Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Who is Bucky Brooks anyway and why is he ranking the top 25. He messed up in my opion by ranking Bowers number 2 he is way over rated not impressed with this guy at all. And non of those players listed are of postions of need. Maybe Peterson but we don't need a safety as much as we need say a LB or OT.

Posted

Who is Bucky Brooks anyway and why is he ranking the top 25. He messed up in my opion by ranking Bowers number 2 he is way over rated not impressed with this guy at all. And non of those players listed are of postions of need. Maybe Peterson but we don't need a safety as much as we need say a LB or OT.

Previously he worked for SI. He now works for the NFL network and nfl.com.

Posted

Who is Bucky Brooks anyway and why is he ranking the top 25. He messed up in my opion by ranking Bowers number 2 he is way over rated not impressed with this guy at all. And non of those players listed are of postions of need. Maybe Peterson but we don't need a safety as much as we need say a LB or OT.

Outside of RB, C and LG all of our positions are positions of need. The only really good defensive player we have doesn't fit our scheme.

Posted

I disagree with many people here who always refer to our roster as "in need of talent at every position, because we don't have any real, quality, talent" or, "that none of our guys are good enough to start on -". I can see why they think that way - trying to be realistic.

 

However, I look at our roster and think, with the right group of playmakers - say, four or five exceptional talents - then the rest of the guys around those playmakers begin looking better; and, that's not to mention some of the many young players on this team, many of whom might blossom into real stars in a year or two.

So, I'm not so down on this squad to think it'll take us starting from scratch everywhere to get good. I think our recieving corps - especially with Easley coming back healthy - could be very good next year. I think our RB's also could be excellent. I think if you add the right player to either line they become pretty good, potentially. We need total upgrades, across the board, at TE and ILB. Our secondary will be thinned after F.A., but it still could look fine with a better front seven.

 

This is just in response to those who say, "we need to improve everywhere, so it doesn't much matter who we draft, as long as they are stars". I agree, you can't get worse by adding a star, but, you can get much better, much quicker, if you add the right talent to the right places.

Posted

Who is Bucky Brooks anyway and why is he ranking the top 25. He messed up in my opion by ranking Bowers number 2 he is way over rated not impressed with this guy at all. And non of those players listed are of postions of need. Maybe Peterson but we don't need a safety as much as we need say a LB or OT.

 

I'm not singling you out because there's a reasonable amount of Bowers hate on this board, but why are a bunch of amateur fans, i.e. all of us, denouncing this guy when 99.9% of scouts/professionals see him as a possible #1, not worse then top 5 pick? I get the hate on Peterson or Green, but what makes this guy so bad in the eyes of so many. Here's what I usually hear..."I saw this guy play, doesn't impress me in the least." (no reasons of course), " Bowers is way overrated" (no reasons) "guy get his sacks in bunches" (not true), and of course my favorite, "he's way overrated."

Posted (edited)

I'm not singling you out because there's a reasonable amount of Bowers hate on this board, but why are a bunch of amateur fans, i.e. all of us, denouncing this guy when 99.9% of scouts/professionals see him as a possible #1, not worse then top 5 pick? I get the hate on Peterson or Green, but what makes this guy so bad in the eyes of so many. Here's what I usually hear..."I saw this guy play, doesn't impress me in the least." (no reasons of course), " Bowers is way overrated" (no reasons) "guy get his sacks in bunches" (not true), and of course my favorite, "he's way overrated."

 

I think the obvious answer is

 

One year wonder. Seems there were motivation issues the first two years of his career- will he get his pay day and take time off until something else kicks him in the ass like his dads passing did?

 

Also buff specific: dareus and Quinn seem versatile enough to fill two roles, bowers seems to misfit any of our holes

Edited by NoSaint
Posted

I think the obvious answer is

 

One year wonder. Seems there were motivation issues the first two years of his career- will he get his pay day and take time off until something else kicks him in the ass like his dads passing did?

 

Also buff specific: dareus and Quinn seem versatile enough to fill two roles, bowers seems to misfit any of our holes

 

The One Year Wonder label is a bit overrated if you actually played those years, unlike Maybin. But If that's the best reason to why he is getting ripped on, so is Dareus and Fairley. Right?

Posted

The One Year Wonder label is a bit overrated if you actually played those years, unlike Maybin. But If that's the best reason to why he is getting ripped on, so is Dareus and Fairley. Right?

 

Dareus had two years of production.

 

Fairley has faced that question. I think his national championship game was special and watched by many though. How many have seen bowers dominate like that? Not saying he hasn't but most are less exposed to it. I think fairly will sink some between his single year, dirty hits etc... But it's still way early. Combine and prodays might reshuffle the deck some.

Posted

Dareus had two years of production.

 

Fairley has faced that question. I think his national championship game was special and watched by many though. How many have seen bowers dominate like that? Not saying he hasn't but most are less exposed to it. I think fairly will sink some between his single year, dirty hits etc... But it's still way early. Combine and prodays might reshuffle the deck some.

 

1- true, I knew he only started like 5 games (which he did), but still finished with 6.5 sacks.

2-very true.

 

I really like Dareus to be clear, I just don't understand the Bowers hate. I view him in a an extremely favorable light. Mario Williams Lite, which is not a bad thing at all.

Posted

[/b]

 

1- true, I knew he only started like 5 games (which he did), but still finished with 6.5 sacks.

2-very true.

 

I really like Dareus to be clear, I just don't understand the Bowers hate. I view him in a an extremely favorable light. Mario Williams Lite, which is not a bad thing at all.

 

 

I still dint see him on our board, but I don't pretend to be a bowers expert. From the glimpses ive seen and heard he sounds like a 4-3 end and neither a fit for de or olb in a 3-4. I think we will give some preference to guys that can go in both schemes ala dareus or Quinn, and guys that are scheme specific will be for the 3-4.

Posted

I still dint see him on our board, but I don't pretend to be a bowers expert. From the glimpses ive seen and heard he sounds like a 4-3 end and neither a fit for de or olb in a 3-4. I think we will give some preference to guys that can go in both schemes ala dareus or Quinn, and guys that are scheme specific will be for the 3-4.

I've seen him listed at 280. That's a decent weight for a 3-4 RDE, though he'd probably benefit by adding ten pounds or so.

Posted (edited)

only thing I've read on Bowers, that might make Wilson like him, is that Bowers moves/plays a lot like Bruce Smith did...but I've never seen it for myself tho.

Edited by Tsaikotic
Posted

Bowers recorded sacks in 11 of 13 games this season. So much for "getting sacks in bunches." The guy also goes 280, which is plenty big enough to be a 3-4 DE.

×
×
  • Create New...