I would like to see Michael Ford get some good reps this preseason. From what little I saw in Preseason last year and the few games I saw him in when in college, I think he could be the answer. Not sure on his ability to protect Cutler but was impressive, IMO, running the ball.

 

Why HHCD instead of Pryor?

 

 

HHCD is considered a better fit in our alleged main scheme Cover 2 because of his coverage ability while Pryor is considered a heavy hitter and not as good in coverage.

Yeah, I'd actually prefer a FS/DT/DT start since I think there is a lot more depth at DT than FS.

 

This would outstanding:

1. HHCD, FS, Alabama

2. Tuitt, DT, Notre Dame

3. Johnson, DT, LSU

This would be awesome. Like you said, there is some great depth at DT (a rare thing) this year. If we could snag a top safety in the 1st and then they decided to go DT-DT in the 2nd and 3rd, I'd be more than okay with that.

 

In answer to your original question, I'd be fine with DT-DT if the 2nd rounder is an absolute steal (where someone fell unexpectedly). I wouldn't be fine if they overdraft another DT who likely could have been had later on (or just wasn't a good value at 51).

HHCD is considered a better fit in our alleged main scheme Cover 2 because of his coverage ability while Pryor is considered a heavy hitter and not as good in coverage.

 

Pretty much this. Also, I've watched lots of Bama games since I'm in the area, and I believe he has elite FS range, angles, and intelligence.

Pretty much this. Also, I've watched lots of Bama games since I'm in the area, and I believe he has elite FS range, angles, and intelligence.

Pryor is more of a playmaker.

 

HaHa- 10 PBUs-7 INTs 3 FFs in career. 100 Ts

 

Pryor-14 PBUs-7 INTs- 12 FFs in career. 218 Ts

 

HaHa is a better pass defender, but Pryor is not far behind.

 

Here is article which praises both but Pryor has more upside.

http://nflmocks.com/2014/04/20/chicago-bea...ha-clinton-dix/

 

HHCD is considered a better fit in our alleged main scheme Cover 2 because of his coverage ability while Pryor is considered a heavy hitter and not as good in coverage.

Actually Pryor is a better fit, we ask our Ss to play up and back, more of a hybrid style and Pryor fits it better. I think they both will be good pros but think Pryor has more upside as a playmaker. I listed an article in the previous post and look who the author compares them too. I believe that to be true.

HHCD is considered a better fit in our alleged main scheme Cover 2 because of his coverage ability while Pryor is considered a heavy hitter and not as good in coverage.

 

 

I hope we can put the Cover 2 to bed now that Lovie is gone...

I hope we can put the Cover 2 to bed now that Lovie is gone...

 

Don't really think Tillman is fast enough or Jennings is big enough not to play some sort of zone coverage.

An extension to Conte....

 

Extend an invitation to the airport. I mean really. He would be terrible on the 49ers D. He has not shown any instinct, can't tackle, and apparently can't understand English play calling. Gimme a break. I'm not saying S in 1st RD. But there isn't a starting S on this team

An extension to Conte....

 

Extend an invitation to the airport. I mean really. He would be terrible on the 49ers D. He has not shown any instinct, can't tackle, and apparently can't understand English play calling. Gimme a break. I'm not saying S in 1st RD. But there isn't a starting S on this team

 

 

Terra, how about the good year Conte had two years ago? Everyone was happy with him then, if I remember.

 

The whole defence sucked last year, we had no leader, Briggs did not step up when Url left, instead he left the locker room before reporters could get to him at the end of the worst game the Bears D has ever suffered....

 

How did that feel to the young guys?

 

Did you ever think what that might say about how much he is helping out on play calling during the games?

 

The same guy who said he would never play with the Bears again a few years ago when SF came calling and offered him a bit more money?

 

I accept Conte was not up to scratch last year; I would think we all do and so does he. But do we want to write off a guy after one year when he is surrounded by a failing D?

 

Personally, I am quite sure he is at best a solid backup and if coached right could be a starter.....

Terra, how about the good year Conte had two years ago? Everyone was happy with him then, if I remember.

 

The whole defence sucked last year, we had no leader, Briggs did not step up when Url left, instead he left the locker room before reporters could get to him at the end of the worst game the Bears D has ever suffered....

 

How did that feel to the young guys?

 

Did you ever think what that might say about how much he is helping out on play calling during the games?

 

The same guy who said he would never play with the Bears again a few years ago when SF came calling and offered him a bit more money?

 

I accept Conte was not up to scratch last year; I would think we all do and so does he. But do we want to write off a guy after one year when he is surrounded by a failing D?

 

Personally, I am quite sure he is at best a solid backup and if coached right could be a starter.....

 

A couple INT as a rookie isn't a good year. The kid stinks, he's never anywhere near the ball regardless of who he's covering.

A couple INT as a rookie isn't a good year. The kid stinks, he's never anywhere near the ball regardless of who he's covering.

He was terrible last year, but since he is still on the team, I root for him to look like 2012 Conte, not great but not terrible.

A couple INT as a rookie isn't a good year. The kid stinks, he's never anywhere near the ball regardless of who he's covering.

 

Nah, you're wrong about him being near the ball. More often than not, his hand was an inch from the ball . . . as it sailed past him and into the receiver's hands for a touchdown.

 

There were no complaints about him two years ago because our defense was good. He should be good again this year.