PDA

View Full Version : AD is a god but...david harris


stephenson86
11-05-2007, 09:18 AM
WTF this kid is insane, 17 tackles 1 week then 24 the next, is he gonna overtake P willy?

Jughead10
11-05-2007, 09:22 AM
I wouldn't go crazy. Redskins ran the ball right down the Jets throats. Harris was making stops well past the line of scrimmage. I'm not sure how much different it would have been if a backup was in there.

PoopSandwich
11-05-2007, 09:22 AM
So you're saying he pulled an Andra Davis?

Jakey
11-05-2007, 09:46 AM
is he gonna overtake P willy?

........NO

GermanSaint
11-05-2007, 09:56 AM
i would love him īto be on the saints depth chart , a young good run stuffer

Number 10
11-05-2007, 10:01 AM
I watched both of his starts, one live and one tape. He has been head and shoulders better than Vilma in the 3-4 and I know there is love for Vilma on thos board and I know he isn't made for the 3-4 scheme....but the difference between the two is night and day.

Harris is going to be a stud and I think he is just as good as Patrick Willis. Teams scheme around Willis more so than teams have schemed Harris, so his numbers are a tad inflated right now. He is a sure tackler and shakes off linemen extremely well and his lack of ability to move quickly is overrated. He has solid instincts and is a true LB in every sense.

The Jets appear to be in shambles right now but honestly, they aren't that bad of a team. They are a playmaker on offense, an offensive linemen, and a pass rusher away from contending for the spot below the Colts and Pats. Clemens is going to be a good QB.

Freddy G
11-05-2007, 10:03 AM
So you're saying he pulled an Andra Davis?

Exactly what i was thinking.....

Oh, and just to make sure everyone is aware Joe Thomas is yet to give up a sack...after facing Pitt, NE, Balti, and Seattle.

bigbluedefense
11-05-2007, 10:46 AM
I watched both of his starts, one live and one tape. He has been head and shoulders better than Vilma in the 3-4 and I know there is love for Vilma on thos board and I know he isn't made for the 3-4 scheme....but the difference between the two is night and day.

Harris is going to be a stud and I think he is just as good as Patrick Willis. Teams scheme around Willis more so than teams have schemed Harris, so his numbers are a tad inflated right now. He is a sure tackler and shakes off linemen extremely well and his lack of ability to move quickly is overrated. He has solid instincts and is a true LB in every sense.

The Jets appear to be in shambles right now but honestly, they aren't that bad of a team. They are a playmaker on offense, an offensive linemen, and a pass rusher away from contending for the spot below the Colts and Pats. Clemens is going to be a good QB.

i think they need a RT, whole new dline, and a pass rusher and theyre good to go.

But if DMac is available, how can you pass on him?

bigbluedefense
11-05-2007, 10:49 AM
By the way, David Harris is great. Its not his fault he has Dwayne Robertson playing NT in front of him.

Patrick Willis provides more in coverage I feel however, at least potentially more. But Harris was a great pickup too.

Jughead10
11-05-2007, 10:52 AM
By the way, David Harris is great. Its not his fault he has Dwayne Robertson playing NT in front of him.

Patrick Willis provides more in coverage I feel however, at least potentially more. But Harris was a great pickup too.

I think he is good too, I just wouldn't go crazy over the 24 tackles. If Chase Blackburn was in there I think he still gets 20 tackles.

AlexDown
11-05-2007, 10:54 AM
i think they need a RT, whole new dline, and a pass rusher and theyre good to go.

But if DMac is available, how can you pass on him?

Need over value may be an issue but really, it woulden't be that hard to pass on him. I hate saying this because it is said all the time but RBs are a dime in a dozen. I also think with the way Peterson has been playing this year has made DMac look better as a prospect.

Jets have needs MUCH bigger then RB right now.

bigbluedefense
11-05-2007, 10:55 AM
I think he is good too, I just wouldn't go crazy over the 24 tackles. If Chase Blackburn was in there I think he still gets 20 tackles.

