PDA

View Full Version : Tyson Jackson


superfly69
04-25-2009, 04:23 PM
I know this guy was rising, but I can't help but think 3rd overall for a guy who is not great pass rusher or a feared sack artist seems a bit odd to me. I am sure he is going to be good, but you take a guy at 3, he better have the overall ability to become great. I'm not sure Jackson is that guy.

BigBanger
04-25-2009, 06:15 PM
That's because he's not that guy.

He'll never live up to the hype, but he'll be a solid pro and fill a huge void and start the overhaul of that switch to the 3-4 defense.

T-RICH49
04-25-2009, 09:06 PM
it was a terrible pick plain and simple

Mr. Hero
04-25-2009, 09:08 PM
He has the potential to be that guy, I just don't think he ever pulls it off. Honestly I like him a lot less than I do Jarron Gilbert.

Hurricanes25
04-25-2009, 09:11 PM
I would never take a 34 De at 3 overall. Curry would have made a bigger impact for their defense.

ChezPower4
04-25-2009, 09:26 PM
I don't see how any team could have Jackson rated higher than Curry. I thought that this could happen but in no way did I actually think that a NFL GM would be dumb enough to do such a foolish thing.

Basileus777
04-25-2009, 09:28 PM
Jackson isn't ideal at #3, but he's more valuable to us than Curry or Monroe would have been. I would have liked to trade down, but considering that **** package that Cleveland got, I'm glad we didn't.

Byrd430
04-25-2009, 09:30 PM
I think Jackson's a safe pick.

Not worth the #3 pick though, and will end up paying too much money to him.

vidae
04-25-2009, 09:30 PM
Jackson isn't ideal at #3, but he's more valuable to us than Curry or Monroe would have been.

Absolutely 100% could not disagree with you more.

Curry will be an elite talent. Jarron Gilbert, like mentioned above, is still available. He could play 5tech in the 3-4 and he might even be better than Tyson Jackson over the years. Jackson was a mediocre or average college player and for whatever reason Pioli thinks that is going to translate to a good to GREAT player in the NFL and to put it simply, it just won't.

Curry would be an IMPACT player from day one and play at an elite level. He's shown he could do it. Jackson has not. Hell, you just signed Cassel to a 6 year deal with 34 million in guarantees, Monroe is the smartest pick here hands down.

It was an absolutely terrible pick, plain and simple.

jsagan77
04-25-2009, 09:32 PM
The smart fit here would have been to take Raji and move Dorsey outside as a Seymore type... This pick was awful IMO...

TonyGfortheTD
04-25-2009, 09:33 PM
One thing to remember. Scott Pioli has multiple Super Bowl rings and has won executive of the year awards while we're posting on a message board. Will wait and see on this one.

The smart fit here would have been to take Raji and move Dorsey outside as a Seymore type... This pick was awful IMO...
That's hilariously dumb. Stop posting.

Sniper
04-25-2009, 09:35 PM
I know this guy was rising, but I can't help but think 3rd overall for a guy who is not great pass rusher or a feared sack artist seems a bit odd to me. I am sure he is going to be good, but you take a guy at 3, he better have the overall ability to become great. I'm not sure Jackson is that guy.

Out of Scott's top 10 DEs, Jackson had the third most sacks. How is that "not a great pass rusher"?

Sniper
04-25-2009, 09:46 PM
That's not hilariously dumb..

Glen Dorsey's game translates better to a 3-4 DE than it does as a 3-4 NT...

He doesn't translate to anything in a 3-4.

vidae
04-25-2009, 09:51 PM
Again, we're going to be running the 4-3 under, not a base 3-4. Which is why the Jackson pick makes even less sense than before.

T-RICH49
04-25-2009, 09:53 PM
Again, we're going to be running the 4-3 under, not a base 3-4. Which is why the Jackson pick makes even less sense than before.

QFT.(10 CHAR)

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-25-2009, 09:55 PM
Jackson is not a 3rd overall pick in any draft.

