PDA

View Full Version : Report: Texans 'trying hard' to deal top pick


Playoffs
03-28-2014, 12:14 PM
Bleacher Report's Dan Pompei reports the Texans are "trying hard" to trade the No. 1 overall pick in May's draft and "might have a trade partner" in the Bills. Pompei has been covering the NFL for nearly 30 years.

The Texans reportedly want to move down in an effort to accumulate more picks in what is considered the deepest draft in recent memory. The Bills are said to be eyeing a move up, possibly for a quarterback. It'd be quite the statement if Buffalo was to give up on E.J. Manuel just one year after making him the 16th overall pick. Targeting a pass rusher like Jadeveon Clowney or Khalil Mack might make more sense. The Bills are currently scheduled to draft ninth overall and have just seven picks total.http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8375/jadeveon-clowney


Word from the NFL meetings is the Texans are trying hard to deal the first pick in the draft. They want to move down and acquire extra selections. Sources say they might have a trade partner in the Bills, who appear interested in moving up. It is unclear who the Bills would want in a trade-up scenario. Some believe they would move up for a quarterback. They also could make good use of an offensive tackle such as Greg Robinson. And it would be something to see them pair Mario Williams with either Jadeveon Clowney or Khalil Mack.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2007370-dan-pompeis-read-option-how-will-michael-vick-fit-in-with-the-jets
:logo:

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2014, 12:16 PM
Oh.

Please.

Make this happen.

buddyboy
03-28-2014, 12:17 PM
Think one of the three top QB prospects still be available?

thunderkyss
03-28-2014, 12:20 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2007370-dan-pompeis-read-option-how-will-michael-vick-fit-in-with-the-jets
And it would be something to see them pair Mario Williams with either Jadeveon Clowney or Khalil Mack.


If I were the Bills, & I wanted to trade up, I'm going with Clowney (they still run a 4-3 right?)

Mario & Clowney in a 4-3 would be sick.


I mean they'd make the defensive coordinator sick. They'll have to come up with some signal to let each other know which play they are going to take off.


j/k, I think Mario & Clowney would be fierce.... uh... we have to play the Bills this year don't we?

Porky
03-28-2014, 12:20 PM
If they sat at 9, the only QB who MIGHT be there is Bridgewater, but that is a big if. He could easily be gone.

After yesterday, it's hard to imagine JM still being there, or Bortles for that matter.

If they want one of the big three, they would have to move back up somehow.

But let's imagine for a second that this happens and they stay at nine.

What's the overall strategy? Who is the pick there and what about a QB?

Honoring Earl 34
03-28-2014, 12:21 PM
They want Mack I bet .

I bet there's a draft Mack billboard in Buffalo . :lol:

TexansSeminole
03-28-2014, 12:25 PM
Oh.

Please.

Make this happen.

This.

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2014, 12:27 PM
I'm thinking we trade back to 9 and take either:

1. Jake Matthews
2. Aaron Donald
3. Anthony Barr
4. Justin Gilbert

There's still a possibility that Bridgewater or Bortles are still there, as well.

For the Bills, the obvious choice is Clowney but they could also be going after Watkins.

HOU-TEX
03-28-2014, 12:29 PM
I'm thinking we trade back to 9 and take either:

1. Jake Matthews
2. Aaron Donald
3. Anthony Barr
4. Justin Gilbert

There's still a possibility that Bridgewater or Bortles are still there, as well.

For the Bills, the obvious choice is Clowney but they could also be going after Watkins.

Yeah, I'm not seeing them go for one of the QBs like the article states. Definitely Clowney or Watkins, imo

Allstar
03-28-2014, 12:31 PM
9 to 1 is quite the leap.

eriadoc
03-28-2014, 12:31 PM
Use one of the extra picks to trade back up into the first round and grab Nix as their second first rounder.

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2014, 12:31 PM
9 to 1 is quite the leap.

Could be a sweet mixture of draft picks both this year and next year.

drs23
03-28-2014, 12:31 PM
Oh my. Purty please Buffalo. Just do it. NOW!

htownfan32
03-28-2014, 12:31 PM
If we're trading down, I'd rather it be with Cleveland and nabbing two first rounders... If this goes through Buffalo better sell us the house.

htownfan32
03-28-2014, 12:33 PM
I'm thinking we trade back to 9 and take either:

1. Jake Matthews
2. Aaron Donald
3. Anthony Barr
4. Justin Gilbert

There's still a possibility that Bridgewater or Bortles are still there, as well.

For the Bills, the obvious choice is Clowney but they could also be going after Watkins.

Probably Clowney, but if you're the Bills GM/coach you have to be salivating at the prospect of giving your franchise QB (Manuel) a franchise wideout.

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 12:36 PM
Really, really hope this happens. We need the extra picks because this roster is paper thin. Bridgewater might even still be available at #9.

As for the Bills, I could see them targeting Watkins, Clowney, Mack, or Robinson. Most likely Clowney though.

