After the combine there is talk that he could fall out of the top 10. Not only did he have one of the poorer workouts, but medicals on his shoulders raised some fed flags.

If he is there are 9 would you take him and if so, where would you want him to start; as he is somewhat of a tweener.

(03-06-2017, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: After the combine there is talk that he could fall out of the top 10. Not only did he have one of the poorer workouts, but medicals on his shoulders raised some fed flags.

If he is there are 9 would you take him and if so, where would you want him to start; as he is somewhat of a tweener.

He apparently has arthritis in both shoulders, which doesn't go away.  

Still, he's a tremendous talent despite that.  I'd be fine with him at 9, and would probably start him at RDE moving inside on passing downs.  I would probably keep his weight down to 280-285.

(03-06-2017, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: After the combine there is talk that he could fall out of the top 10. Not only did he have one of the poorer workouts, but medicals on his shoulders raised some fed flags.

If he is there are 9 would you take him and if so, where would you want him to start; as he is somewhat of a tweener.

Nope, and I say that without any hesitation at all, for the simple reason that I don't want a red flag health guy as our first round pick, especially with our pick being so high. I want to see the team bring in someone who is going to be an impact player this year, not in a couple two or three years.

(03-06-2017, 09:54 PM)Whatever Wrote: He apparently has arthritis in both shoulders, which doesn't go away.  

Still, he's a tremendous talent despite that.  I'd be fine with him at 9, and would probably start him at RDE moving inside on passing downs.  I would probably keep his weight down to 280-285.

Dude needs to take some MSM. But i agree, i would be fine with him at 9. He would be an immediate impact player for us.

We need pass rushers and that is exactly what he is. He just probably won't last in the league very long.

(03-06-2017, 09:54 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Nope, and I say that without any hesitation at all, for the simple reason that I don't want a red flag health guy as our first round pick, especially with our pick being so high. I want to see the team bring in someone who is going to be an impact player this year, not in a couple two or three years.

It is a red flag but i think Allen would be an immediate impact player, he is a great talent at just where we have a need.

Yes

(03-06-2017, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: After the combine there is talk that he could fall out of the top 10. Not only did he have one of the poorer workouts, but medicals on his shoulders raised some fed flags.

If he is there are 9 would you take him and if so, where would you want him to start; as he is somewhat of a tweener.

Nope. I don't see what all the hubbub is about with this guy.

I remember last year when two Bama DL were projected in the first round the whole process. Then AShawn and J Reed both went mid second.

I would say Allen is more comparable to the guy who "slid" to 6th overall in 2015 from USC Leonard Williams. But Allen isn't quite as big and has the injury concerns.

Aaron Donald from 2014 is pretty comparable in size. And Donald blows Allen's measurables out of the water. Donald went at 13.

So many teams ahead of us should have a hard time passing on him though. He is one I hope doesn't fall.

It just doesn't seem like a fit for us.

I'm more concerned with the medical than the combine workouts.

I'd consider drafting him but if the injury is degenerative, I think you have to pass on him.

(03-06-2017, 10:08 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Dude needs to take some MSM. But i agree, i would be fine with him at 9. He would be an immediate impact player for us.

We need pass rushers and that is exactly what he is. He just probably won't last in the league very long.


It is a red flag but i think Allen would be an immediate impact player, he is a great talent at just where we have a need.

As if we would be able to re-sign him if he was healthy...

If Allen is there we take him he can play DT and DE. If he isn't then we take Reuben Foster.

(03-12-2017, 11:16 PM)Nati#1 Wrote: If Allen is there we take him he can play DT and DE. If he isn't then we take Reuben Foster.

Why take a lb who will only play 30 percent of snaps a game at 9?

(03-13-2017, 12:52 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Why take a lb who will only play 30 percent of snaps a game at 9?

Why would he only play 30 percent? He's got the coverage and blitzing skills to play all three downs. 

(03-13-2017, 01:48 AM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: Why would he only play 30 percent? He's got the coverage and blitzing skills to play all three downs. 

Nfl is mainly a 4-2-5 now. Ill take burfict over foster and vigil has already been named sam linebacker. So he would only see the field when we play 3 lbs.

(03-13-2017, 01:58 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Nfl is mainly a 4-2-5 now. Ill take burfict over foster and vigil has already been named sam linebacker. So he would only see the field when we play 3 lbs.