Inexcusable pick for where he was taken, Tyson basically hit the NFL lottery!!

CJSchneider
04-25-2009, 09:57 PM
I saw a great deal of Tyson Jackson here in Louisiana. Will he be a good player, yes. Was he worth a #3 pick, I can't say yes to that right now and I can't help but wonder wtf they were thinking in the KC war room.

Basileus777
04-25-2009, 10:07 PM
Again, we're going to be running the 4-3 under, not a base 3-4. Which is why the Jackson pick makes even less sense than before.

That is speculation. Pretty much all of our personnel moves indicate that are moving to a 3-4. Pioli even mentioned the 3-4 in his press conference.

Matthew Jones
04-25-2009, 10:08 PM
He could be a solid starter but let's get real, no one really thought he was worth that pick, except maybe Gil Brandt. He'll be a solid starter but they're going to heavily overpay him. I would have easily taken a below-market value trade for that pick.

Saints-Tigers
04-25-2009, 10:10 PM
He won't be a big sack guy, but he should be a dominant run stuffing end, and an above average sack guy, a really good rusher for a 3-4 end.

Abaddon
04-25-2009, 10:11 PM
Pioli wants to build the Chiefs defense like he did the Pats'. That starts with a big, talented D-line. Is Jackson on the level of Seymour or Warren? Probably not. But, let's face it. This is a weak draft class. Mayock called it the worst he's seen in years. So, if you can't trade down...and I'm sure they tried to find some value in a trade...make your picks.

Dorsey at NT is horrendous. But, if they can find a legit NT, he and Jackson could make a nice pair of ends.

Jackson may have been a reach, but he's going to anchor the Chiefs' defense for a while. I can't hate the pick. I was surprised, but I don't hate it.

T-RICH49
04-25-2009, 10:37 PM
Jackson isn't ideal at #3, but he's more valuable to us than Curry or Monroe would have been. I would have liked to trade down, but considering that **** package that Cleveland got, I'm glad we didn't.

now that's funny

TonyGfortheTD
04-25-2009, 10:50 PM
That's not hilariously dumb..

Glen Dorsey's game translates better to a 3-4 DE than it does as a 3-4 NT...

Oh, I failed really hard at reading. I thought I read Tank Tyler haha

Still, I'm not sure about Dorsey in a 3-4. The way I look at the Tyson Jackson selection is this. Pioli likes to focus on his line first and the Chiefs had a huge void at 3-4 DE. Tyson Jackson was the top rated 3-4 DE prospect and Pioli liked what he saw.

Abaddon
04-25-2009, 10:51 PM
I think the issue with Curry at #3 is that he'd be an ILB. I think Pioli will bring the Patriot mentality of using veterans at ILB and building the line through the draft. I'd much rather have traded back for Jackson, but I think it'll work out for them.

LarryJohnson27
04-25-2009, 11:39 PM
Ok I'm going to try and settle all this confusion over KC's defense. The Chiefs are planning on running the 4-3 under. It's what they ran the entire mini-camp, it's Clancy's scheme, Tank said he was playing NT and Dorsey was playing the 3 technique, and Zak Thomas stated he would be playing MLB and not ILB. The reason for all the confusion is the similarities between the two, when you're talking NE Patriots style 3-4 (not Pitt). Pete Carroll explains the scheme in this artile: http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/43_under_blitz_schemes.html

He goes on to talk about each individual players assignment and talks about the 3-tech, which is what Dorsey will play of course (Dockett played it in Arizona), and the NT will be Tank Tyler who I think some people are underestimating. Anyways, the end on the other side plays the 5 tech as stated by Carroll, who goes on to talk about the importance of him being a great run defender (which Jackson will fit in much better then Antonio Smith did in this position).

So the Chiefs could have solidified the Dline, which is what Pioli obviously considers the foundation of his system.

bored of education
04-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Q: Does he come out of the game on passing downs?

