Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,402

    Any Chance We Take Brockers at #19 ?

    Unless someone falls to us....I wouldn't mind taking Michael Brockers. My theory is our first 2 picks should be a DE and DT....and Brockers does seem to be very disrupted at a DT and has tremendous upside. He is only 21 years old and the osky is the limit for the kid.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxk88nb4zhQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U5lF7uCoTo
    http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/p...ospect_id=3119

    Thoughts at him at #19?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Other side of the world...seriously
    Posts
    3,543
    Brockers to me is all about coach-ability. If Marinelli believes he can easily develop some decent techniques then the kid might live up to his potential. At this point, he seems like too big of a project for us to be risking our 19th pick on.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,402
    Quote Originally Posted by The Kaiser View Post
    At this point, he seems like too big of a project for us to be risking our 19th pick on.
    Something tells me he is not going to be much of a project. And to be honest...I can't put my finger on why. My instincts tell me he is going to be a star. I can see this guy being the MAIN COG in the middle of any great defensive line over the next 10 years easily. Heck...even his last name BROCKERS has a nice ring to it.

    P.S. I tell you what...at #19...there is plenty of guys that we could take. It will definitely be interesting to see what Emery and the boys do come draft day.
    Last edited by Bearmagic; 04-16-2012 at 09:25 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,402
    Just watched his tape against Alabama in the bowl game. He played pretty well considering he was double teamed the whole game. He even blocked a field goal in the game as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73WOd...eature=related

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metrowest Boston
    Posts
    11,351
    We could do a lot worse than Brockers at #19. I wouldn't be upset if we took him.
    The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearmagic View Post
    Unless someone falls to us....I wouldn't mind taking Michael Brockers. My theory is our first 2 picks should be a DE and DT....
    This is pretty much my theory as well, altho maybes all theories should be tossed out for this year's draft. Perhaps it's redundant to say let's take the BPA - maybe this is what all teams do with all of their picks. But this year seems to be more so with our team's sitch. It just seems virtually every position can use an upgrade or added depth, if not outright competition for a starter's role, so no matter who is available at whatever position when it's our turn to select, a need will have been met with that pick.

    However, my gut tells me they are going to focus on the DL with the first two picks, which is why I've been focusing my reading up on these players. Whether it's Brockers or someone else, I think this is where we're going to find them.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    17,082
    I like Brockers but like him more as a 3-4 NT or 3-4 DE. I don't think he fits Lovie's system that well because he doesn't have that initial burst to get consistent penetration in the backfield. He looks like he's more comfortable with holding the point and taking on double teams. I think Cox and Worthy are better fits at DT for our defense, JMHO.
    "Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception." - George Orwell

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,402
    Quote Originally Posted by DaSuperfan View Post
    I like Brockers but like him more as a 3-4 NT or 3-4 DE. I don't think he fits Lovie's system that well because he doesn't have that initial burst to get consistent penetration in the backfield. He looks like he's more comfortable with holding the point and taking on double teams. I think Cox and Worthy are better fits at DT for our defense, JMHO.
    I would take Cox first before Brockers for sure....but the more I'm looking at Devon Still, the more I like him over Worthy and Brockers. Check it out for yourself. Very explosive interior lineman...more explosive than Brockers.

    http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...s-devon-still/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,859
    I would be happy with probably any of those 4 guys mentioned Cox would be the obvious number 1 out of them but I doubt he is there for our pick after that I would be plenty happy with Still, Brockers or maybe moving back a bit and taking Worthy
    Next thing you know they will take my thoughts away

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussie77 View Post
    I would be happy with probably any of those 4 guys mentioned Cox would be the obvious number 1 out of them but I doubt he is there for our pick after that I would be plenty happy with Still, Brockers or maybe moving back a bit and taking Worthy
    The vast majority of the most recently updated mocks have Cox taken in the top 10, which is why he's not even on my radar. I tend to X out potential draftees who I feel we have zero chance at landing. The last time we were able to take someone that most figured would be long gone by the time we picked was Tommie Harris. But that was at 14. I just don't see anyone hanging in most mocks' top 10s slipping to 19, unless some scandal or something breaks out days before the draft.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,402
    After researching the tape for Cox, Brockers, Still and Worthy ...I've now rated the defensive tackles (suited best for our system) as follows:

    Cox
    Still - close between Still & Worthy but give Still a slight edge b/c he is 2 inches taller
    Worthy
    Brockers

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    BLOOMINGTON,IL
    Posts
    442
    RD1.Jerel Worthy DT 6-3 310 Michigan State
    RD2.Bruce Irvin DE 6-3 245 West Virginia
    RD3.Tony Bergstrom OG 6-6 315 Utah
    RD4.Keenan Robinson OLB 6-3 239 Texas
    RD5.Zebrie Sanders OT, Florida State
    RD6.DeVier Posey WR 6-2 210 Ohio State
    RD7.Coty Sensabaugh CB 6-0 185 Clemson
    Derek Carrier, TE, Beloit College

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    15,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DaSuperfan View Post
    I like Brockers but like him more as a 3-4 NT or 3-4 DE. I don't think he fits Lovie's system that well because he doesn't have that initial burst to get consistent penetration in the backfield. He looks like he's more comfortable with holding the point and taking on double teams.
    This.
    Wouldn't it be great if we booted the 200 lawyers from the House and Senate and replaced them with economists? That way, we'd stop harming our economy with laws that would apply to the politicians, too.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,046
    I personally wouldn't mind us going DT, DE, WR, or O-Line. They're all needs.

    My fav is

    Kendell Wright
    Vinny Curry
    Mike Matrin

    Because all of these players have played well and could fit well here. WR has a lot of talent and there are guys like Rishad Matthews, Chris Givens Nick Toon that could drop into the 4th round. Cody Fleener is a guy I really like but he'll be gone by our 2nd pick.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    5,751
    nice picks Lumpy
    Slightly better Jay, different day

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.