_King_
03-28-2014, 12:36 PM
I don't think this trade happens.

I think this is a smokescreen to pressure another team to trade up with us...

I think that the Jaguars want Jadaveon Clowney. I think their mouths are watering at the prospect. I think the Falcons would love to get Jadaveon as well.

I think the Texans will play this like they played the Schaub deal. Either YOU jump up for Jadaveon or SOMEONE else WILL...

Texans could get quite a haul here.

markn
03-28-2014, 12:38 PM
If they sat at 9, the only QB who MIGHT be there is Bridgewater, but that is a big if. He could easily be gone.

Don't agree. I think the only qb in this draft truly worthy of a top ten is TB. Bortles and JM are in the 11-25 range for me. But I'm pretty sure someone will be desperate enough to reach for them before that.

BOB keeps mentioning that there's more than 3 QBs in this draft, and I think they may target someone at 2.1

Please let this trade happen.

thunderkyss
03-28-2014, 12:38 PM
I'm thinking we trade back to 9 and take either:

1. Jake Matthews
2. Aaron Donald
3. Anthony Barr
4. Justin Gilbert

There's still a possibility that Bridgewater or Bortles are still there, as well.

For the Bills, the obvious choice is Clowney but they could also be going after Watkins.

Most people have the Rams taking Robinson. I can see the Bills wanting to beat them to him.

Edit: Belay my last, Just saw they drafted Cordy Glenn in 2012.

Dutchrudder
03-28-2014, 12:40 PM
They have to be targeting Kahlil Mack. He's from Buffalo. How often do you have a top tier talent from upstate New York? He's one of the few picks they might not have trouble retaining! :)

drs23
03-28-2014, 12:41 PM
Really, really hope this happens. We need the extra picks because this roster is paper thin. Bridgewater might even still be available at #9.

As for the Bills, I could see them targeting Watkins, Clowney, Mack, or Robinson. Most likely Clowney though.

Jaws says JFF will still be there as well. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/27/jaworski-ive-moved-manziel-from-fourth-round-to-third-round/?campaign=Ext_Email_1st10_20140328&cvosrc=Ext_Email.Epsilon.1st10_20140328) :kitten:

Number19
03-28-2014, 12:41 PM
It's too far back - or not far enough.

JB
03-28-2014, 01:06 PM
What kind of package could the Bills offer to make it worth it?

IDEXAN
03-28-2014, 01:13 PM
What kind of package could the Bills offer to make it worth it?
That's the question ? They'd make that trade if they wouldn't have to give up too much, just as we would do the deal if we got enough. Where's the happy middle ground ?

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 01:26 PM
What kind of package could the Bills offer to make it worth it?

Not the robbery that people here are going to want/expect. It won't be like the Redskins trade with us getting (3) 1st's and a 2nd.

I could see something like...

Texans Get:
1 (#9)
2 (#41)
3 (#73)
2015 1st
2015 5th

Bills Get:
1 (#1)
4 (#101)

We swap 1st's and get their 2nd. We swap our 4th with their 3rd and get their 2015 1st & 5th. According to the draft value chart the total is off by 3 points.

JB
03-28-2014, 01:32 PM
Not the robbery that people here are going to want/expect. It won't be like the Redskins trade with us getting (3) 1st's and a 2nd.

I could see something like...

Texans Get:
1 (#9)
2 (#41)
3 (#73)
2015 1st
2015 5th

Bills Get:
1 (#1)
4 (#101)

We swap 1st's and get their 2nd. We swap our 4th with their 3rd and get their 2015 1st & 5th. According to the draft value chart the total is off by 3 points.

As deep as this draft is, that wouldn't be a bad haul

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 01:53 PM
As deep as this draft is, that wouldn't be a bad haul

True. The Bills would likely balk at trading their 1,2, & 3 this year though. Probably counter with their 1st, 2nd, and 5th this year and 1st & 3rd next year.

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2014, 02:10 PM
Not the robbery that people here are going to want/expect. It won't be like the Redskins trade with us getting (3) 1st's and a 2nd.

I could see something like...

Texans Get:
1 (#9)
2 (#41)
3 (#73)
2015 1st
2015 5th

Bills Get:
1 (#1)
4 (#101)

We swap 1st's and get their 2nd. We swap our 4th with their 3rd and get their 2015 1st & 5th. According to the draft value chart the total is off by 3 points.

You add that to our existing picks and that's a helluva haul in a deep draft.

steelbtexan
03-28-2014, 02:26 PM
True. The Bills would likely balk at trading their 1,2, & 3 this year though. Probably counter with their 1st, 2nd, and 5th this year and 1st & 3rd next year.

^^^^
This

I would do this deal.

It's going to be a 3 yr rebuilding project. I think Cal really wants JM but #1 is way too high.

TheIronDuke
03-28-2014, 02:58 PM
What if we got Marcel Dareus and their first plus another pick? He's a big fat NT. Any chance of that?

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 03:03 PM
What if we got Marcel Dareus and their first plus another pick? He's a big fat NT. Any chance of that?