Chase is built to play 3-4 ILB. Part of me wants us to trade him and get a pick out of it bc we have DeOssie now. I don't want to see Chase's talents rot on the bench. I bet Chase would thrive in any role where he's asked to be an Inside run thumper.

And yeah, the tackle numbers are overrated.

bigbluedefense
11-05-2007, 10:59 AM
Need over value may be an issue but really, it woulden't be that hard to pass on him. I hate saying this because it is said all the time but RBs are a dime in a dozen. I also think with the way Peterson has been playing this year has made DMac look better as a prospect.

Jets have needs MUCH bigger then RB right now.

Thats true. And Im generally a believer in the dime a dozen philosophy. I think youre right, Peterson is influencing my judgement right now.

But at the top of the draft, theres really nobody worth taking as a 3-4 lineman. And you can't go RT that early, thats too much money in the oline. You can get a real good RT in round 2. And theres also no 3-4 pass rusher worthy of a pick that early as well. Unless Chris Long weighs in at 290, which he won't.

So it does open up the door, and I agree, you have too many needs to get him, but if you can't trade out of your pick, does the value exceed the need at that point?

Jughead10
11-05-2007, 11:04 AM
Thats true. And Im generally a believer in the dime a dozen philosophy. I think youre right, Peterson is influencing my judgement right now.

But at the top of the draft, theres really nobody worth taking as a 3-4 lineman. And you can't go RT that early, thats too much money in the oline. You can get a real good RT in round 2. And theres also no 3-4 pass rusher worthy of a pick that early as well. Unless Chris Long weighs in at 290, which he won't.

So it does open up the door, and I agree, you have too many needs to get him, but if you can't trade out of your pick, does the value exceed the need at that point?

Campbell might be a good fit for the Jets.

AlexDown
11-05-2007, 11:07 AM
Thats true. And Im generally a believer in the dime a dozen philosophy. I think youre right, Peterson is influencing my judgement right now.

But at the top of the draft, theres really nobody worth taking as a 3-4 lineman. And you can't go RT that early, thats too much money in the oline. You can get a real good RT in round 2. And theres also no 3-4 pass rusher worthy of a pick that early as well. Unless Chris Long weighs in at 290, which he won't.

So it does open up the door, and I agree, you have too many needs to get him, but if you can't trade out of your pick, does the value exceed the need at that point?

Maybe I am being a bit of a homer by saying this but the Jets really aren't as bad as their record shows. I still don't think they will have top 5 pick but I could be very wrong.

And to your question does value exceed the need, thats really a difficult question for me to answer. Your reasoning for selecting DMac in that situation is very logical and I really can't argue against it. And if we can't trade out, your right, it is a very possible scenario.

SenorGato
11-05-2007, 11:08 AM
Harris = Monster

Jughead10
11-05-2007, 11:12 AM
Maybe I am being a bit of a homer by saying this but the Jets really aren't as bad as their record shows. I still don't think they will have top 5 pick but I could be very wrong.

And to your question does value exceed the need, thats really a difficult question for me to answer. Your reasoning for selecting DMac in that situation is very logical and I really can't argue against it. And if we can't trade out, your right, it is a very possible scenario.

Harris and Hobson (and Hobson is questionable) might be the only two good younger players in that front 7. That whole front 7 needs an overhaul. The veterans don't exactly scream out at anyone either.