TODD HALEY: “No, we look at Tyson as a three-down player and we actually think that he probably gains an advantage on third down if he moves inside and is over a guard. He’s got some pass rush skills, there is no doubt about it and that’s one of the things that excited the coaches about him. When you can take advantage of some match-ups inside it may really help him and us.”

PIOLI: “In a defense even though he’s playing defensive end and more outside in the regular (defense) in sub packages he has the skill set to move in and potentially to have a mismatch, not necessarily on the edge.”



Q: You’ve talked about looking for smart players. Does Ty fit that category?

PIOLI: “Todd and I both spent a lot of time with him and the only measurable you have is not always accurate. We’re quite comfortable with his intelligence and the fact that he’s been versatile and when you spend time with him we’re quite comfortable with how smart he is.”

: Do you see foresee Glenn Dorsey playing in the middle?

HALEY: “Things can change but not inside out of the gate. I would still see Glenn as outside right now. But that will all sort of shake itself out as we go forward. But again, I think this is all about competition and the more competition you have at each position the better. Right now our defensive line got a lot more competitive.”

Q: Do you need someone to play over the center?

HALEY: “We’re transitioning in that direction; that’s our idea. There are a couple of guys already here that, I think, can play over the center, if we go in that direction. Ron Edwards has had some experience in there. He’s a big, strong guy who’s had some experience. Tank Tyler is another guy who has had some experience inside playing over the nose. So, there are some guys here that will compete in addition to the guys we’ve added.”



just some insight as to where KC is going maybe?

nepg
04-27-2009, 12:27 PM
People are really confused for some reason.

KC is playing Pendergast's 4-3 scheme in 2009, but it's temporary. Pendergast's scheme allows them to be competitive defensively while they acquire players for their eventual switch to the 3-4 (in 2010). They wanted to switch to it this year, but Romeo Crennel wasn't ready to coach just yet. Pioli's smart. He's not going to bring in a DC who he doesn't want there for the long haul, so he just let Pendergast do it for now.

Jackson fits extremely well as the strong-side DE in Pendergast's system, and should be pretty nasty at that spot this year. You see the price teams are paying for elite 3-4 DE's... KC got a nice discount on one by taking Jackson at #3.

DeepThreat
04-27-2009, 12:46 PM
Curry would be a 3-4 ILB, a position that isn't overly important in a 3-4. Defensive end is quite a bit more important and Jackson fits the scheme perfectly. He is a pretty decent pass rusher and is very good against the run with his size.

I think the Chiefs should have tried to trade down and still get him though. The Browns got a pretty decent deal (3 starters and a backup) out of their trade back.

bored of education
04-27-2009, 12:53 PM
Is it safe to say, comparing positions wise sorta, the a 3-4 DE is like an OT in the sense that if you don't have stud DE's your OLB's won't be that successful? Whoa, I am hurting my own brain sorry.

Basileus777
04-27-2009, 01:00 PM
Jackson was a reach, but we were really in an awful position. We had no need for a QB or LT, so any player we took there would have been a reach except maybe Raji.

The **** deal the Brown's got and Pioli's comments paint a pretty bleak picture of our opportunities for trading down. And even if we could have traded down, Cleveland or Denver would probably have taken Jackson.

Splat
04-27-2009, 01:49 PM
TJ was a reach but not as big a reach as people are making him out to be I would be willing to bet he still would have went in the top ten.

pr0d1gy
04-27-2009, 02:02 PM
I found it odd because Marcus Spears was actually a more accomplished player coming out of LSU....hell Jean-Francois was, too! lol

Anyways, I think it is obvious that he translates well to the NFL even if he is a bit shorter than the ideal. He is beast strong and highly explosive at the point of attack. At the very least this guy becomes a stalwart run stuffer DE in either the 3-4 or 4-3 schemes, if he can stay healthy.

I think it was a huge reach, but I also thought Matt Ryan was a monster reach last year for my Falcons.... ^_^

Splat
04-27-2009, 02:10 PM
Anyways, I think it is obvious that he translates well to the NFL even if he is a bit shorter than the ideal.


He is all most 6'5?