(01-10-2017, 10:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: He will be there 4-3 linebackers don't normally go that high. I think he can be good, but wouldn't call him Kuechly as Kuechly is better in coverage. I think Foster is a better pass rusher though.

People didn't think Kuechly was Kueckly; too slow to be a 3 down LB. 

(01-10-2017, 07:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That might be true if he meets the RB in the hole like Maualuga.  But, like Maualuga he misses tackles because he lacks range. I would rather pair Foster with Burfict than McMillian with Burfict. 

see I disagree McMillan might have missed 2 tackles all year he never misses tackles can't understate that he's as sure tackler as they come and most of his tackles are on the sidelines. He's a sideline to sideline  lb that we would get in second round. Wish I knew how to see his coverage stats bc I never saw passes completed on him either. I wouldn't mind going McMillan Foster burfict. 

(01-10-2017, 07:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That might be true if he meets the RB in the hole like Maualuga.  But, like Maualuga he misses tackles because he lacks range. I would rather pair Foster with Burfict than McMillian with Burfict. 

Agree, Foster is definitely the quicker diagnosing, rapidly reacting of the two.  As a Buckeye follower, I have come to the conclusion that McMillan is more a master of technique, in that he wraps his tackles and is where he is supposed to be according to the particular defensive call.  I see Foster as more naturally instinctive, given the freedom to read and react as he sees fit.  The only drawback I see with a guy like Foster is that I feel like the training table/conditioning regiment of CFB has kept him trim for the position, his body style strikes me as the type to swell up when left to his own devices.  Whereas with McMillan, I feel like the diet and conditioning team has built him up to handle the role in major college football, and he may not have the ass that it takes to be a 4-3 LB in the NFL.

(01-10-2017, 08:03 PM)Jpoore Wrote: see I disagree McMillan might have missed 2 tackles all year he never misses tackles can't understate that he's as sure tackler as they come and most of his tackles are on the sidelines. He's a sideline to sideline  lb that we would get in second round. Wish I knew how to see his coverage stats bc I never saw passes completed on him either. I wouldn't mind going McMillan Foster burfict. 

McMillan missed 6 tackles this year and 10 last.   Those aren't bad numbers at all, but making up claims about them tends to make myself and others not take your other posts too seriously. 

Quote:http://www.cfbfilmroom.com/ohio-state-buckeyes/    

(01-10-2017, 08:03 PM)Jpoore Wrote: see I disagree McMillan might have missed 2 tackles all year he never misses tackles can't understate that he's as sure tackler as they come and most of his tackles are on the sidelines. He's a sideline to sideline  lb that we would get in second round. Wish I knew how to see his coverage stats bc I never saw passes completed on him either. I wouldn't mind going McMillan Foster burfict. 

McMillian is a sure tackler, if he gets his hands on them.  Problem is the ball carrier gets around him too many times just out of his grasp because he can't get there in time to get his hands on him.  I'm not saying I don't like McMillan.  I do.  But, he reminds me of Maualuga.

These won't show up as missed tackles on a stat sheet.

(01-10-2017, 08:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Agree, Foster is definitely the quicker diagnosing, rapidly reacting of the two.  As a Buckeye follower, I have come to the conclusion that McMillan is more a master of technique, in that he wraps his tackles and is where he is supposed to be according to the particular defensive call.  I see Foster as more naturally instinctive, given the freedom to read and react as he sees fit.  The only drawback I see with a guy like Foster is that I feel like the training table/conditioning regiment of CFB has kept him trim for the position, his body style strikes me as the type to swell up when left to his own devices.  Whereas with McMillan, I feel like the diet and conditioning team has built him up to handle the role in major college football, and he may not have the ass that it takes to be a 4-3 LB in the NFL.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  I like McMillan's size.  I like Foster's range.  You combine the two it would be a no brainer.  IMO, Foster would fit the Bengals as a WLB with Burfict at MLB.  I think McMillan would be better at MLB with Burfict at WLB.  In short yardage situations, I would prefer McMillan.  In most other situations, I would prefer Foster.

Pick your poison.  I'm less worried about Foster's size because I think he can develop size.  I'm more worried about McMillan's range and short area quickness because there is only so much you can do to develop those traits.

(01-10-2017, 11:13 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Give me Zach Cunningham all day long. That dude will be better than Foster.

I have only seen Cunningham play in the bowl game.  I came away unimpressed.  But, that is only one game.