Shiver
11-05-2007, 11:14 AM
(11:53) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 47-C.Cooley to NYJ 33 for 8 yards (52-D.Harris, 50-E.Barton).
(1:17) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 45-M.Sellers to WAS 45 for 4 yards (24-D.Revis, 52-D.Harris).
(:33) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 47-C.Cooley to NYJ 43 for 12 yards (52-D.Harris, 25-K.Rhodes).
(9:15) 26-C.Portis right end to WAS 31 for no gain (52-D.Harris, 98-E.Hicks).
(6:21) 26-C.Portis up the middle to NYJ 21 for 2 yards (52-D.Harris).
(4:49) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 45-M.Sellers pushed ob at WAS 47 for 10 yards (52-D.Harris).
(3:08) 26-C.Portis right tackle to NYJ 23 for 9 yards (52-D.Harris).
(2:28) 46-L.Betts left tackle to NYJ 20 for 3 yards (50-E.Barton, 52-D.Harris).
(1:12) Wash. #79 L.Alexander reports in as eligible 26-C.Portis up the middle to NYJ 4 for no gain (52-D.Harris).
(14:54) 26-C.Portis left tackle to WAS 32 for 1 yard (63-D.Robertson, 52-D.Harris).
(13:08) 26-C.Portis right guard to NYJ 39 for 3 yards (52-D.Harris).
(7:40) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell scrambles up the middle ran ob at NYJ 37 for 29 yards (52-D.Harris).
(11:50) 46-L.Betts left tackle to NYJ 1 for 8 yards (52-D.Harris, 27-A.Elam).
(9:24) WAS #79 Alexander reports as eligible. 26-C.Portis left tackle to WAS 8 for 5 yards (52-D.Harris).
(8:49) 26-C.Portis right guard to WAS 11 for 3 yards (92-S.Ellis, 52-D.Harris).
(8:11) 26-C.Portis left tackle to WAS 14 for 3 yards (52-D.Harris, 93-K.Coleman).
(7:30) #79 Alexander reports as eligible. 26-C.Portis left guard to WAS 18 for 4 yards (52-D.Harris, 91-S.Pouha).
(6:04) (Shotgun) 26-C.Portis left guard to WAS 23 for 2 yards (52-D.Harris).
46-L.Betts right guard to WAS 29 for 9 yards (52-D.Harris, 63-D.Robertson).
(:02) 46-L.Betts right tackle to WAS 49 for 20 yards (52-D.Harris).
(10:35) 26-C.Portis right guard to WAS 45 for 2 yards (52-D.Harris, 58-M.Chatham).
(8:52) #79 Alexander reports as eligible. 46-L.Betts left tackle to NYJ 31 for 5 yards (52-D.Harris).


That's a lot of tackles 5+ yards up field.

CannedToast
11-05-2007, 11:37 AM
Harris and Hobson (and Hobson is questionable) might be the only two good younger players in that front 7. That whole front 7 needs an overhaul. The veterans don't exactly scream out at anyone either.

Robertson could be a really good DE in the 3-4. He can get penetration, and he would be solid against the run for a DE... he just should never ever be a NT.

Moses
11-05-2007, 11:39 AM
Campbell might be a good fit for the Jets.

How? Aren't the Jets playing a 3-4?

Jughead10
11-05-2007, 11:43 AM
How? Aren't the Jets playing a 3-4?

I personally think Campbell can be a very good 3-4 DE. He will need a little more weight but he certainly has the frame for it.

Moses
11-05-2007, 11:44 AM
I personally think Campbell can be a very good 3-4 DE. He will need a little more weight but he certainly has the frame for it.

I'm not sure I'm sold on Campbell there. Leverage is very important in that spot and at 6' 8", I'm not sure Campbell could maintain. Plus, he's rail thin at this point.

Also, 3-4 DEs don't tend to be top 10 picks.

SenorGato
11-05-2007, 11:58 AM
I'm not sure I'm sold on Campbell there. Leverage is very important in that spot and at 6' 8", I'm not sure Campbell could maintain. Plus, he's rail thin at this point.

Also, 3-4 DEs don't tend to be top 10 picks.

Seymour says otherwise. Warren and Wilfork were top 10 *prospects* even if they weren't taken in the top 10.

Jughead10
11-05-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm not sure I'm sold on Campbell there. Leverage is very important in that spot and at 6' 8", I'm not sure Campbell could maintain. Plus, he's rail thin at this point.

Also, 3-4 DEs don't tend to be top 10 picks.

Most 3-4 DE's wouldn't also be able to provide the passrush of Campbell. Thats what makes Seymour so special. He holds down the run on that side of the line better than anyone and offers passrush that most 3-4 DEs do not.

Moses
11-05-2007, 12:02 PM
Seymour says otherwise. Warren and Wilfork were top 10 *prospects* even if they weren't taken in the top 10.