If that's the case wouldn't it make sense for the pick to be Hooker, Adams or Peppers? That's if offense and D Line are off the table. Anytime someone mentions a safety people say it's a waste to take a safety that high. Not trying to argue with your reason, just don't think it matters if Foster can cover and get to the QB better than Vigil which I'm going to assume he can. I think it would be awesome to have Foster and Burfict both out there. But if not give me the best safety. This all is of course if they don't go DE in the first which I think it needs to be. They very well may be looking at this the same way you are and go a completely different direction like OL.

(03-13-2017, 02:25 AM)TKUHL Wrote: If that's the case wouldn't it make sense for the pick to be Hooker, Adams or Peppers? That's if offense and D Line are off the table. Anytime someone mentions a safety people say it's a waste to take a safety that high. Not trying to argue with your reason, just don't think it matters if Foster can cover and get to the QB better than Vigil which I'm going to assume he can. I think it would be awesome to have Foster and Burfict both out there. But if not give me the best safety. This all is of course if they don't go DE in the first which I think it needs to be. They very well may be looking at this the same way you are and go a completely different direction like OL.

I wish we would draft hooker. Hes ed reed 2.0 his player comp is reggie nelson. I have been pro wr from the start for this very reason. The best defensive ends are gonna be gone by the time we pick and no olineman is worth a number 9 pick. I know its completely different level of competition but nick vigil had 17.5 sacks. Foster had 7. I want a day one starter.

(03-13-2017, 01:58 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Nfl is mainly a 4-2-5 now. Ill take burfict over foster and vigil has already been named sam linebacker. So he would only see the field when we play 3 lbs.

We have been through this your MLB stays on the field in nickle packages for almost every team in the NFL, we have kept Rey off the field historically because he is so bad. Vigil would be the guy coming off the field if we had a MLB that could cover. On most teams the MLB wears the green dot because they never leave we give it to Burffict on this team out of necessity. The other thing is we could run more base D if we had linebackers who could cover. A lot of defenses like Atlanta and Seattle run a lot more base defense than us.

There are a ton of really good 3 tech's in this draft with none of the medical issues. Depending on how bad the medical was he could go in late first or early second.

(03-13-2017, 02:25 AM)TKUHL Wrote: If that's the case wouldn't it make sense for the pick to be Hooker, Adams or Peppers? That's if offense and D Line are off the table. Anytime someone mentions a safety people say it's a waste to take a safety that high. Not trying to argue with your reason, just don't think it matters if Foster can cover and get to the QB better than Vigil which I'm going to assume he can. I think it would be awesome to have Foster and Burfict both out there. But if not give me the best safety. This all is of course if they don't go DE in the first which I think it needs to be. They very well may be looking at this the same way you are and go a completely different direction like OL.

Vigil had 17.5 sacks and two picks in college compared to Foster's 7 sacks and zero picks.  Penciing in Foster over Vigil in nickel is a bit of a reach, especially when Vigil has a year in the system.  Most likely, Foster won't play in nickel as a rookie, but will play in that package in year 2  when they let Burfict walk.

(03-13-2017, 12:35 PM)Whatever Wrote: Vigil had 17.5 sacks and two picks in college compared to Foster's 7 sacks and zero picks.  Penciing in Foster over Vigil in nickel is a bit of a reach, especially when Vigil has a year in the system.  Most likely, Foster won't play in nickel as a rookie, but will play in that package in year 2  when they let Burfict walk.

Sacks have nothing to do with coverage, and honestly mean very little for 4-3 linebackers, case in point Luke Kuechly had 2.5 sacks in college. The int thing you could argue means something, but it doesn't really reflect his coverage skills more so his catching skills as he dropped 2 ints in the national title game.

Foster is the better player than Vigil and the tape shows it. What I would say is the year in the system does help, but the skills of Foster would catch him up quickly. I do think though for a SAM Vigil would be above average athletic wise and a really solid player there. There in lies the rub as Vigil will be playing SAM and Foster is a MIKE from day 1 and MIKES play in nickle packages because they wear the green dot (except Rey who was so horrible they couldn't).

(03-07-2017, 02:53 AM)TKUHL Wrote: Nope. I don't see what all the hubbub is about with this guy.

Have you watched any games of his?  He was easily the most dominant defensive player in the country last year.