He's a better fit at DE, IMO. He has 18.5 sacks in 3 years playing DE/DT for Buffalo, putting him at NT is a waste of his skills. Even at Alabama he played 3-4 DE instead of NT.

TexansSeminole
03-28-2014, 03:04 PM
He's a better fit at DE, IMO. He has 18.5 sacks in 3 years playing DE/DT for Buffalo, putting him at NT is a waste of his skills. Even at Alabama he played 3-4 DE instead of NT.

Yeah, he was always a 3-4 DE type. I doubt they trade him away.

htownfan32
03-28-2014, 03:05 PM
If you're cool with waiting for a QB, the aforementioned trade probably is not a bad idea. In this draft, that means you can get several starters for this team.

chicagotexan2
03-28-2014, 03:17 PM
True. The Bills would likely balk at trading their 1,2, & 3 this year though. Probably counter with their 1st, 2nd, and 5th this year and 1st & 3rd next year.

Holy :cow: please please please

JB
03-28-2014, 03:22 PM
If you're cool with waiting for a QB, the aforementioned trade probably is not a bad idea. In this draft, that means you can get several starters for this team.

I think a qb can still be had if this trade was made

htownfan32
03-28-2014, 03:26 PM
I think a qb can still be had if this trade was made

Which one do you think falls?

I don't think Manziel falls past the Raiders. If he ends up at #5, I think Dennis Allen pulls the trigger. Bortles and/or Bridgewater might make it because people pass on them. I think one of the two goes to the Jags, though.

_King_
03-28-2014, 03:40 PM
Every team that needs a QB isn't likely to take a QB.

If you go back to past drafts this is often the case. Sometimes these guys will fall to the mid or bottom of the first and someone will trade up for them.

I don't think there has ever been more than 3 QB's taken in the top ten. And 3 QB's being taken in the top ten is very rare...

Could happen, but I'm not expecting it TBH...

But I don't think the Texans will trade with Buffalo. I don't think they want to go any lower than 5. Nothing to support that...but just my hunch......UNLESS...they just get an outrageous deal....

I think this leaked in order to drum up interest from the teams right below us.

"Look Buffalo is interested in trading up....They could take Clowney, Robinson, Your favorite QB, Mack...."

"You better beat their offer or they might take your guy"

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 03:57 PM
Which one do you think falls?

I don't think Manziel falls past the Raiders. If he ends up at #5, I think Dennis Allen pulls the trigger. Bortles and/or Bridgewater might make it because people pass on them. I think one of the two goes to the Jags, though.

I'm extremely confident that Jags will take Clowney or Mack.

JB
03-28-2014, 04:05 PM
Which one do you think falls?

I don't think Manziel falls past the Raiders. If he ends up at #5, I think Dennis Allen pulls the trigger. Bortles and/or Bridgewater might make it because people pass on them. I think one of the two goes to the Jags, though.

I don't think the raiders or the jags pull the trigger on a qb with first selection

_King_
03-28-2014, 04:05 PM
I'm extremely confident that Jags will take Clowney or Mack.

I would LOVE if the Jags are in LOVE with Clowney...The Browns too...But I have a feeling the Browns want Manziel...

But if the Jags really want Clowney, and they think someone will trade up with us to grab him, they may instead trade up so prevent that from happening...

If we could move down to three and get a good haul of picks to go a long with it, that would be amazing...

If we did that and the draft went Clowney, Robinson, __________. We'd still have all three QB's on board PLUS extra picks.

Texian
03-28-2014, 04:31 PM
***READER BEWARE***This is BLEACHER REPORT***

BLEACHER REPORT is the NATIONAL ENQUIRER (yellow journalism) of sports reporting. Any reading of such material should be done with a grain of salt with constant thoughts that you're reading some very bad fiction.

Corrosion
03-28-2014, 04:33 PM
^^^^
This

I would do this deal.

It's going to be a 3 yr rebuilding project. I think Bob really wants JM but #1 is way too high.


FIFY. :tiphat:

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 05:04 PM
I would LOVE if the Jags are in LOVE with Clowney...The Browns too...But I have a feeling the Browns want Manziel...

But if the Jags really want Clowney, and they think someone will trade up with us to grab him, they may instead trade up so prevent that from happening...

If we could move down to three and get a good haul of picks to go a long with it, that would be amazing...

If we did that and the draft went Clowney, Robinson, __________. We'd still have all three QB's on board PLUS extra picks.

They aren't trading up for Clowney. If somebody trades up with us or STL and takes Clowney then JAX will just take Mack and be perfectly content about it.

Cleveland isn't trading up either. They are probably going to take Watkins #4 and take Carr/Garoppolo/Mettenberger #26. Maybe take whichever QB is available at #4, but they aren't trading up.

St. Louis at #2 and Oakland at #5 would probably prefer to trade back although the Raiders would probably love Watkins. Neither is trading up though.

The most likely candidates are ATL at 6, MIN at 8, and BUF at 9.

