Spinal stenosis will scare off a few teams. Not knowing how he manages the pain, or if there is even any. That's alot of money.

 

Wouldn't it be natural to fear a guy who naturally shows up and outplays his opponents? That tells me that if he's bested on Sunday, that he won't know how to cope. It's my main fear with natural athletes.

 

Two sides to every coin. What happens with a guy like that when he gets to the NFL and realizes that "so-so" effort will get you called out by teammates, and so he grows up and actually starts to put in the work? What happens with a guy that naturally dominant, that actually starts putting in the work?

I'll give you one example. Jason Pierre-Paul.

Just to play some devil's advocate for you.

On the other hand, the spinal stenosis in a LINEBACKER scares the hell out of me. That's a hitting, crunching, trauma-oriented position.

 

I'd just as soon pass on him. I don't think he's ENOUGH of an upgrade over Misi/Vernon at SAM hybrid to use our #12 on him. That'd be a luxury pick IMO b/c he's not on the level of a Von Miller where you know he's gonna be special in the NFL. And that's not even factoring in the stenosis.

 

That's the real debate here. He'd totally supplant Koa Misi. There's no way around that. Koa Misi would be on the bench and Jarvis Jones would be on the field on 1st and 2nd down. And then on 3rd down, Jarvis Jones would still be on the field because he'd turn into a rush linebacker or down defensive end.

Are people cool with that? Is he talented enough to justify shelving what actually turned out to be a pretty good 1st/2nd down player last year? Is "good" the enemy of "great" to such a degree that you're OK with that?

Or do people think either Misi or Burnett could move to MLB in place of Dansby, which frees up a spot for Jarvis? That's a possibility.

 

I'd take him at 12 and not look back.

 

What Miami does with Dansby is fairly interesting in the context of this draft. Lot of options if they decide to move forwards without him, however, can't help but feel like its one step forward, two back if Jeff opts for that route.

 

Well said.

If Misi could move to the middle, would you rather have Dansby or Burnett as the remaining LB? I'd lean toward restructuring Dansby, but I haven't thought it through.

 

Which ever one is cheaper and younger. Not to mention they may take issue with Dansby's speaking out against the staff twice this year.

Real question though is can Misi play pass coverage in nickel? Probably not. If you're doing this, you need to draft or sign a nickel linebacker. And if you draft one, it had better be high otherwise there's no way you can trust him to come on the field and actually play well in those responsibilities.

 

Always is the case with Ireland.

 

I've been arguing this increasingly over the past two months. I think it's going to cost us at DE for the same reason, because Ireland even has Coyle pretending Odrick is best suited to that spot... which is bull**** spin (or Coyle is less sensible than I thought).

We won't use high resources to target a great player at a spot where we already have a good one, especially if we spent high resources (1st, 2nd.. even 3rd round pick) on them recently.

That's why we won't that a DE in the first round. It's also why we won't take an LB in the first round.

That front seven is stuck. And the ONLY way I see to loosen the domino effect is to let one of the D linemen go, or one of the LBs go. But who is going to let a good player go and HOPE they hit on a great player to replace him? Not Jeff Ireland in a 'prove it' year.

If we upgrade at ANY DE or LB spot, I believe it has to involve trading the player in that spot, and using a draft pick to trade for a proven NFL player at that spot. I don't see that risk/reward playing out for Jeff ireland to do it. I also don't think the guys we would trade hold enough value to anyone else.

 

The dominoe effect just creates more questions, and that's not worth doing in a hotseat year for ireland. Why pull apart a unit that's at least not under-performing when you have holes elsewhere.

I expect Jeff to patch holes, not replace and upgrade. Which may mean missing out on some great players because we already are committted to what, within a couple years, will be referred to as 'Ireland's guys". lol.

 

I doubt we pick him so it won't matter, but if we did I don't expect that would necessarily be the case. He could just play the role of pass rushing end in the nickel package as a rookie. That's what Aldon Smith did. He never started any games and played about 600 snaps, whereas this season he played over 1,000 and started full time. That's also what Bruce Irvin did. He finally started a game in the NFC championship because Clemons was out. He only played about 450 snaps all season.
I think it is very plausible that Jones could play a similar role as a rookie, depending who drafts him.

