alleycat Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1303999238' post='986695'] Peko and Dareus basically have the same skill set and would fill the same role. Dareus won't be a penetrating pass-rush DT in the NFL. I've seen multiple sources say that Dareus would play the same role as Peko, thus sending Peko to the bench. [/quote] Hmm... It appears that neither you nor your sources have actually watched him play, haha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='alleycat' timestamp='1304004293' post='986749'] Hmm... It appears that neither you nor your sources have actually watched him play, haha... [/quote] I have, quite a bit actually. And I don't think Dareus is going to be known as a pass-rushing DT in the pros. He'll get his, but he's not going to be anything like Suh, or a (motivated) Haynesworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1304005247' post='986757'] I have, quite a bit actually. And I don't think Dareus is going to be known as a pass-rushing DT in the pros. He'll get his, but he's not going to be anything like Suh, or a (motivated) Haynesworth. [/quote] Like Suh? I'll give you that. He's a once-in-a-generation player. But how about 7 sacks per year from a run stuffing DT? Would you take that? Because that's where I think he'll end up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengaled Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='alleycat' timestamp='1304004293' post='986749'] Hmm... It appears that neither you nor your sources have actually watched him play, haha... [/quote] i must be one of his sources and i have watched him play for his whole career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengaled Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='alleycat' timestamp='1304005754' post='986767'] Like Suh? I'll give you that. He's a once-in-a-generation player. But how about 7 sacks per year from a run stuffing DT? Would you take that? Because that's where I think he'll end up. [/quote] i'm not trying to be mean, but that figure equates to a blind guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='bengaled' timestamp='1304006235' post='986782'] i'm not trying to be mean, but that figure equates to a blind guess. [/quote] You're not being mean, just ignorant. Tell me, what out of this ENTIRE process amounts to more than a blind guess? That's all ANY of this is. Speculation. That's why it's fun. And why nobody can claim to be an expert and know the answers - INCLUDING ME. If you happen to have some sort of knowledge that makes you exempt, I strongly suggest you should drop whatever you're doing and take an NFL GM spot immediately - because I can tell you right now a handful of them will lose their jobs from overdrafting QB's today... based on THEIR speculation. It was just a hypothetical. If you knew you could get 6-7 sacks a year out of him, would you take him? Geno played part time and got 3.5 last season. Dareus was a dominant pocket pusher, and didn't really have what we already have on this team - two DE's who are going to make the QB step up - right into monster Dareus's arms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='bengaled' timestamp='1304006140' post='986778'] i must be one of his sources and i have watched him play for his whole career. [/quote] lol actually you were. So is John Thornton. I've heard scouts/analysts mention it as well. I'm sure he'll be a very good/great DT, but I don't think he's going to be known for his sack total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1304007479' post='986798'] lol actually you were. So is John Thornton. I've heard scouts/analysts mention it as well. I'm sure he'll be a very good/great DT, but I don't think he's going to be known for his sack total. [/quote] Agreed here, and re: alleycat's last point, a dominant DT is exactly what we need for our DEs to be able to step up. Geathers, Odom, MJ, Fanene, Frostee - they are all solid players and Odom and MJ are particularly talented, but they are not Peppers-type players who can generate all of the pass rush on their own. They need the help of a strong inside presence to occupy blockers, take the heat off them and allow them to be most effective. That's what Dareus does for this team - makes his teammates better. Peko is stout but doesn't have that quality. One elite 3-down lineman could take our D from good to great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1303974278' post='986626'] Dude, you have been saying that they could trade players even when the lockout wasn't overturned. You said player trades are now allowed. No they are not. And they're not allowed because the NFL says so. Not because anyone else told them they're not allowed. The fact is, there is no rules and guidelines in place. No players will be traded until rules are set. And no rules will be set until the 8th circuit court denies a stay. The NFL isn't going to open their doors and operate like business as usual until they are forced to do so. Right now they are appealling the ruling. So they're not forced to do so. You know all of this. I don't know why you act like it is different than reality. [/quote] You seem to be under the impression that the stay was granted, at least pending appeal. That's common in litigation but not the case here. The judge ruled against the league on the lockout and said the players were suffering irreparable injury each day the league was closed. She declared the league was open for business. No confirmation needed from the NFL office. They've been dragging their feet hoping for some sort of deus ex machina from the 8th circuit but there's no reason to expect that. Teams were free as of Monday evening to sign new players, make trades etc. The league office can't block them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='sparky151' timestamp='1304014430' post='986855'] You seem to be under the impression that the stay was granted, at least pending appeal. That's common in litigation but not the case here. The judge ruled against the league on the lockout and said the players were suffering irreparable injury each day the league was closed. She declared the league was open for business. No confirmation needed from the NFL office. They've been dragging their feet hoping for some sort of deus ex machina from the 8th circuit but there's no reason to expect that. Teams were free as of Monday evening to sign new players, make trades etc. The league office can't block them. [/quote] you're both need to take a step back and just realize you're arguing semantics. Can teams make trades right now? Yes. Is any GM in their right mind going to do it? No. Trades can happen, but they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1304014545' post='986857'] you're both need to take a step back and just realize you're arguing semantics. Can teams make trades right now? Yes. Is any GM in their