_King_
03-28-2014, 05:23 PM
They aren't trading up for Clowney. If somebody trades up with us or STL and takes Clowney then JAX will just take Mack and be perfectly content about it.

0 chance you could know that...


But I said "if"...

And I just used the Jags as the perfect possible team.

WolverineFan
03-28-2014, 05:41 PM
0 chance you could know that...


But I said "if"...

And I just used the Jags as the perfect possible team.

Should have said "in my opinion". Everything I've read or heard indicates them sitting pat and taking a pass rusher.

Playoffs
03-28-2014, 06:29 PM
John Clayton says Atlanta is the likely trade partner.

Tedy Bruschi says you gotta take JdC.

pirbroke
03-28-2014, 07:19 PM
Wouldn't it be wild if we kept trading down until we had no first round pick. Trade down 4 or 5 times, then also trade the 5 to 7 rounds to position everything in the 2nd round. To have around 6 or 7 2nd round picks would be awesome.

aussie_texan
03-28-2014, 09:28 PM
Not the robbery that people here are going to want/expect. It won't be like the Redskins trade with us getting (3) 1st's and a 2nd.

I could see something like...

Texans Get:
1 (#9)
2 (#41)
3 (#73)
2015 1st
2015 5th

Bills Get:
1 (#1)
4 (#101)

We swap 1st's and get their 2nd. We swap our 4th with their 3rd and get their 2015 1st & 5th. According to the draft value chart the total is off by 3 points.

i would be all for this. gives us the option to trade up multiple times during the draft to get "our" guy. could end up with 3 picks in the 2nd or 3rd. and in a deep draft this could not be better.....
actually it can we have another 1st next year !!!!!!

revan
03-28-2014, 11:24 PM
Wouldn't it be wild if we kept trading down until we had no first round pick. Trade down 4 or 5 times, then also trade the 5 to 7 rounds to position everything in the 2nd round. To have around 6 or 7 2nd round picks would be awesome.

And who are all these players in later rounds that you think they should to target?.

Lucky
03-29-2014, 12:08 AM
I don't think this trade happens.

Neither do I.

Most people have the Rams taking Robinson. I can see the Bills wanting to beat them to him.

Edit: Belay my last, Just saw they drafted Cordy Glenn in 2012.
The Rams also re-signed Roger Saffold and have Jake Long signed through 2016. I doubt they're looking at OT. They're probably want out of #2 more than the Texans want out of #1.

They have to be targeting Kahlil Mack. He's from Buffalo. How often do you have a top tier talent from upstate New York? He's one of the few picks they might not have trouble retaining! :)
Mack is actually from Florida. Even if here were from Buffalo, that would be similar logic to suggesting the Texans go after Manziel because he's from Texas.
What kind of package could the Bills offer to make it worth it?
While the draft table isn't the end all/be all for trading, the discrepancy between #1 and #9 is huge. I can't see the Bills mortgaging their next 2 drafts for one player. And I can't see the Texans moving that far down in the draft, even if they like all 3 QBs. Too risky all around.

The Pencil Neck
03-29-2014, 12:29 AM
And who are all these players in later rounds that you think they should to target?.

This is a deep draft. Lots of good players in the later rounds.

You've got to worry about making the team TOO young, though. We've been through that with the Kiddy Corners situation a few years ago.

Marshall
03-29-2014, 04:46 AM
Not the robbery that people here are going to want/expect. It won't be like the Redskins trade with us getting (3) 1st's and a 2nd.

I could see something like...

Texans Get:
1 (#9) 1350
2 (#41) 490
3 (#73) 225
2015 1st 420
2015 5th 14.6
-----
Total 2499.6

Bills Get:
1 (#1) 3000
4 (#101) 96
-----
Total 3096

We swap 1st's and get their 2nd. We swap our 4th with their 3rd and get their 2015 1st & 5th. According to the draft value chart the total is off by 3 points.

What chart are you using? I show a 596.4 point deficit for the Texans.

ps That's not to say we shouldn't do it because the chart is just a guide. But the chart shows the deficit making it more likely to not be considered too much for 1-1.

revan
03-29-2014, 05:11 AM
This is a deep draft. Lots of good players in the later rounds.

You've got to worry about making the team TOO young, though. We've been through that with the Kiddy Corners situation a few years ago.

My exact thoughts. We do need depth but we also need that one key talented player that will be our franchise difference maker in the first round.

bah007
03-29-2014, 10:51 AM
What chart are you using? I show a 596.4 point deficit for the Texans.

ps That's not to say we shouldn't do it because the chart is just a guide. But the chart shows the deficit making it more likely to not be considered too much for 1-1.

Situations like this is where you can see that the chart is outdated. We are robbing them in that trade and the chart shows us on the short end.

To move back just 8 spots in the 1st we get all this:

- Move up from #101 to #73 (28 spots)
- Additional 2nd round pick (#43)
- Their 1st round pick next year
- Their 5th round pick next year

I don't care what the chart says. We take that trade in a heartbeat. I might do it for even less than that even.