(01-10-2017, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: I agree with this when it comes to secondary players from Alabama because the pressure they get covers a lot of blemishes. Foster is similar to CJ Mosely in that he is making plays on his own rather than cleaning them up like some of their bigger more plodding linebackers they have had in the past.

That is the comparison I think of also.

(01-10-2017, 11:44 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I don't know. ILB isn't a premium position for the draft...

Teams generally want a LB that can rack up 12 sacks early in the draft.

It's rare a 4-3 LB is going to get that, whereas 3-4 teams are looking for those types of OLBs.

I couldn't even tell you the last 4-3 LB who got that many sacks.

(01-10-2017, 11:13 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Give me Zach Cunningham all day long. That dude will be better than Foster.

Dude, yes.

Give me the pass covering Linebacker with athleticism that can still stop the run over the run thumper who can blitz.

It is a pass happy league now people. Need a LB that can cover the TE. Remember what Gronk did to us this year.

(01-10-2017, 08:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I have only seen Cunningham play in the bowl game.  I came away unimpressed.  But, that is only one game.

I watched Foster quite a bit as well, and he certainly has more flash, but I've watched a few Vandy games (best friend is Dawgs fan), and he seems to just have a knack for the ball. He was amazing and could probably get him in the bottom part of the first round or maybe second. Just watching both several times I like more what I see from Zach than Foster.

(01-10-2017, 09:50 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: I watched Foster quite a bit as well, and he certainly has more flash, but I've watched a few Vandy games (best friend is Dawgs fan), and he seems to just have a knack for the ball. He was amazing and could probably get him in the bottom part of the first round or maybe second. Just watching both several times I like more what I see from Zach than Foster.

If the top 3 pass rushers are gone before 9 i would be all for trading down and getting Zach.

(01-10-2017, 09:50 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: I watched Foster quite a bit as well, and he certainly has more flash, but I've watched a few Vandy games (best friend is Dawgs fan), and he seems to just have a knack for the ball. He was amazing and could probably get him in the bottom part of the first round or maybe second. Just watching both several times I like more what I see from Zach than Foster.

Yeah, I haven't watched enough of Cunningham to compare the two.

(01-10-2017, 08:30 PM)Burma Wrote: McMillan missed 6 tackles this year and 10 last.   Those aren't bad numbers at all, but making up claims about them tends to make myself and others not take your other posts too seriously. 

I said might bc was unsure where to get those kind of stats. I just made up a low number bc was unsure where and I knew it would be low

(01-10-2017, 08:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: McMillian is a sure tackler, if he gets his hands on them.  Problem is the ball carrier gets around him too many times just out of his grasp because he can't get there in time to get his hands on him.  I'm not saying I don't like McMillan.  I do.  But, he reminds me of Maualuga.

These won't show up as missed tackles on a stat sheet.

I wouldnt say he's like malaluga. Malaluga was never an lb that was gonna cover people. McMillan possesses that ability. 

(01-10-2017, 10:13 PM)Jpoore Wrote: I just made up a low number

No shit, Sherlock. Making things up seems to be a pattern with you. 

(01-10-2017, 10:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No shit, Sherlock. Making things up seems to be a pattern with you. 

again that's why I said might to indicate I didn't know the exact number 

(01-10-2017, 10:18 PM)Jpoore Wrote: I wouldnt say he's like malaluga. Malaluga was never an lb that was gonna cover people. McMillan possesses that ability. 

I didn't say he couldn't cover. But, too many ball carriers are able to get around him. That's what reminds me of Maualuga. His pass coverage is an area which will be scrutinized leading up to the draft. He might be a better fit as a 3-4 ILB where he doesn't have to cover as much ground as a 4-3 MLB. 

(01-10-2017, 11:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't say he couldn't cover. But, too many ball carriers are able to get around him. That's what reminds me of Maualuga. His pass coverage is an area which will be scrutinized leading up to the draft. He might be a better fit as a 3-4 ILB where he doesn't have to cover as much ground as a 4-3 MLB. 

oh I know that u didn't say he couldn't cover I was saying that as that is a key difference between him and malaluga. I wish people threw around him more never really got to see him in pass coverage. 

(01-10-2017, 10:59 PM)Jpoore Wrote: again that's why I said might to indicate I didn't know the exact number 

It came across as McMillan doesn't miss tackles instead of you don't know how many tackles he missed. If you don't know, just say you don't know instead of making up a number which isn't true.