edge in time will set the edge vs the run i think. what's not to like???

runs 4.55 and is 265 lbs. looks very fluid for his size in lb drills. i'd take him at #44. i really would.

 

[Pinkboy]

i just don't think kruger has much upside. reminds me of roth somewhat but i'm not so sure he's gonna set the edge like roth. but i don't think sidbury or english will right now either. i think krugers a 4-3 end.

as far as athletically and upside its lawrence sidbury by a landslide imo. i think he's a terrific olb prospect. strong fast speed off the edge in time will set the edge vs the run i think. what's not to like???

runs 4.55 and is 265 lbs. looks very fluid for his size in lb drills. i'd take him at #44. i really would.

I certainly wouldn't hate it. But he'll likely be there 12 picks lower at # 56.

 

[hoops]

I certainly wouldn't hate it. But he'll likely be there 12 picks lower at # 56.

i'm not so sure of that. charley casserly said last week that he's worked his way into round 2 and his stock is still going up. and why shouldn't it be.

once barwin and english come off sidbury is probably the next in line. definitely b4 sintim for me.

 

[Conuficus]

The one thing I'd like to bring up is this. What are we looking for as an OLB? Are we looking for a strong side guy or a weak side guy? I have a feeling we are looking more strong side than weak side right now. I say this because we've done a hell of a lot of work on scouting guys like Cody Brown, Sintim, English, Kruger,.....I don't know how much we've scouted Sidbury off the top of my head.

But my point is those guys are predominantly 2nd round guys, and Sintim, Kruger and English have been considered to be a strong side candidate as he is better against the run than people give him credit for, but not as good as the other two. Since we signed Wake as chances are a weak side guy, due to his speed off the edge we still need a strong side guy.

Anyways, English isn't the typical height, and I know I don't give too much for an inch or two, but the regime does put a good bit of weight into the height issue. Height to them typically means longer arms, and body; more length. Obviously this isn't an end all be all but you get my point.

I'm saying that if all are equal and they have a chance to narrow it down to two players they may give those with more height the edge 6'5'' versus 6'2''. That leaves Sintim and Kruger that they shown interest in. Of the two left, Sintim and Kruger who is actually the better athlete?

Kruger
10 YD - 1.60
20 YD - 2.78
40 YD - 4.83
Shuttle - 4.47
Cone - 7.52


Sintim
10 YD - 1.56
20 YD - 2.71
40 YD - 4.75
Shuttle - 4.40
Cone - 7.37

Sintim gives the better number of the two, thats a given. But I chose one guy over the other, thats all. It isn't as though the guy is dog meat, and we have shown interest in him. We've met with him one more time than we have Sintim IIRC, but don't hold me to that. I'm not saying the meeting thing is the end all be all, but we do an interest there. Sintim is not good in coverage and is very stright line-ish when he plays. Kruger is similar, but actually looks better on film when he plays in terms of moving around, from what I've seen.

Sintim is a great player don't get me wrong. I just chose one guy out of the two I think we may be more interested in because I think we may be more interested in a strong side guy who is a little more nimble than Matt Roth.

 

[Conuficus]

Kruger looked fine as a DE- as an OLB, I don't know. A bit stiff, and I don't know if I'd want him covering a RB in space as per the issues that we have with Matt Roth. Sidbury looked significantly, markedly better in terms of speed, fluidity, quickness, change of direction, everything except maybe hands. English looked prety good, but it was clearly Sidbury/English/Kruger. That was my first exposure to Sidbury, and it's a case of me instantly admiring him athletically moreso than being down on Kruger. It's all relative- Kruger looked ok, Sidbury looked great.

I think this is why we have shown in interest in players like Jason Williams and Marcus Freeman. Slightly smaller, more athletic types that could fill the "Kevin Burnett" role; the coverage guy who can come in and handle coverage, give a bit in the middle, but may be a bit of a liability against the run.

 

[jim1]

I think this is why we have shown in interest in players like Jason Williams and Marcus Freeman. Slightly smaller, more athletic types that could fill the "Kevin Burnett" role; the coverage guy who can come in and handle coverage, give a bit in the middle, but may be a bit of a liability against the run.

I thought that there was a good chance that we would have signed Burnett in FA. I'm intrigued by Jason Williams, and still Kevin Hunt. But I think that Charlie Andersonm is getting lost in the mix- i digress, this is SS stuff when I bring up Anderson and Hunt. Weak side- good points, and I would imagine that Wake's coverage ability or lack thereof- I have no idea- will factor in greatly. So many other needs- I'd rather take a Jarron Gilbert or maybe one of the CB's that slipped than force a pick at the WILL. If the right guy is there, great. Jason Williams is intriguing, but man, Sidbury is smooth. Parcells probably wishes that Joey Porter was 6-4 or so- sometimes the search for perfection is the enemy of good. If the right guy is there and he's 6-2, SAM or WILL, that's ok with me. Just get the better player. But you're right, they like those big rangy guys who have size, can bat down balls, etc. Let's see what Charlie Anderson can do this year.

 

[fishypete]

Seems to me the problem is who are the Dolphins trying to replace...Roth or Porter? Where does C. Wake fit in this discussion? Without knowing those items...it hard to figure what player in the draft fits.

 

[hoops]

imo wake is the backup weakside backer and hopefully long term replacement for porter down the line.

why can't sidbury play the strongside??? yes, i know he needs to work on setting the edge vs the run but in time i think he could develop into a solid run defender. has the ideal 265 lb frame and elite speed and looks strong in lb drills and i think will flourish in space. the kids pretty strong 28 reps of 225.

how tall is sidbury??? i was under the impression he's at least 6 ft 3

 

[@@@]

imo wake is the backup weakside backer and hopefully long term replacement for porter down the line.

why can't sidbury play the strongside??? yes, i know he needs to work on setting the edge vs the run but in time i think he could develop into a solid run defender. has the ideal 265 lb frame and elite speed and looks strong in lb drills and i think will flourish in space. the kids pretty strong 28 reps of 225.

how tall is sidbury??? i was under the impression he's at least 6 ft 3

NFL.com has him listed at 6'2"

 

[hoops]

huh...i didn't know that.