Honoring Earl 34
03-29-2014, 11:57 AM
Situations like this is where you can see that the chart is outdated. We are robbing them in that trade and the chart shows us on the short end.

To move back just 8 spots in the 1st we get all this:

- Move up from #101 to #73 (28 spots)
- Additional 2nd round pick (#43)
- Their 1st round pick next year
- Their 5th round pick next year

I don't care what the chart says. We take that trade in a heartbeat. I might do it for even less than that even.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2014texansbills.php

WolverineFan
03-29-2014, 12:30 PM
What chart are you using? I show a 596.4 point deficit for the Texans.

ps That's not to say we shouldn't do it because the chart is just a guide. But the chart shows the deficit making it more likely to not be considered too much for 1-1.

I must have valued the 2015 picks wrong. I valued the 2015 1st as 1,000 pts because that's what the #16 pick is worth. I use the 16th pick because it is right in the middle thus the average cost of a 1st round pick.

I guess that since it's a future pick the value is cut in half. I personally don't see it that way, but that might make up the discrepancy.

Corrosion
03-29-2014, 12:56 PM
I must have valued the 2015 picks wrong. I valued the 2015 1st as 1,000 pts because that's what the #16 pick is worth. I use the 16th pick because it is right in the middle thus the average cost of a 1st round pick.

I guess that since it's a future pick the value is cut in half. I personally don't see it that way, but that might make up the discrepancy.

Generally future picks are valued at a round lower than their face value per year into the future. A first round pick next year would be valued as a 2nd , a first round pick two years out would be valued as a 3rd and so on.

IDEXAN
03-29-2014, 01:14 PM
Situations like this is where you can see that the chart is outdated. We are robbing them in that trade and the chart shows us on the short end.

To move back just 8 spots in the 1st we get all this:

- Move up from #101 to #73 (28 spots)
- Additional 2nd round pick (#43)
- Their 1st round pick next year
- Their 5th round pick next year

I don't care what the chart says. We take that trade in a heartbeat. I might do it for even less than that even.
It's not outdated if it's a Draft with Andrew Luck and RGIII in it, but yea, it's irrevalant this year because those kind of QB prospects aren't there.

IDEXAN
03-29-2014, 01:22 PM
They aren't trading up for Clowney. If somebody trades up with us or STL and takes Clowney then JAX will just take Mack and be perfectly content about it.


Jags run a 4-3 so Clowney is the edge-rusher for them while Mack would just be a non-pass rushing 4-3 OLB, and therefor not worth anything like the #3 overall. No doubt here, the Jags are interested in Clowney more than anybody else.

ObsiWan
03-29-2014, 01:26 PM
If I were the Bills, & I wanted to trade up, I'm going with Clowney (they still run a 4-3 right?)

Mario & Clowney in a 4-3 would be sick.

I mean they'd make the defensive coordinator sick. They'll have to come up with some signal to let each other know which play they are going to take off.
:spit:
That's cold dude.
MSR

j/k, I think Mario & Clowney would be fierce.... uh... we have to play the Bills this year don't we?
no you weren't
:D

WolverineFan
03-29-2014, 01:44 PM
Jags run a 4-3 so Clowney is the edge-rusher for them while Mack would just be a non-pass rushing 4-3 OLB, and therefor not worth anything like the #3 overall. No doubt here, the Jags are interested in Clowney more than anybody else.

Incorrect. Jaguars HC Gus Bradley was the Seahawks DC before he got the JAX job. They are transitioning the JAX defense to the same system he ran in Seattle. Mack would be used in the same way that Seattle used Bruce Irvin his rookie season. Also similar to the way Denver uses Von Miller (who was drafted #2 overall as a 4-3 OLB fyi).

Irvin had 8.0 sacks as a rookie. Miller has 35.0 sacks in 3 years. Hardly a non-pass rushing role. They also signed Chris Clemons and re-signed Jason Babin for the Leo (rush DE) position so Clowney is not necessarily a huge need although would be an upgrade.

Their starting SLB right now is Russell Allen (a 2009 UDFA). Mack would be a much bigger upgrade at SLB than Clowney would be at DE to be honest.

IDEXAN
03-29-2014, 02:33 PM
Incorrect. Jaguars HC Gus Bradley was the Seahawks DC before he got the JAX job. They are transitioning the JAX defense to the same system he ran in Seattle. Mack would be used in the same way that Seattle used Bruce Irvin his rookie season. Also similar to the way Denver uses Von Miller (who was drafted #2 overall as a 4-3 OLB fyi).

Irvin had 8.0 sacks as a rookie. Miller has 35.0 sacks in 3 years. Hardly a non-pass rushing role. They also signed Chris Clemons and re-signed Jason Babin for the Leo (rush DE) position so Clowney is not necessarily a huge need although would be an upgrade.

