BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Here are the combine numbers: Nic Harris Marcus Freeman Height 6’ 2” 6’ 0” Weight 234 239 40 4.85 4.74 Bench 15 30 Vertical 31.5” 37” Broad 9.1” 9.5” 3–Cone 7.07 6.98 20 Yard Shuttle 4.38 4.12 Knock on Freeman is his height along with injury concerns. Freeman has some of the top "measurables" for linebackers at the combine. Supposedly a fantastic WLB. Knock on Harris is that he's a tweener, but he's a playmaker. Bears selected Freeman a little after us in the 5th. Why is Nic Harris a better prospect? That's my question
rovey1961 Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Because he is OURS! Here are the combine numbers: Nic Harris Marcus Freeman Height 6’ 2” 6’ 0” Weight 234 239 40 4.85 4.74 Bench 15 30 Vertical 31.5” 37” Broad 9.1” 9.5” 3–Cone 7.07 6.98 20 Yard Shuttle 4.38 4.12 Knock on Freeman is his height along with injury concerns. Freeman has some of the top "measurables" for linebackers at the combine. Supposedly a fantastic WLB. Knock on Harris is that he's a tweener, but he's a playmaker. Bears selected Freeman a little after us in the 5th. Why is Nic Harris a better prospect? That's my question
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 4, 2009 Author Posted May 4, 2009 Because he is OURS! I'm looking for a little more cerebral feedback than that
John from Riverside Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I think that Harris might fit our defensive scheme a little better...... Lets face it.....the player that mans that spot has to be able to cover....... Harris is: - A former defensive back which means he SHOULD be able to cover better then a true linebacker - Already bigger then Ellison - Known as a hitter with attitude - Is versitile Those would be my reasons.
Glass To The Arson Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I wanted Freeman if anyone kept track on here during day two of the draft Nic Harris was a question mark for me must have something to do with scheme / better fit
Ramius Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 People have heard of freeman, thats why he's the "better" prospect.
billybob Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I wanted Freeman but maybe there was a red flag on him- or maybe they thought that Freeman was maxed out and Harris had a lot of upside- I know they liked his smarts- to me both Harris and Byrd were questionable picks given the talent there when they were taken- but we won't know for a couple years- and there are a lot of teams who make picks I don't really get not just the Bills- like Duke Robinson fell to the end of the 5th, what did he do from dominating in college to the draft to fall like that? to me Sidbury DE was a better looking prospect than most of the DEs and he fell to the middle of the 4th.
PushthePile Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I think that Harris might fit our defensive scheme a little better...... Lets face it.....the player that mans that spot has to be able to cover....... Harris is: - A former defensive back which means he SHOULD be able to cover better then a true linebacker - Already bigger then Ellison - Known as a hitter with attitude - Is versitile Those would be my reasons. I have read that Harris is not much of hitter. According to a few of the draft rags, the guy doesn't really like physical play. This is why some people don't think he will be able to switch to LB. I know these rags aren't the be all and end all of player analysis but the Sporting News usually seems alright. I admittedly never payed much attention to his play or even researched other articles about the kid. I don't doubt that you have reason to believe otherwise. The stuff I've read has actually discouraged me about the pick. I would love to hear or read something that supports the opposite.
ans4e64 Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 People have heard of freeman, thats why he's the "better" prospect.
Fewell733 Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I have read that Harris is not much of hitter. According to a few of the draft rags, the guy doesn't really like physical play. This is why some people don't think he will be able to switch to LB. I know these rags aren't the be all and end all of player analysis but the Sporting News usually seems alright. I admittedly never payed much attention to his play or even researched other articles about the kid. I don't doubt that you have reason to believe otherwise. The stuff I've read has actually discouraged me about the pick. I would love to hear or read something that supports the opposite. I believe I heard he led the Big 12 in personal fouls and unnecessary roughness penalties. I think he likes physical play. as for Freeman he has the measurables but he never dominated anything like Nic Harris did on the field.
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 4, 2009 Author Posted May 4, 2009 must have something to do with scheme / better fit Except don't the Bears run a similar defense to what we run?
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 4, 2009 Author Posted May 4, 2009 as for Freeman he has the measurables but he never dominated anything like Nic Harris did on the field. And that sounds pretty darn reasonable. THanks
PushthePile Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I believe I heard he led the Big 12 in personal fouls and unnecessary roughness penalties. I think he likes physical play. as for Freeman he has the measurables but he never dominated anything like Nic Harris did on the field. Again, I'm no Nic Harris expert but how does unnecessary roughness and personal fouls translate into physical play? It is actually a negative to lead the league in those categories. It usually means a player is undisciplined or is a cheap shot artist. Penalties are often given to the guy who is getting beat and has to resort to other tactics. I don't know enough about this player to have any real feeling about the pick. Unfortunately, I have read more negatives than positives at this point. Was Nic Harris a dominant safety in college? Is he athlectic enough to overcome moderate measurables? Is he instinctive enough to switch to LB?
offde-fence Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I'm thinking it is based on coverage skills. That linebacker position for us has lately been a glorified and bulked up safety. I know we depend on coverage from that position, but, I can't say that I recall us being ran on a lot to that side. Anyone know if that has been really vulnerable for us - the run to that side? It seems like we've been killed up the middle more than anything. Well, he's bigger than most running backs he'll see, so he better be able to tackle them if they come his way, and with the added strength of coverage skills. Thinking about it that way, it seems like we really need solid DE play from that side, and since we've not had notable DE play on that side, I'm surprised it doesn't jump out at me that we've been attacked there more.
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 People have heard of freeman, thats why he's the "better" prospect. Did you ever think there might be a reason Freeman is mentioned more often? Not only is Freeman bigger, faster, and stronger, he had way better stats in college than Harris. I'm so sick of people assuming that because a player is well-known everyone that likes him is an idiot that has just heard his name before.
John from Riverside Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Again, I'm no Nic Harris expert but how does unnecessary roughness and personal fouls translate into physical play? It is actually a negative to lead the league in those categories. It usually means a player is undisciplined or is a cheap shot artist. Penalties are often given to the guy who is getting beat and has to resort to other tactics. I don't know enough about this player to have any real feeling about the pick. Unfortunately, I have read more negatives than positives at this point. Was Nic Harris a dominant safety in college? Is he athlectic enough to overcome moderate measurables? Is he instinctive enough to switch to LB? Well...there was this certain safety named Harrison that played for the pats........
Fewell733 Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Did you ever think there might be a reason Freeman is mentioned more often? Not only is Freeman bigger, faster, and stronger, he had way better stats in college than Harris. I'm so sick of people assuming that because a player is well-known everyone that likes him is an idiot that has just heard his name before. Nic Harris was pretty well known. Not necessarily be the draft sites as of late cause it wasn't clear he had a true NFL position. Similar situation to Kevin Ellison.
SuperKillerRobots Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Except don't the Bears run a similar defense to what we run? Yeah - so you could look at it like we stole Harris from them, since we picked first I think.
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Nic Harris was pretty well known. Not necessarily be the draft sites as of late cause it wasn't clear he had a true NFL position. Similar situation to Kevin Ellison. Yes, Harris was well known. And he was a great pick for a 5th rounder. I just think Freeman also was a great option for us.
Recommended Posts