So there has been one guy who was selected in the top 10. Also, I think it's fair to say that Seymour is pretty high above Campbell when it comes to 3-4 DE prospects.

Moses
11-05-2007, 12:04 PM
Most 3-4 DE's wouldn't also be able to provide the passrush of Campbell. Thats what makes Seymour so special. He holds down the run on that side of the line better than anyone and offers passrush that most 3-4 DEs do not.

Seymour is also a tailor-made 3-4 DE where as Campbell doesn't look or play the part at this point.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0412/ncf_g_campbell_195.jpg

He's a stringbean. Looks more like a wide receiver than a DE, let alone a 3-4 DE.

draftguru151
11-05-2007, 12:05 PM
He's gained 20 pounds since that picture, but I agree the value isn't there as a top 10 3-4 DE.

Moses
11-05-2007, 12:08 PM
He's gained 20 pounds since that picture, but I agree the value isn't there as a top 10 3-4 DE.

What do you think his accurate height/weight is? I'd wager something like 6' 7" 280 pounds. He's also pretty lean which means he won't be able to throw on a bunch of mass overnight. I can't see him getting to and staying at 310 or so where he would likely be best in the 3-4.

I think he's suited best as a SDE in a 4-3. His range and length will make him a big disruptor against both the run and pass.

draftguru151
11-05-2007, 12:15 PM
6-7 280 is probably right. He did put on 20 pounds last offseason but it seems to have slowed him down quite a bit and I'm not sure how he would do with much more weight. Last year he looked like a weakside guy but he just doesn't have the explosiveness off the edge he had last year.

PACKmanN
11-05-2007, 04:25 PM
Kendall Langford might be a good fit for the Jets.

fixed it for you.

Addict
11-05-2007, 04:31 PM
David Harris is great at making RB's run into him...

P-L
11-05-2007, 06:04 PM
280 is pretty much the minimum for a 3-4 DE these days. Campbell is also very tall at (6'7"). I really don't think he has the frame to play DE in the 3-4. Campbell has been having a sub-par season this year and I don't think him playing this way after gaining the extra 15-20 pounds is a coincidence.

nvot9
11-05-2007, 06:19 PM
That's a lot of tackles 5+ yards up field.

I agree with that completely, I agree with yours and everyones assessment that his overall ability should not be determined solely based on his tackle amount. HOWEVER, your opinion appears to be very biased. You "bolded" 12 tackles that were accounted for after 4 yards or more were gained. However, from another person's standpoint, such as mine, that means that that's another 12 tackles unaccounted for by you, that he held the ball carrier to 3 yards or less, a number of which were for no gain. Now, I don't know about you, but if he had a game were he only got 12 tackles, all for 3 yards or less, I'd still consider that a TREMENDOUS game, yes, tremendous.

In addition, 24 tackles is such a large number, that it shows his aggressiveness and ability to stop the ball carrier. It proves that he can make plays all along the field and can play sideline to sideline just as well, if not better than Vilma, 3-4 or 4-3. I respect your opinion, as you are a very intelligent NFL poster, and know more than me most likely, but I think your opinion on this specific topic should be taken with a grain of salt, because for whatever reason you must not like Harris, there's no way you can possibly downgrade the game Harris had and has been having. He's establishing himself as the Jets best defender (with Rhodes and another rookie in Revis as well, as very good players) and as a rookie, that's an incredible feat to accomplish.

nvot9
11-05-2007, 06:24 PM
Campbell might be a good fit for the Jets.

I disagree with this for all the aforementioned knocks on Campbell a a 3-4 DE. As of right now, based on what I've seen, the only 3-4 DL I'd take with our first rounder would be Chris Long. I know he as well can be considered slightly undersized, but he strikes me as the player, with the work ethic that he has, that we can play an NFL 3-4, and play it very well at that.

Harris and Hobson (and Hobson is questionable) might be the only two good younger players in that front 7. That whole front 7 needs an overhaul. The veterans don't exactly scream out at anyone either.