Their starting SLB right now is Russell Allen (a 2009 UDFA). Mack would be a much bigger upgrade at SLB than Clowney would be at DE to be honest.
You certainly know their defense better than I do, but it sure sounds like quite an assortment of schemes, very much a hybrid defense if you've got both downlinemen and upright LBs rushing the passer from the edge. So which position(s) do they look to as the primary pass rusher ?
But I would still think the Jags would have a preference, even a strong preference for Clowney given he's the unquestioned top defensive talent and probably top overall talent in the Draft. Also I think Clowney projects favorably to OLB.

bah007
03-29-2014, 02:47 PM
You certainly know their defense better than I do, but it sure sounds like quite an assortment of schemes, very much a hybrid defense if you've got both downlinemen and upright LBs rushing the passer from the edge. So which position(s) do they look to as the primary pass rusher ?
But I would still think the Jags would have a preference, even a strong preference for Clowney given he's the unquestioned top defensive talent and probably top overall talent in the Draft. Also I think Clowney projects favorably to OLB.

The Seattle defensive scheme likes to use a lot of 34 personnel in a 43 alignment.

They like to (but not always) two gap with their SDE, DT, and NT while leaving their Leo (WDE) and SLB to rush the passer. Therefore, the SLB is very important, as he occasionally has all the responsibilities of a SAM but also is required to be an impact pass rusher.

WolverineFan
03-29-2014, 03:18 PM
You certainly know their defense better than I do, but it sure sounds like quite an assortment of schemes, very much a hybrid defense if you've got both downlinemen and upright LBs rushing the passer from the edge. So which position(s) do they look to as the primary pass rusher ?
But I would still think the Jags would have a preference, even a strong preference for Clowney given he's the unquestioned top defensive talent and probably top overall talent in the Draft. Also I think Clowney projects favorably to OLB.

It's extremely hybrid. It's a 4-3 alignment that plays more like a 3-4 and with a mix of 43 & 34 personnel. The major difference is they do not one-gap or two-gap straight across the board. The run stuffers two-gap and the pass rushers are set loose. The primary pass rushers are the Leo (weakside end), the SLB, and the 3' tech DT.

If you are familiar with the Seahawks from last year then you know that the Leo's last year were Chris Clemons and Michael Bennett (combined for 13.0 sacks), the 3' tech's were Tony McDaniel and Clinton McDonald (combined for 7.5 sacks), and the SLB's were Cliff Avril and Bruce Irvin (combined for 10.0 sacks).


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2606939/4-3_Under.jpg


Looks a lot like a 3-4 right? Clowney would most definitely be a Leo in their scheme as a pure DE. Mack would be the SLB who, while a major pass rushing threat, is still a 4-3 OLB and must be able to cover TE's and the like. IMO, it's just the next evolution of defense. The Seahawks have managed to merge the 4-3 and 3-4 defenses and find both sets of personnel to fit it. They have taken merging athleticism with skill sets to the next level.

Btw, I agree about Clowney. He is the top talent. My original point was not that they would take Mack over Clowney, but that they would take Mack if Clowney was gone and not be that upset about it.

The Pencil Neck
03-29-2014, 03:23 PM
Incorrect. Jaguars HC Gus Bradley was the Seahawks DC before he got the JAX job. They are transitioning the JAX defense to the same system he ran in Seattle. Mack would be used in the same way that Seattle used Bruce Irvin his rookie season. Also similar to the way Denver uses Von Miller (who was drafted #2 overall as a 4-3 OLB fyi).

Irvin had 8.0 sacks as a rookie. Miller has 35.0 sacks in 3 years. Hardly a non-pass rushing role. They also signed Chris Clemons and re-signed Jason Babin for the Leo (rush DE) position so Clowney is not necessarily a huge need although would be an upgrade.

Their starting SLB right now is Russell Allen (a 2009 UDFA). Mack would be a much bigger upgrade at SLB than Clowney would be at DE to be honest.

In the TT Mock, I didn't think I could pass up Clowney as the Jags. Yes, they have Babin for that same role but I don't see Babin as anything more than a placeholder in case they DON'T get someone younger for that role this year.

_King_
03-29-2014, 03:30 PM
I don't see the jags passing on clowney. I think they are more likely to grab clowney then target a qb like Carr or garrapolo later.

WolverineFan
03-29-2014, 03:33 PM
In the TT Mock, I didn't think I could pass up Clowney as the Jags. Yes, they have Babin for that same role but I don't see Babin as anything more than a placeholder in case they DON'T get someone younger for that role this year.

I don't think they would pass on Clowney either. I was stating my case for why Mack would be a perfect Plan B for them.

Corrosion
03-29-2014, 04:25 PM
John Clayton says Atlanta is the likely trade partner.

Tedy Bruschi says you gotta take JdC.

Atlanta makes the most sense. They have one very obvious need and Clowney would fill that need.

The real question is if they are willing to pony up the assets to make that move as they also need to fix their OL , keeping their QB upright. Can they make the jump from 6 to 1 and solve that issue ?!

