PDA

View Full Version : Luke Kuechly



King Sully
03-20-2012, 11:04 PM
Barring an unforeseen draft-day miracle, Kuechly won't be there when we pick. Usually I love how we build through the draft and for the most part stay put in our spot and let the cards fall where they may. With that being said I'm starting to think that if Kuechly makes it into the late teens or beyond we need to seriously think of moving up. Now I wouldn't mortgage the whole draft on him, but if we could move up and lose a few mid and late round picks, or future picks then this seriously needs to be considered. I think he is going to be a stud for years to come and probably the most sound LB prospect since my man Patrick Willis, though admittedly not quite the prospect, but Willis is a freak. We have all been clamoring for a stud LB for years now and I think he may be our best shot. Not to mention he is a class act, leader, and great locker-room presence. Anyway, would you guys be willing to trade a few of our picks to move say... 10 spots or so up to snag him.

Spizi
03-20-2012, 11:09 PM
Barring an unforeseen draft-day miracle, Kuechly won't be there when we pick. Usually I love how we build through the draft and for the most part stay put in our spot and let the cards fall where they may. With that being said I'm starting to think that if Kuechly makes it into the late teens or beyond we need to seriously think of moving up. Now I wouldn't mortgage the whole draft on him, but if we could move up and lose a few mid and late round picks, or future picks then this seriously needs to be considered. I think he is going to be a stud for years to come and probably the most sound LB prospect since my man Patrick Willis, though admittedly not quite the prospect, but Willis is a freak. We have all been clamoring for a stud LB for years now and I think he may be our best shot. Not to mention he is a class act, leader, and great locker-room presence. Anyway, would you guys be willing to trade a few of our picks to move say... 10 spots or so up to snag him.

no. it is never good to trade up in the 1st because there is an almost 50/50 bust rate... no one is a sure thing. We would have to give up at least our 1st and 2nd for him and that's just way too risky.

King Sully
03-20-2012, 11:16 PM
yeah, to be honest I don't see us making such a trade, but it'd be sweet if he fell to us. The eagles snagging Ryans probably helps a little.

Neverend
03-20-2012, 11:24 PM
I can definitely see Kuechly drop out of the top 20 if seattle and philly passes him

Where he goes at the point, I have no idea

myles2424
03-21-2012, 12:56 AM
Barring an unforeseen draft-day miracle, Kuechly won't be there when we pick. Usually I love how we build through the draft and for the most part stay put in our spot and let the cards fall where they may. With that being said I'm starting to think that if Kuechly makes it into the late teens or beyond we need to seriously think of moving up. Now I wouldn't mortgage the whole draft on him, but if we could move up and lose a few mid and late round picks, or future picks then this seriously needs to be considered. I think he is going to be a stud for years to come and probably the most sound LB prospect since my man Patrick Willis, though admittedly not quite the prospect, but Willis is a freak. We have all been clamoring for a stud LB for years now and I think he may be our best shot. Not to mention he is a class act, leader, and great locker-room presence. Anyway, would you guys be willing to trade a few of our picks to move say... 10 spots or so up to snag him.

no. it is never good to trade up in the 1st because there is an almost 50/50 bust rate... no one is a sure thing. We would have to give up at least our 1st and 2nd for him and that's just way too risky. although I don't like trading up in the 1st, the mid round picks that it would take have a even higher bust rate...

Spizi
03-21-2012, 01:09 AM
Barring an unforeseen draft-day miracle, Kuechly won't be there when we pick. Usually I love how we build through the draft and for the most part stay put in our spot and let the cards fall where they may. With that being said I'm starting to think that if Kuechly makes it into the late teens or beyond we need to seriously think of moving up. Now I wouldn't mortgage the whole draft on him, but if we could move up and lose a few mid and late round picks, or future picks then this seriously needs to be considered. I think he is going to be a stud for years to come and probably the most sound LB prospect since my man Patrick Willis, though admittedly not quite the prospect, but Willis is a freak. We have all been clamoring for a stud LB for years now and I think he may be our best shot. Not to mention he is a class act, leader, and great locker-room presence. Anyway, would you guys be willing to trade a few of our picks to move say... 10 spots or so up to snag him.

no. it is never good to trade up in the 1st because there is an almost 50/50 bust rate... no one is a sure thing. We would have to give up at least our 1st and 2nd for him and that's just way too risky. although I don't like trading up in the 1st, the mid round picks that it would take have a even higher bust rate...

True but I'd rather have 3 picks that have a total bust rate of say 33% than one that has a 50%...

flimflam
03-21-2012, 09:23 AM
As far as trading in Rd 1 this year, the Redskins, in their crackhead like desparation for relevancy in the NFC East and for a QB set a terible precedent.