I pretty much agree with this though. I think Hobson has to go as well though. All their LB's (including Vilma, Thomas, and Barton) are not impressing me at all and I wouldn't mind if they were gone (although Thomas got a new contract, so he's not goin anywhere). As for our DL, I also think all of them can afford a change of scenery, except maybe Coleman, he could be a very good back-up/adequate starter. I don't think the Jets will get rid of Ellis, especially after choosing him over Abraham, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if they did. I think he's performed decently for us in the 3-4. He's not the prototypical 3-4 DE, but it might not be worth it to get rid of him, as that would open up another unnecessary whole..

P-L
11-05-2007, 06:27 PM
David Harris is one of the most surest tacklers I've ever seen. Part of the reason he racks up so many is because he simply doesn't miss. In his entire senior season at Michigan, he did not miss a single tackle. Crazy. I have yet to see him in the NFL, but I assume the same is true.

sodar21
11-05-2007, 06:30 PM
I agree with that completely, I agree with yours and everyones assessment that his overall ability should not be determined solely based on his tackle amount. HOWEVER, your opinion appears to be very biased. You "bolded" 12 tackles that were accounted for after 4 yards or more were gained. However, from another person's standpoint, such as mine, that means that that's another 12 tackles unaccounted for by you, that he held the ball carrier to 3 yards or less, a number of which were for no gain. Now, I don't know about you, but if he had a game were he only got 12 tackles, all for 3 yards or less, I'd still consider that a TREMENDOUS game, yes, tremendous.

In addition, 24 tackles is such a large number, that it shows his aggressiveness and ability to stop the ball carrier. It proves that he can make plays all along the field and can play sideline to sideline just as well, if not better than Vilma, 3-4 or 4-3. I respect your opinion, as you are a very intelligent NFL poster, and know more than me most likely, but I think your opinion on this specific topic should be taken with a grain of salt, because for whatever reason you must not like Harris, there's no way you can possibly downgrade the game Harris had and has been having. He's establishing himself as the Jets best defender (with Rhodes and another rookie in Revis as well, as very good players) and as a rookie, that's an incredible feat to accomplish.
Exactly what I was thinking. For all we know hes chasing down running backs after some other linebacker busted his assignment and Harris had go and run the guy down from across the field.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
11-05-2007, 06:39 PM
I'm going to simply say that Harris has played even better than i could have hoped. Whether people agree that him getting that many tackles 2 weeks in a row is anything or not, you watch him out there and you get the feeling he is/can be a difference-maker. He has been the best Jets defender since he entered the starting lineup (even before in limited snaps?). If you watch the games you can see he does just fine taking on blocks and can shed them to make the play. That is what you want. So what if he gets tackles 4+ yards down the field.....at least he's getting there when others aren't. Now the rest of the defense needs to step up.

Flyboy
11-05-2007, 06:44 PM
And Saints were really considering taking him at #27. Yay.

Le sigh.

bigbluedefense
11-06-2007, 09:46 AM
Maybe I am being a bit of a homer by saying this but the Jets really aren't as bad as their record shows. I still don't think they will have top 5 pick but I could be very wrong.

And to your question does value exceed the need, thats really a difficult question for me to answer. Your reasoning for selecting DMac in that situation is very logical and I really can't argue against it. And if we can't trade out, your right, it is a very possible scenario.

No, I agree with you. The Jets just need an overhaul on defense. The team isn't that bad, and has potential of having a very very good offense. They just need a RT, maybe a LG on offense, then defense defense defense.

ironman4579
11-06-2007, 08:50 PM
I agree with that completely, I agree with yours and everyones assessment that his overall ability should not be determined solely based on his tackle amount. HOWEVER, your opinion appears to be very biased. You "bolded" 12 tackles that were accounted for after 4 yards or more were gained. However, from another person's standpoint, such as mine, that means that that's another 12 tackles unaccounted for by you, that he held the ball carrier to 3 yards or less, a number of which were for no gain. Now, I don't know about you, but if he had a game were he only got 12 tackles, all for 3 yards or less, I'd still consider that a TREMENDOUS game, yes, tremendous.

