PDA

View Full Version : I want Adam Carriker


bigbluedefense
04-03-2007, 11:15 AM
Yup, I was thinking about it, I want Adam Carriker. The man is a beast, and his versatility is amazing.

Doesnt matter what scheme we run, theres a place in it for Carriker. He can play LE, UT, 3-4 DE...he can add so much versatility to our team. I realy like the elements he brings.

I think he may be the best linemen in this draft. Branch is solid, Okeye has a high ceiling, some of the DEs are good edge rushers, but I don't know if any linemen brings more to the table than Carriker.

He also makes Tuck tradeable. We can sub him in for Strahan at LE, he can play UT in the 4-3, if we come out with 3 downlinemen he can play DE. The possibilities are endless. This also allows us to be more creative with Kiwi. I don't know if Kiwi has the body to hold up at LE, we would probably be better suited with more thickness at that position.

He's also a blue collar guy with a high motor, reminds me alot of Luis Castillo. I really like this kid. If he falls, Im starting to think he should be our pick.

Now of course, him falling is unlikely, but if he does fall, I want the guy.

Ward
04-03-2007, 11:18 AM
Don't you guys have enough defensive ends? Strahan, Osi, Kiwi, Tuck?

bigbluedefense
04-03-2007, 11:34 AM
Don't you guys have enough defensive ends? Strahan, Osi, Kiwi, Tuck?

He'd be more of a UT for us. Kiwi may play a Julian Peterson role for us. And Tuck is injury prone. I would rather trade him and get something out of him than watch him go for nothing after this year.

We realistically have 3 DEs. Because between Strahan's age, and Tuck's injury prone nature, one of them will go down. Maybe even both.

Carriker is a guy who can play inside and outside.

And most importantly...the underlying subliminal theme of this thread....he helps put another piece in place for the 3-4!

3-4 defense here we come......

What I like about Carriker is he can play LE for Strahan when he goes out, he gives us depth at UT which we desperately need, and he adds versatility to our line.

We saw in Philly they like doing a lot of rotation in the dline to keep everyone fresh. We can do that with Carriker. He gives us a presence inside to match what we have outside, but also, he can play outside if need be, unlike the other 2 DTs in this draft worth getting (Branch, Okeye).

ricky bobby
04-03-2007, 12:25 PM
Come on now? I know that you guys are getting bored with the predictions of CB in round one, but Carriker? I know he's a very talented athlete, but unless we switch to a 3-4, we don't need him. The perfect comparison to Carriker is Igor Olshansky of the Chargers. Olshansky played DT in college, but he moved to DE in the NFL because of his pad level. Both Olshansky and Carriker are 6'6" and around 300 pounds. At that height and weight, it is very difficult to gain good leverage, and he'll get pushed around at the DT position.

Now if we switched to a 3-4, I'd love Carriker. Imagine Cofield and Carriker at Ends. Osi and Kiwi at OLB and Pierce and Wilkinson and MLB. Then draft a guy like Laron Harris (6'3" 345 lbs.) to play NT for us. ...But that's wishful thinking.

Ward
04-03-2007, 12:30 PM
Come on now? I know that you guys are getting bored with the predictions of CB in round one, but Carriker? I know he's a very talented athlete, but unless we switch to a 3-4, we don't need him. The perfect comparison to Carriker is Igor Olshansky of the Chargers. Olshansky played DT in college, but he moved to DE in the NFL because of his pad level. Both Olshansky and Carriker are 6'6" and around 300 pounds. At that height and weight, it is very difficult to gain good leverage, and he'll get pushed around at the DT position.

I guess the big difference is that Olshanksy was viewed as an extremely raw athlete with untapped potential. I think the guy played highschool football starting as a senior or something like that. Carriker's quite a bit more polished.

ricky bobby
04-03-2007, 12:33 PM
I guess the big difference is that Olshanksy was viewed as an extremely raw athlete with untapped potential. I think the guy played highschool football starting as a senior or something like that. Carriker's quite a bit more polished.

Olshansky was less polished, but they are similar in their size and athleticism. I don't think Carriker can make the transition to DT.

bigbluedefense
04-03-2007, 12:48 PM
Olshansky was less polished, but they are similar in their size and athleticism. I don't think Carriker can make the transition to DT.

Carriker had a great Senior Bowl at UT. And that was against the OG/C talent, which is much better in comparison to the Tackle talent in this draft.

He's much more athletic than Olshanksy. Olshanksky was stronger, but not as fast nor as fluid. Not as high of a motor either.

Disruption at the point of attack always masks weaknesses in the back 7. I think not only would Carriker give us another versatile body up front, but he also gives us a playmaker up front.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-03-2007, 12:51 PM
I dont see it happening unless we figure out what to do with our ends, Kiwi and Tuck, and than figure out our system. Basically what your suggesting, from what I gather is buying groceries without knowing what your going to make for dinner at nite. We need stuff ironed out and than figure it out.

bigbluedefense
04-03-2007, 01:00 PM
I dont see it happening unless we figure out what to do with our ends, Kiwi and Tuck, and than figure out our system. Basically what your suggesting, from what I gather is buying groceries without knowing what your going to make for dinner at nite. We need stuff ironed out and than figure it out.