To move a few slot's you have to pay a king's ransom. I sill cannot believe they gave away three 1st rounders and a 2nd to move up to get RGIII.

No way JR is trading mutiple picks with the # of FAs and players coming off of injuries and holes we need to fill. Hopefully the Eagles are satisfied with D.Ryans and Seattle wants to give a toy to Mr Flynn in the 1st rd and bypass Kuechly. It'd be so sweet if he fell to us. But for all intents and purposes at least it looks like Eagles arent going to get him which is sweet as it is.

TuckYou
03-21-2012, 11:07 AM
As far as trading in Rd 1 this year, the Redskins, in their crackhead like desparation for relevancy in the NFC East and for a QB set a terible precedent. To move a few slot's you have to pay a king's ransom. I sill cannot believe they gave away three 1st rounders and a 2nd to move up to get RGIII. No way JR is trading mutiple picks with the # of FAs and players coming off of injuries and holes we need to fill. Hopefully the Eagles are satisfied with D.Ryans and Seattle wants to give a toy to Mr Flynn in the 1st rd and bypass Kuechly. It'd be so sweet if he fell to us. But for all intents and purposes at least it looks like Eagles arent going to get him which is sweet as it is.</P>


The reason the Skins had to give up all of that was because of who would be there. Either Luck or RGIII will be there. The Rams did not need a QB. About 4 teams were fighting to get that spot, so the price was very steep, especially since Luck is considered the best QB prospect since Elway and RG3 destroyed the combine. Both are expected to be GREAT franchise QBs. That is why the price was so steep. If someone wanted to move to the #3 spot, the price would not be the same or have the same value.</P>

critters
03-21-2012, 11:16 AM
No. But I do wish we were the ones that made that trade for Demeco.

RonJon
03-21-2012, 11:24 AM
Can never tell with how the Giants draft. For all we know, maybe Kuechly is there when the Giants pick and they pass on him for someone else who they rate higher on their boards

BlueSanta
03-21-2012, 11:28 AM
I dont see it. I love Kuechly as a prospect, but we have too many needs this year, and we do too well with our picks under Reese to trade them away.

I also think you have to be careful not to "fall in love" with any 1 prospect, even if Luke is a stud prospect.

Redeyejedi
03-21-2012, 11:46 AM
I dont see the Giants picking Kuechly but he wont be there anyway. I still think he is more of a WLB in the NFL. He isnt the most physical guy. I dont care what his tackle numbers say. Thin wast , doesnt have enough girth in the lower half.

TuckYou
03-21-2012, 12:19 PM
I dont see the Giants picking Kuechly but he wont be there anyway. I still think he is more of a WLB in the NFL. He isnt the most physical guy. I dont care what his tackle numbers say. Thin wast , doesnt have enough girth in the lower half.</P>


I love people that ignore what a player did on the field and look at measurements. Its funny. Isnt physical? How did you get that? Because he looks like a nerd?</P>


https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYtQLFES1SNov12shf24D1lPwm1NCje XGS0R71l-VSJtLaxpt3Pw</P>


This kid is going to be a stud LB in the NFL. </P>


And if you want measureables:</P>


6'3''1/4 242lbs 4.58 40 time (3rd fastest for LB) 38" vert</P>


532 Tackles in 3 years at BC, he knows where to be and how to bring down a player. </P>

critters
03-21-2012, 01:49 PM
I dont see the Giants picking Kuechly but he wont be there anyway. I still think he is more of a WLB in the NFL. He isnt the most physical guy. I dont care what his tackle numbers say. Thin wast , doesnt have enough girth in the lower half.</p>


I love people that ignore what a player did on the field and look at measurements. Its funny. Isnt physical? How did you get that? Because he looks like a nerd?</p>


https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYtQLFES1SNov12shf24D1lPwm1NCje XGS0R71l-VSJtLaxpt3Pw</p>


This kid is going to be a stud LB in the NFL. </p>


And if you want measureables:</p>


6'3''1/4 242lbs 4.58 40 time (3rd fastest for LB) 38" vert</p>


532 Tackles in 3 years at BC, he knows where to be and how to bring down a player. </p>

You're assuming he is ignoring what he saw of Kuechly on the field. When you're going to be playing MLB in the NFL, not the ACC, your size can have an impact. Longer seasons and bigger guys hitting you. Biggers guys can get hurt just as likely, and playing with more physicality than form can also hurt you long term. So who is to say what would happen with Kuechly.

slipknottin
03-21-2012, 02:10 PM
Reese has said multiple times that he has always learned to respect production

Kruunch
03-22-2012, 09:57 AM
I dont see it. I love Kuechly as a prospect, but we have too many needs this year, and we do too well with our picks under Reese to trade them away.