In addition, 24 tackles is such a large number, that it shows his aggressiveness and ability to stop the ball carrier. It proves that he can make plays all along the field and can play sideline to sideline just as well, if not better than Vilma, 3-4 or 4-3. I respect your opinion, as you are a very intelligent NFL poster, and know more than me most likely, but I think your opinion on this specific topic should be taken with a grain of salt, because for whatever reason you must not like Harris, there's no way you can possibly downgrade the game Harris had and has been having. He's establishing himself as the Jets best defender (with Rhodes and another rookie in Revis as well, as very good players) and as a rookie, that's an incredible feat to accomplish.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Even before I saw shiver's bolding, like last night, I was thinking at least half his tackles had to have been within 4 yards or less of the LOS. 12 tackles in a game for a rookie is still pretty darn good. And as has been said, at least he's in position to make 24 tackles. Apparently no one else on the Jets wanted to tackle anybody.

stephenson86
11-06-2007, 09:19 PM
What do you think his accurate height/weight is? I'd wager something like 6' 7" 280 pounds. He's also pretty lean which means he won't be able to throw on a bunch of mass overnight. I can't see him getting to and staying at 310 or so where he would likely be best in the 3-4.

I think he's suited best as a SDE in a 4-3. His range and length will make him a big disruptor against both the run and pass.

most have him at 6 8

BroadwayJoe10
11-06-2007, 11:44 PM
I was kind of thinking the same thing. Even before I saw shiver's bolding, like last night, I was thinking at least half his tackles had to have been within 4 yards or less of the LOS. 12 tackles in a game for a rookie is still pretty darn good. And as has been said, at least he's in position to make 24 tackles. Apparently no one else on the Jets wanted to tackle anybody.

apparantly its an epidemic going around the locker room. i guess our team doctors our looking into it. there appears however, to be no resolution in the near future.

im just thankful harris drinks his oj.

brat316
11-06-2007, 11:53 PM
David Harris is better suited for the 3-4.

ironman4579
11-07-2007, 11:22 AM
David Harris is better suited for the 3-4.

Which he plays in currently. Or was that what you were saying?

derza222
11-07-2007, 11:33 AM
No, I agree with you. The Jets just need an overhaul on defense. The team isn't that bad, and has potential of having a very very good offense. They just need a RT, maybe a LG on offense, then defense defense defense.

One thing that could be very bad for the offense is if Coles, who has alluded to the possibility a couple of times, retires soon. Brad Smith and McCareins are okay players, but I'm not positive they're starters right now. J-Mac had his shot and lost his starting job, and Smith, though very talented, still has a little ways to go as a wideout.

Also, it appears Chris Baker has worked his way into Mangini's doghouse and it makes the tight end spot similar to the wide receiver spot. Like receiver we have a lot of tight ends, but I think Bakers really the only viable starting option we have in that group. A tight end is always great for a young quarterback to have as a safety blanket, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Sean Ryan or Joe Kowalewski being that guy for Clemens.

At both positions if there isn't any change from now we're fine, but if there's a bit of a shakeup we could end up needing a starter at both spots, and at least a new starter at one of the spots. Protecting Clemens obviously comes first so the OL spots are priorities right now, but if LC and Baker leave I think he'll need another weapon, maybe not at both positions but at one of them at least.


The defense obviously needs a bigger overhaul though. You're talking about NT, DE, ILB, OLB, S, and CB all possibly being legitimate positions of need. It's really kind of scary if you think about it, come draft day the best defensive player that fits our scheme regardless of position is a viable option. The defensive line is terrible, we'll eventually need to replace Barton, we need an OLB to get some pass rush because QB's have had all day, we have Abram Elam starting next to Rhodes right now and while he's okay I think we're better off with a guy that has better coverage skills, and corner play has been very subpar thus far. And yet we aren't losing games by that many points, our biggest issue has been playing terribly in the second half and fourth quarter. Considering how close most of our games have been with all of the positions that need upgrades, we could be a pretty good team with some more talent.