My thing is this. We don't know for sure that this coaching staff and its system will be in place after this year. Theres a very good chance that we have a new coach in 08/09.

Now, what if that coach runs a different system? Now that LB talent you invested in is all for nothing. I think to safely improve the defense while leaving the future open to change, we need to take one of 2 approaches.

1. Draft all DBs. DBs are DBs. They won't change much with various systems. Unless its Cover 2 we're talking about. But we probably won't change over to that anytime soon.

2. Draft versatile players in the front 7 who can play multiple roles. And thats where Carriker comes in. The OLBs in this draft are too small and quite honestly, pretty mediocre compared to other years. So I don't know if we want one of those right now with the question marks we have with our future.

Honestly, Im a big fan of trench players. So if we do go trench, Id like the guy to have some versatility to his game. Leave the door open for other possibilities.

Number 10
04-03-2007, 01:06 PM
No No No No No No No.

And there is already a thread on this.

Would be a bad idea.

ricky bobby
04-03-2007, 01:08 PM
Why not a guy like Tank Tyler, Justin Harrell, Alan Branch or Brandon Mebane? They have already proven that they can play the position. If we take Carriker and he doesn't work out at DT, we'd have to move him to DE, which would be just plain stupid considering how much talent we have there already.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-03-2007, 01:10 PM
My thing is this. We don't know for sure that this coaching staff and its system will be in place after this year. Theres a very good chance that we have a new coach in 08/09.

Now, what if that coach runs a different system? Now that LB talent you invested in is all for nothing. I think to safely improve the defense while leaving the future open to change, we need to take one of 2 approaches.

1. Draft all DBs. DBs are DBs. They won't change much with various systems. Unless its Cover 2 we're talking about. But we probably won't change over to that anytime soon.

2. Draft versatile players in the front 7 who can play multiple roles. And thats where Carriker comes in. The OLBs in this draft are too small and quite honestly, pretty mediocre compared to other years. So I don't know if we want one of those right now with the question marks we have with our future.

Honestly, Im a big fan of trench players. So if we do go trench, Id like the guy to have some versatility to his game. Leave the door open for other possibilities.

I understand your thin of thinking, but all i am saying is we have Tuck and Kiwi there and adding AC would be good, but we need some sort of defined system. Even if it changes we still have Tuck and kiwi and Tuck could in essence be our Adam C. I think we need to address the LB situation first, and than go from there.

Now if we plan on moving Kiwi to LB, than perhaps Adam C would be good as the end. But all I am saying is we need some kind of order before we go getting played who technically we dont need, but can find use for if we do indeed draft him.

So basically all I am saying is lets see whats happening with our system, and wait until Spags figures what he is going to do. I would rather take a LB and go from there. I am actually really high on Beason.

Forenci
04-03-2007, 01:48 PM
My thing is this. We don't know for sure that this coaching staff and its system will be in place after this year. Theres a very good chance that we have a new coach in 08/09.

Now, what if that coach runs a different system? Now that LB talent you invested in is all for nothing. I think to safely improve the defense while leaving the future open to change, we need to take one of 2 approaches.

1. Draft all DBs. DBs are DBs. They won't change much with various systems. Unless its Cover 2 we're talking about. But we probably won't change over to that anytime soon.

2. Draft versatile players in the front 7 who can play multiple roles. And thats where Carriker comes in. The OLBs in this draft are too small and quite honestly, pretty mediocre compared to other years. So I don't know if we want one of those right now with the question marks we have with our future.

Honestly, Im a big fan of trench players. So if we do go trench, Id like the guy to have some versatility to his game. Leave the door open for other possibilities.

That all makes sense, but here's the thing that would worry me about that thinking - there's too many "what if's". I don't know about you, but I don't really want to draft a first rounder on "what if". Even if Coughlin is gone, who's to say we don't get a coach that runs the Cover 2, or the 4-3? Then Carriker's value goes down because we don't know what the new coach will want to do with Kiwi as a LB/DE hybrid.

I would love this pick if we had a 3-4 defense, but considering we have no idea what's beyond the horizon I think it's way to risky of a pick. Otherwise, I love Carriker and was really impressed by him at the Senior Bowl.

ricky bobby
04-03-2007, 01:54 PM
Off topic - Congrats on your finish in the NFLDC NCAA tournament Forenci.

Forenci
04-03-2007, 02:06 PM
Hah, thanks. I'm quite happy with that third place ranking. Did a lot better than I thought I would to be honest.

scottyboy
04-03-2007, 03:24 PM
no,no,no,no bad idea. plus there is as much chance of him falling to us as there is tim carter be a pro bowler with the browns