The Pencil Neck
03-29-2014, 04:25 PM
I don't see the jags passing on clowney. I think they are more likely to grab clowney then target a qb like Carr or garrapolo later.

That's exactly what I did in the Texan's Talk Mock. I picked up Clowney, then OG Yankey, and then Garoppolo was sitting for me there in the third.

IDEXAN
03-29-2014, 09:23 PM
It's extremely hybrid. It's a 4-3 alignment that plays more like a 3-4 and with a mix of 43 & 34 personnel. The major difference is they do not one-gap or two-gap straight across the board. The run stuffers two-gap and the pass rushers are set loose. The primary pass rushers are the Leo (weakside end), the SLB, and the 3' tech DT.

If you are familiar with the Seahawks from last year then you know that the Leo's last year were Chris Clemons and Michael Bennett (combined for 13.0 sacks), the 3' tech's were Tony McDaniel and Clinton McDonald (combined for 7.5 sacks), and the SLB's were Cliff Avril and Bruce Irvin (combined for 10.0 sacks).


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2606939/4-3_Under.jpg


Looks a lot like a 3-4 right? Clowney would most definitely be a Leo in their scheme as a pure DE. Mack would be the SLB who, while a major pass rushing threat, is still a 4-3 OLB and must be able to cover TE's and the like. IMO, it's just the next evolution of defense. The Seahawks have managed to merge the 4-3 and 3-4 defenses and find both sets of personnel to fit it. They have taken merging athleticism with skill sets to the next level.

Btw, I agree about Clowney. He is the top talent. My original point was not that they would take Mack over Clowney, but that they would take Mack if Clowney was gone and not be that upset about it.

That's some good stuff there WolverineFan, I appreciate the elaboration !
But tell me, why does all of that "this is a 3-4 but it's really a 4-3" and vice versa make me nostalgic for Wade Phillips ?

thunderkyss
03-29-2014, 10:02 PM
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2606939/4-3_Under.jpgThat's some good stuff there WolverineFan, I appreciate the elaboration !
But tell me, why does all of that "this is a 3-4 but it's really a 4-3" and vice versa make me nostalgic for Wade Phillips ?

That's pretty much the way Wade lined them up. The only difference, is that neither the center or the 5 tech had two gap responsibilities. They'd attack one gap or the other (most likely the side they were shaded to) & the ILBs would fill the extra gaps. The Will would hit that weak-side A gap & The Mike would hit the strong-side B gap.

Which is why I've always said Antonio Smith is really playing an UT position (a 3 tech) & not a DE. Like John Randle, or Warren Sapp.

Wade lined them up just like that, except the Leo was an OLB, whether it was Mario, Connor, or Whitney.

A traditional 3-4, the DEs are lined up directly over the tackles. Not at all like that picture. Your NT is lined up directly over the NT. The ILBs are lined up over the guards, but 5 yards off the LOS.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/510/735/defensive_alignment_3-4_2_original.png?1344406809

Unlike most, I don't believe this is going to hurt Jj's production. He wasn't trying to get to the QB on every play. Some plays he was setting the edge, some plays he was penetrating, some plays he was "taking up blockers" it's going to be the same thing with RAC.

As long as he continues to learn the game, study tendencies, & predict what our opponent wants to do, he'll get better & better at stopping them.

Marshall
03-31-2014, 08:09 AM
I must have valued the 2015 picks wrong. I valued the 2015 1st as 1,000 pts because that's what the #16 pick is worth. I use the 16th pick because it is right in the middle thus the average cost of a 1st round pick.

I guess that since it's a future pick the value is cut in half. I personally don't see it that way, but that might make up the discrepancy.

It must be. I use the middle of the next round for future picks for each year in the future:
2015 1st = 2014 2-16 = 420
2016 1st = 2014 3-16 = 190
2017 1st = 2014 4-16 = 62
2018 1st = 2014 5-16 = 29
2019 1st = 2014 6-16 = 15
2020 1st = 2014 7-16 = 2.7

2015 2nd = 2014 3-16 = 190
2016 2nd = 2014 4-16 = 62
2017 2nd = 2014 5-16 = 29
2018 2nd = 2014 6-16 = 15
2019 2nd = 2014 7-16 = 2.7
etc.

Playoffs
03-31-2014, 04:31 PM
Jeremiah: Sammy Watkins could be target for aggressive 49ers (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000337971/article/jeremiah-sammy-watkins-could-be-target-for-aggressive-49ers)

kiwitexansfan
03-31-2014, 04:53 PM
Would you trade 1:1 to the 49ers?

49ers = six picks in the first three rounds: one in Round 1, two in Round 2 and three in Round 3

Corrosion
03-31-2014, 05:16 PM
Would you trade 1:1 to the 49ers?

49ers = six picks in the first three rounds: one in Round 1, two in Round 2 and three in Round 3

No way , #30 is just too far back. I'd find it hard for them to come up with a package that I'd be tempted to take.