right mind going to do it? No. Trades can happen, but they won't. [/quote] Why wouldn't a smart GM make a trade, if it makes his team better? Is he afraid of the mighty index finger of Roger Goodell waving in his face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1304014958' post='986861'] Why wouldn't a smart GM make a trade, if it makes his team better? Is he afraid of the mighty index finger of Roger Goodell waving in his face? [/quote] 2 teams won't go rogue on the other 30 (IMO). Call it unofficial collusion if you will. I just don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1304015108' post='986863'] 2 teams won't go rogue on the other 30 (IMO). Call it unofficial collusion if you will. I just don't see it happening. [/quote] I agree, I don't think it will happen. But it COULD. And if someone has the balls to do it first, it will open the floodgates. Could make for the most entertaining draft ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1304015108' post='986863'] 2 teams won't go rogue on the other 30 (IMO). Call it unofficial collusion if you will. I just don't see it happening. [/quote] That's exactly what it is, collusion. And it's illegal. I can't imagine the judge in this case being too happy about the NFL doing this. What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1304019312' post='986905'] That's exactly what it is, collusion. And it's illegal. I can't imagine the judge in this case being too happy about the NFL doing this. What a mess. [/quote] Maybe Shae Palmer will call up Goodell tonight: "I have Susan Nelson on speed dial and I will call her until she picks up if you won't let them trade my husband out of this hellhole!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1304019312' post='986905'] That's exactly what it is, collusion. And it's illegal. I can't imagine the judge in this case being too happy about the NFL doing this. What a mess. [/quote] Whatever the baby is called. And what would happen...they would have to go back to court? They are there anyway. And what if none of the 32 teams decided to explore free agents? Maybe they would say they just were not interested in the players available out there? There was no mandate in the expiring CBA which required the teams to sign free agents--just that it was available. Tough nut to crack, legally speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1304019312' post='986905'] That's exactly what it is, collusion. And it's illegal. I can't imagine the judge in this case being too happy about the NFL doing this. What a mess. [/quote] the players wouldn't be able to prove it. All the owners have to do is say they've made attempts, but can't come to terms on trade parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Le Tigre' timestamp='1304020221' post='986915'] Whatever the baby is called. And what would happen...they would have to go back to court? They are there anyway. And what if none of the 32 teams decided to explore free agents? Maybe they would say they just were not interested in the players available out there? There was no mandate in the expiring CBA which required the teams to sign free agents--just that it was available. Tough nut to crack, legally speaking. [/quote] [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1304021251' post='986931'] the players wouldn't be able to prove it. All the owners have to do is say they've made attempts, but can't come to terms on trade parameters. [/quote] Ultimately, that's what it comes down to.........proof. How can the players prove the NFL clubs are in collusion? Can't really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Le Tigre' timestamp='1304020221' post='986915'] Whatever the baby is called. And what would happen...they would have to go back to court? They are there anyway. And what if none of the 32 teams decided to explore free agents? Maybe they would say they just were not interested in the players available out there? There was no mandate in the expiring CBA which required the teams to sign free agents--just that it was available. Tough nut to crack, legally speaking. [/quote] It's actually easy. The players don't have to product wiretaps of the owners discussing not signing new guys. All they have to do is show the owners aren't making an effort to sign new players. The first day of free agency is usually pretty active. If all the teams sit on their hands this year, the case is made. The players have a case before Judge Doty regarding the lack of interest in restricted free agents in 2010. Only 1 player in the whole league changed teams. The owners will lose that case and Doty will make them pay as his parting gift to the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengaled Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='alleycat' timestamp='1304006487' post='986787'] You're not being mean, just ignorant. Tell me, what out of this ENTIRE process amounts to more than a blind guess? That's all ANY of this is. Speculation. That's why it's fun. And why nobody can claim to be an expert and know the answers - INCLUDING ME. If you happen to have some sort of knowledge that makes you exempt, I strongly suggest you should drop whatever you're doing and take an NFL GM spot immediately - because I can tell you right now a handful of them will lose their jobs from overdrafting QB's today... based on THEIR speculation. It was just a hypothetical. If you knew you could get 6-7 sacks a year out of him, would you take him? Geno played part time and got 3.5 last season. Dareus was a dominant pocket pusher, and didn't really have what we already have on this team - two DE's who are going to make the QB step up - right into monster Dareus's arms... [/quote] no, i think it's ignorant to try to say player such and such is going to get "x" number of sacks in his rookie year, and to suggest it as some measure of fact. it's just too damned hard to do that and the effort makes no sense. in regards to your hypothetical, since you asked. yes, i'd take that, assuming he also showed promise at doing what he does best at the same time...that being a hole plugging run stopper. but i don't expect that out of him. with that said, i'd love to get him, he's a great prospect and would make a much bigger impact than the guy everyone assumes we'll take. even so, i think in our 4-3 defense, nick fairley is a better fit for what we need, what we do, and what we have. none of that degrades what dareus brings to the table. it's just that marcel is much better suited to a 3-4 defense, where nick is a better fit in a 4-3. that statement doesn't mean either guy couldn't play in the other defensive format and do well. i'd expect both would. but if you want them to play at their maximum production level, you put each guy in the appropriate format. that's where you get the most out of their abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.