I also think you have to be careful not to "fall in love" with any 1 prospect, even if Luke is a stud* prospect.**


With Goff visiting other teams, if Kuechly drops to us he might very well be our pick.

I just don't see him dropping that far. Great productioin, great college career, solid school, no character issues, great Combine .... he's like the model of what to do as a draft prospect.

His only knock is that he plays a position that's disappearing in the NFL.

GMENAGAIN
03-22-2012, 03:57 PM
PFW's first mock has Kuechly dropping to us.</P>


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/2012-mock-draft-take-one/</P>


</P>

Kruunch
03-22-2012, 04:00 PM
PFW's first mock has Kuechly dropping to us.</P>


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/2012-mock-draft-take-one/</P>


*</P>

They also have the Colts taking RG3, Richardson going ahead of Blackmon, Fleener and Mike Adams in the first round.

Meh.

GMENAGAIN
03-22-2012, 04:25 PM
PFW's first mock has Kuechly dropping to us.</P>


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/2012-mock-draft-take-one/</P>


</P>


They also have the Colts taking RG3, Richardson going ahead of Blackmon, Fleener and Mike Adams in the first round. Meh.</P>


Ha ha . . . yeah, they went out on a limb on a few picks, huh?</P>


I don't think that it is inconceivable that Kuechly could drop to us, just given the undervaluing of 4-3 MLB's over the last few years. Unlikley but not inconceivable. </P>

Kruunch
03-22-2012, 04:39 PM
PFW's first mock has Kuechly dropping to us.</P>


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/2012-mock-draft-take-one/</P>


*</P>


They also have the Colts taking RG3, Richardson going ahead of Blackmon, Fleener and Mike Adams in the first round. Meh.</P>


Ha ha . . . yeah, they went out on a limb on a few picks, huh?</P>


I don't think that it is inconceivable that Kuechly could drop to us, just given the undervaluing of 4-3 MLB's over the last few years.* Unlikley but not inconceivable.* </P>

Well Kuechly could play the ILB in either 3-4 or 4-3.

Before the Combine he was a dark horse pick for us ... since then his draft stock has only climbed.

I wouldn't mind if that happened though [b]

BlueSanta
03-22-2012, 05:28 PM
I dont see it. I love Kuechly as a prospect, but we have too many needs this year, and we do too well with our picks under Reese to trade them away.

I also think you have to be careful not to "fall in love" with any 1 prospect, even if Luke is a stud prospect.


With Goff visiting other teams, if Kuechly drops to us he might very well be our pick.

I just don't see him dropping that far. Great productioin, great college career, solid school, no character issues, great Combine .... he's like the model of what to do as a draft prospect.

His only knock is that he plays a position that's disappearing in the NFL.

ya, dont get me wrong, if he somehow dropped to our pick I would jump all over him. I have been saying for months that I thought we should target him. But, I knew after the combine he was likely out of our reach.

It was kind of odd really, I was saying prior to the combine look at his 2 games vs FSU where he was all over the field. I saw him run down Davonte Freeman, who is an well known speedster. Yet, prior to the combine there were scouts saying he had "subpar" athleticism. During the cobime I saw him run and was inwardly like "SEE! I KNEW IT." Then, a moment later I thought, "why am I happy? He just ran himself out of our reach."

The problem is I do not think trading up in the 1st is wise except maybe for a QB. Look at recent trade ups and tell me if you think the teams who did it are happy? Do you think the Falcons, who sold their soul for Julio Jones are happy right now? I know its a bit early, but I would have to say no, they arent. How about the Saints who traded away their 1st this year for Mark Ingram who was their 3rd leading rusher?

slipknottin
03-23-2012, 02:09 PM
The more I watch him, the more he starts to look like a big safety. Urlacher'ish

Very fluid in coverage, though I think he is still developing a bit in zone coverage. Didnt see him play much man coverage.

Redeyejedi
03-23-2012, 02:20 PM
The more I watch him, the more he starts to look like a big safety. Urlacher'ish

Very fluid in coverage, though I think he is still developing a bit in zone coverage. Didnt see him play much man coverage.He had issues against Clemson. I still think he could end up as a Will. He isnt the most stout guy. He has a thin waist and legs

slipknottin
03-23-2012, 02:27 PM
He had issues against Clemson.

I watched it, think he came away pretty impressive, they ask him to cover a lot of ground in the middle, and he is usually in the area of the catch. But he turns and runs very fluidly. Has really good hips.

It looked more like technique issues and experience things, stuff that can be coached.

Kruunch
03-23-2012, 03:14 PM
The more I watch him, the more he starts to look like a big safety. Urlacher'ish

Very fluid in coverage, though I think he is still developing a bit in zone coverage. Didnt see him play much man coverage.

I got the same impressions.