I think there are 6 or so premium players in this draft and would be hard pressed to make a move back that didn't guarantee me one of those players.

kiwitexansfan
03-31-2014, 05:21 PM
No way , #30 is just too far back. I'd find it hard for them to come up with a package that I'd be tempted to take.


I think there are 6 or so premium players in this draft and would be hard pressed to make a move back that didn't guarantee me one of those players.

I've seen enough premium players bust that I'm starting to form the opinion that quantity is a quality all of its own.

Where did we draft JJ Watt again?

Demeco Ryans?

Playoffs
03-31-2014, 05:21 PM
Would you trade 1:1 to the 49ers?

For me there'd have to be another trade/team involved to keep us picking high. Posted more for context/competition for tradeups targeting specific players. More players & teams, better for us I think.

thetexanator
03-31-2014, 06:47 PM
For me there'd have to be another trade/team involved to keep us picking high. Posted more for context/competition for tradeups targeting specific players. More players & teams, better for us I think.

if they throw in eric reid, id do it.

Corrosion
03-31-2014, 08:18 PM
I've seen enough premium players bust that I'm starting to form the opinion that quantity is a quality all of its own.

Where did we draft JJ Watt again?

Demeco Ryans?

Sure there are good & even great players found throughout the draft and the top prospects can be busts , but when you have the chance to add those top talents & you get it right , they are franchise altering.

If you screw it up now , its not near the problem it was before rookie slotted salaries.


The 49ers just don't have the assets to move up to #1 .... Would you take their 1st & second this year and next years #1 ?? I just don't think that's enough considering their picks are at the tail end of each round and they project to be very good again next year. I probably wouldn't do it for 30 & two future #1's when those picks are very likely to be 25 or later.
If a team closer to the top or middle of the draft makes a similar offer , I would definitely have to consider it strongly , but 30 is just too far down.

kiwitexansfan
03-31-2014, 08:35 PM
Sure there are good & even great players found throughout the draft and the top prospects can be busts , but when you have the chance to add those top talents & you get it right , they are franchise altering.

If you screw it up now , its not near the problem it was before rookie slotted salaries.


The 49ers just don't have the assets to move up to #1 .... Would you take their 1st & second this year and next years #1 ?? I just don't think that's enough considering their picks are at the tail end of each round and they project to be very good again next year. I probably wouldn't do it for 30 & two future #1's when those picks are very likely to be 25 or later.
If a team closer to the top or middle of the draft makes a similar offer , I would definitely have to consider it strongly , but 30 is just too far down.

If they offered me their frist 6 picks, yeah I would take it.

JB
03-31-2014, 08:46 PM
If they offered me their frist 6 picks, yeah I would take it.

Plus next years 1&2

Texecutioner
03-31-2014, 09:52 PM
If I were the Bills, & I wanted to trade up, I'm going with Clowney (they still run a 4-3 right?)

Mario & Clowney in a 4-3 would be sick.


I mean they'd make the defensive coordinator sick. They'll have to come up with some signal to let each other know which play they are going to take off.


j/k, I think Mario & Clowney would be fierce.... uh... we have to play the Bills this year don't we?

Yep, one of the laziest defensive lineman I've ever watched pairing with his protege who is even more lazy. It would be par the course for the Buffalo Bills management as far as their off season usually goes. I'd love to see this happen.

Honoring Earl 34
03-31-2014, 10:01 PM
Yep, one of the laziest defensive lineman I've ever watched pairing with his protege who is even more lazy. It would be par the course for the Buffalo Bills management as far as their off season usually goes. I'd love to see this happen.

New York Slack Exchange . :swatter:

Texecutioner
03-31-2014, 10:22 PM
New York Slack Exchange . :swatter:

Actually I prefer to see Clowney go to the Jags. Let them waste another year on Gabbert and the other rejects.

kiwitexansfan
03-31-2014, 10:26 PM
Plus next years 1&2

If they offered future picks I'd be running to the podium.

drs23
03-31-2014, 10:30 PM
Actually I prefer to see Clowney go to the Jags. Let them waste another year on Gabbert and the other rejects.

I'm pretty sure Gabbert doesn't work there any longer.

The Pencil Neck
03-31-2014, 11:14 PM
New York Slack Exchange . :swatter:

msr

IDEXAN
04-01-2014, 08:11 AM
No way , #30 is just too far back. I'd find it hard for them to come up with a package that I'd be tempted to take.


I think there are 6 or so premium players in this draft and would be hard pressed to make a move back that didn't guarantee me one of those players.
I see DE/OLB Clowney, OT Robinson, WR Watkins, & maybe OLB Mack, so how do you come up with "6 or so" premium players ? But be it 4 or 6 or even 10 or whatever, I don't think the Texans need one of those premium players as much as they need "superior players", which I think they could get with Draft picks up thru the end of the second round.

Texian
04-01-2014, 09:19 AM
Actually I prefer to see Clowney go to the Jags. Let them waste another year on Gabbert and the other rejects.

Jags traded Gabbert to SF.