Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Luke Kuechly

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Luke Kuechly

    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.

  • #2
    Re: Luke Kuechly

    [quote user="King Sully"]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.[/quote]

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Luke Kuechly

      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Luke Kuechly

        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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Luke Kuechly

          [quote user="Spizi"][quote user="King Sully"]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.[/quote]

          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.[/quote] although I don't like trading up in the 1st, the mid round picks that it would take have a even higher bust rate...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Luke Kuechly

            [quote user="myles2424"][quote user="Spizi"][quote user="King Sully"]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.[/quote]

            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.[/quote] although I don't like trading up in the 1st, the mid round picks that it would take have a even higher bust rate...[/quote]

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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Luke Kuechly

              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Luke Kuechly



                [quote user="flimflam"]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.[/quote]




                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Luke Kuechly

                  No. But I do wish we were the ones that made that trade for Demeco.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Luke Kuechly

                    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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Luke Kuechly

                      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.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Luke Kuechly

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Luke Kuechly



                          [quote user="Redeyejedi"]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.[/quote]




                          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?







                          This kid is going to be a stud LB in the NFL.




                          And if you want measureables:




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




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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Luke Kuechly

                            [quote user="TuckYou"]

                            [quote user="Redeyejedi"]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.[/quote]




                            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?







                            This kid is going to be a stud LB in the NFL.




                            And if you want measureables:




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




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

                            [/quote]

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Luke Kuechly

                              Reese has said multiple times that he has always learned to respect production

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X