 

Has Misi ever played MLB? We know Dansby is a very good MLB, so why take the chance that Misi would not be anywhere nearly as good in the role? IMO our starting LBs are the strongest position on the team, so I guess I don't understand why people want to fvck with that. IMO, leave all 3 of them be. Focus on improving the weaker positions. Don't gut the strongest position and thereby create another position of need.

 

I'd take Jones and not look back. He'd give us another potentially stud pass rusher. Currently our LB depth is weak. I don't see why having a potentially stud pass rusher opposite Wake and cheap depth is a bad thing.

 

No one thinks it is, but historically Ireland has not spent first round picks on anything but starting three down players. That's the asterisk. Ireland would have to significantly break from what seems to be his pattern of expecting a lot of snaps and contribution from his 1sts.

 

Yes, that has been Ireland's pattern so far, but he broke the pattern last year with Tannehill, though not for the same reasons that taking Jones would break it.

 

And he'll never take a QB in the first or draft a receiving TE. Sorry, I don't find there's much historical evidence to go on since he was under Parcells for most of his time here. I just don't find these arguments that claim to know what Ireland will and won't do very convincing.

 

Exactly. There is not a large enough sample size to say there is a definite pattern.

 

I don't think you really need to cut or bench anyone to manage the potential situation. Jones doesn't need to be an every-down starter immediately, and Koa Misi should be a base-defense only guy.

It's also worth mentioning Misi is a FA after this year, and Burnett and Dansby are after 2014. Drafting a guy now lets you get more information to base your decision on whom you should keep where, and it's easier to have continuity and keep the level of play up if you've had time to groom a guy rather than expecting him to start immediately.

 

That's not in this staff's history or philosophy. They take a player at 12 they plan on playing a lot, not a situational guy.

 

He broke one rule about having 30 starts, because the 20 starts he did have came in literally the exact same offense run by the exact same coach he had in college. Let's not pretend he's gone all Jack Kerouac.

 

And whoever proposed those theories clearly was wrong and not grounded in historical fact.

Though what they have to do with this discussion is beyond me.

 

It's not just about patterns. It's also about things that Jeff Ireland has directly stated.

 

He's also bringing in players for a new coaching staff. A staff with a reputation for player development. And RT was not expected to play last year until Garrard got hurt. I don't see starter snaps as some major rule that Ireland has. In fact, IIRC he specifically said once that he wants his first round picks to contribute but that contribution could just be in the nickel packages (that was the example he used).

 

First off, every staff has a reputation for player development. Second, we have no idea who was going to start in 2012 nor who they intended to start when Ryan Tannehill was drafted. All we know is that Ryan Tannehill did end up starting. Third, if you can find a link to where he said that his 1st round picks can just contribute on nickel that would be great but I don't believe he ever said that.

 

GM's never spout misinformation about the draft?

 

Come on. You know there's a big difference when a guy is speaking generally about his philosophies as opposed to when he's talking about players and positions he might look at. I know you know that.

 

They want a player who'll make an impact. I think Aldon Smith's and Irvin's rookie contributions will cause teams to rethink the value of taking a nickel pass rusher high in the draft. If they want to go for a pass rush upgrade and believe Jones could play 500 snaps and get 12 sacks, that would be enough to make him worth taking.

 

This is a very sensible, logical way to look at the potential drafting of Jarvis Jones. :up:

 

I think the main question with Jones is what caliber of NFL pass rusher they believe he'll become, rather than overemphasizing him as a 3 down player. If they believe he'll become a true difference maker as a pass rusher, an upper level guy, then he should obviously be considered; however, if there are concerns about his potential as an impact pass rusher then his value to us should drop considerably considering, IMO, he's barely an upgrade in base defense over Misi (and even Vernon). And obviously the stenosis should be a concern.

So, in my eyes, the question is do you see him being a 10-12+ sack guy on a yearly basis?

 

I wouldn't mind us taking him at 12, not at all. Theres no doubt that he was clearly one of the most productive defensive players in college football, he's going to be a good pro, if it wasn't for the spinal issue I don't think anyone would be questioning him being a top 5 pick.

 

Statements are subject to interpretation like a few weeks back when I said that Ireland's stated desire for "playmakers" likely included pass rushers and you said I was stretching things.

 

Is that a rhetorical question or do you want my individual opinion? I think he is a guy who could put up those sacks totals.

 

I think his potential is that and then some. The stenosis is obviously a concern, but he is a top five level talent.

 

No, it's not rhetorical if someone else questions his potential to be a premium pass rusher.