Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    20,911

    Eagles showing a lot of interest in Brockers

    They had him in for a pre-draft visit at the Novacare complex. The Eagles also had a private workout with him(has to be away from the team facility, although not necessarily at the player's college) that Reid, Castillo, and Washburn all attended. Doing both of those either indicates a lot of interest or a serious smokescreen. I've thought that Brockers wasn't a fit because everything I've read said he was a better fit for two-gap. LSU didn't have him on the field in nickel situations. Maybe the Eagles think the talent is there and if he slimmed down a little he has pass rush potential.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    North Port, Florida
    Posts
    13,492
    Brockers will be a force against the run for many years to come and while he likely will never be more than a 5 or 6 sack per year guy he can certainly get into the backfield. The Eagles run D up the middle would greatly improve with Brockers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Center City
    Posts
    1,278
    Brockers is clearly a NT and we are looking for an UT. That is my only reservation with him as a prospect. All this looks like a smokescreen to me.
    While cynics whine about what the Eagles haven't done. Real Eagle fans focus on what we should do.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    North Port, Florida
    Posts
    13,492
    Brockers is quick enough off the snap and has enough athletic ability where he can play Tackle in the 4-3. I don't see him "just" as a Nose.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Alpharetta Ga.
    Posts
    12,347

    Lightbulb

    Brockers is a beast.

    If you're worried that Brockers might not fit in with the "Wide 9", there is an easy solution for that: scrap the "Wide 9" nonsense. Problem solved.

    The only guy who would suffer from the transition back to a more traditional 4-3 is Babin. But use him as a pass-rushing specialist (as he probably should be used anyways) and again: problem solved.
    Although it is said that our faith concerns matters which are obscure, the reasons for embracing the faith are not obscure but on the contrary are clearer than any natural light.
    -Descartes

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in time
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Rey View Post
    Brockers will be a force against the run for many years to come and while he likely will never be more than a 5 or 6 sack per year guy he can certainly get into the backfield. The Eagles run D up the middle would greatly improve with Brockers.
    I'll take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday a DT that is a force against the run and can give you 5-6 sacks per year, I call that a Pro Bowler.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Reading, PA
    Posts
    9,624
    I like Brockers too.
    Chip is the man!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,280
    Yeah, when was the last time the birds telegraphed who they really wanted pre draft? I consider this a good indication were either looking OT,WR, or DE.
    "Girl was bout as nutty as squirel $h!t"- Uncle ruckas.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lancaster County, Pa.
    Posts
    4,459
    I have Brockers as the pick @ #15, if we don't trade up for Cox.

    As Rey said, he is NOT a NT - too tall. He is a classic DT in a 4-3 defense. While I prefer Cox, I would not mind if they stand pat ansd take Brockers. After all, most of us thought after the season ended, that we needa big DT to help plug the middle, and that is what Brockers does best.

    So, either Cox as another "Jenkins type", or Brockers as the middle run stopper, either one will be a big upgrade.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    25,594
    Don't see us drafting this kid. I think he might be a option at 15, so they wanna make sure they DON'T want him.

    Most likely scenarios IMO are trading up for Tannehill, Claiborne or F.Cox....or a trade down for who knows.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    31,994
    Quote Originally Posted by bridgecoach View Post
    Brockers is clearly a NT and we are looking for an UT. That is my only reservation with him as a prospect. All this looks like a smokescreen to me.
    I think you've talked yourself into that proposition. We need a top young tackle prospect period. Doesn't necessarily have to be right now nor in the 1st round and Brockers could be the wrong guy, but the whole position is on the short list.

    Either way he's a guy to take a close look at because of his size and the defense he was a part of.
    Last edited by eaglesnut; 04-17-2012 at 03:44 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    20,911
    At 15, you don't want to shoehorn yourself into one position. In this case, 4-3 NT versus 4-3 UT. If you can find a guy you think can be a dominant 4-3 NT you don't ignore him. Long-term, we really need both positions. UT because Jenkins is older and NT because Patterson is getting up there, coming off of brain surgery and has an ascending cap number. Dixon and Landri are only signed for 1 year each. As far as next year goes, although Landri played mostly at NT last year, he did begin to steal from snaps from Laws at UT at the end of the year. He could conceivably be Jenkins' primary backup next year. You could always grab another UT type later.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    25,594
    Problem is that he isn't great at pass rushing and at that ht., he may not be a force vs. the run.
    Similar problem I have with Thompson, I don't think he is great at anything. Neither are very athletic. Something the Eagles want. Especially early.

    If you want a run stopper..they can be had later.
    Last edited by swat; 04-17-2012 at 04:57 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    North Port, Florida
    Posts
    13,492
    Brockers imo plays with a great base (very hard to move) and even though he may not burn a 40, he's quick off the ball. Cox on the other hand is more athletic and projects as the better pass rusher, but tends to get blown off the ball quite a bit when he doesn't get that initial penetration.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    25,594
    It's not just the 40. Their cone times were horrendous. Our DL plays in space. They have to be athletic....especially if you are going to pick them top 15 or top 45.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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.