Kazkal Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 What order would you take them in? why do you like them why do you dislike them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Whichever one was still there when we picked !!!WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalPappaw Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Definitely NOT Manny Lawson.Too light, only has one move (speed rush); gets handled one-on-one by good tackles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In this order:1-Wimbley2-Hali3-Kiwanuka4-LawsonAccording to PFW,Wimbley could easily carry 275 pounds on his frame.Hali was rated as a top DE,then runs a slow 40 and gets downgraded.But film doesn't lie.Kiwanuka was also rated as a top 20 pick,but after a bad senior bowl he gets downgraded.Throw out everything else he's done,base it all on a bad week?Nah.Lastly,the only reason I don't like Lawson is his size.If the Bengals do decide to switch to a 3-4,I'd have him at the top with Wimbley.But I don't see that happening.JMHO of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted April 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In this order:1-Wimbley2-Hali3-Kiwanuka4-LawsonAccording to PFW,Wimbley could easily carry 275 pounds on his frame.Hali was rated as a top DE,then runs a slow 40 and gets downgraded.But film doesn't lie.Kiwanuka was also rated as a top 20 pick,but after a bad senior bowl he gets downgraded.Throw out everything else he's done,base it all on a bad week?Nah.Lastly,the only reason I don't like Lawson is his size.If the Bengals do decide to switch to a 3-4,I'd have him at the top with Wimbley.But I don't see that happening.JMHO of course.wimbley went in too college at 210 no? and has been gaining weight sense? from what heard about lawson is he won't be able bulk up too much with his frame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Lawson, no questionThe others have nowhere near Lawson's speed, quicks, and overall athleticismTamba is flat out slowWimbley weighs about a big mac (the sandwich, not the bridge) heavier than Lawson and is a LOT slower.Kiwi - he'd be my second choice, but a distant one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Still goin on 40 times eh TJ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 In part. How do you like his 50 foot triple jump?How about his production in college? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Gimme Kiwi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted April 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 In part. How do you like his 50 foot triple jump?How about his production in college?ya but as a pure DE he's small,he could put on the weight but why hasen't he yet you think he'd know hes undersized for a DE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Wimbley weighs about a big mac (the sandwich, not the bridge) heavier than Lawson and is a LOT slower.As per PFWLawson WT-23040 yard-4.5Wimbley Wt-25240 yard-4.65LOL..15 in the forty is a LOT slower?He's also 22 pounds heavier,with a frame that can handle 270+.And that's by PFW.Now let's look at The Sporting News.Lawson WT 240 40 yard-4.70Wimbley WT 24540 yard-4.70The averageLawson WT-23540 yard-4.6Wimbley WT 248.540 yard-4.675The data doesn't support you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Once again, if the Bengals are truly looking to get a DE at #24 and these are the targets, we just might have to go with whichever one is still there. However, with the way the talk of Hali and Kiwi have dropped off, you never know. I just don't think any of these guys will be there when we draft in the 2nd...WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 At the combine Lawson weighed in at 241, Wimbley 245.Lawson ran 4.45Wimbley ran 4.61These are facts there is no dispute. the 4.70 time was a guess, Lawson and Wimbley BOTH tested better than that but Lawson is noticably faster and yeah .16 is noticeably faster. The difference between a WR at 4.39 and 4.55 which would you want?Lawson outperformed Wimbley (and don't give the the Williams freak bull sh!t Wimbley had as much or more talent around him) the last TWO years on the football field, in the same conference.Oh! and Wimbley is an inch SHORTER where does this "frame" bull come from Lawson has more frame to work with its just those North Carolina State Uni's that make him look slim, they make 295 lb. Mario Williams look slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 At the combine Lawson weighed in at 241, Wimbley 245.Lawson ran 4.45Wimbley ran 4.61These are facts there is no dispute. the 4.70 time was a guess, Lawson and Wimbley BOTH tested better than that but Lawson is noticably faster and yeah .16 is noticeably faster. The difference between a WR at 4.39 and 4.55 which would you want?Lawson outperformed Wimbley (and don't give the the Williams freak bull sh!t Wimbley had as much or more talent around him) the last TWO years on the football field, in the same conference.Oh! and Wimbley is an inch SHORTER where does this "frame" bull come from Lawson has more frame to work with its just those North Carolina State Uni's that make him look slim, they make 295 lb. Mario Williams look slim. That's a very strong post right there !!! WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WretchedOne Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Tamba Hali will be the best "pure" DE of those 4. (in a 43 base D)Kiwi was EMBARESSED in the Senior Bowl, giving even more creedence that he played against very weak competition. 9 of his 10 2005 sacks came against VERY weak teams.He's got NO moves, at all, whatsoever and that spells doom in the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 The data doesn't support you.You're right - that data indeed does not support me.Good thing it is bad data then, huh?Wimbley runs about a 4.65 40 at 247 pounds, and he's only 6'3 and a halfLawson runs a 4.45 40 at 245 pounds, and he's 6'5 and a half....ergo more frame to hold more weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Oh! and Wimbley is an inch SHORTER where does this "frame" bull come from Lawson has more frame to work with its just those North Carolina State Uni's that make him look slim, they make 295 lb. Mario Williams look slim.That "frame" bull came directly from Pro Football Weekly's scouting report.Don't take it as an insult when I post this stuff,as quite frankly I would be thrilled with any of these guys.The data doesn't support you.You're right - that data indeed does not support me.Good thing it is bad data then, huh?It's not bad data.It's simply data you don't happen to like,therefore you discount it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Gimme Manny, and here's whyHali is probably the most polished of the four, a perrenial overachiever. He'll be solid in the NFL, but not spectacular.Kiwi I would put as the second most athletic to Lawson, but he has no moves, just like LawsonWimbley, now this guy is good, doesn't really jump out in anything but is very good at most everything, but I think he's just solidI pick Lawson cuz he has the most "upside" Moves can be taught, but speed can't. In football, the difference between Wimbley and Lawson's 40 times is a good 5 yards. ANd i want him as a 4-3 DE. Looking at just explosiveness, Lawson jumps off the screen.JMO, of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 It's not bad data.It's simply data you don't happen to like,therefore you discount it.As I see it, if a piece of data is inaccurate, it doesn't matter if I don't like it, the Pope doesn't like it, and Paris Hilton doesn't like it -- it remains innacurateYour two sources provided you with bad data. Sorry about your luck.Go check the official sources Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 "Don't take it as an insult when I post this stuff,as quite frankly I would be thrilled with any of these guys."I don't take it as an insult, I just want to be emphatic. I had this exact conversation with Rob Rang, draft analyst with NFL Draft Scout, I challenged him on the difference between Manny and Kamerion when he had Kamerion as a top 15 pick at DE and Manny as a second round OLB. He spewed the same thing (frame) but when I challeged him on it he backed off his position and now has Lawson and Wimbley ranked neck and neck (though still with Lawson at OLB and Wimbley at DE which I still maintain makes no sense).I can understand ranking a guy down if his athletism does not translate to the football field, but in Manny's case it definately does translate hence his 19.5 Tackles for Loss and 10.5 sacks last year in (argueably) the premiere college conference. I don't buy the frame stuff, Lawson has a huge frame and my guess is one year in a pro weight program will pack 15 lbs on him without losing quickness. The difference between Lawson and Pollack is, Pollack is 6' 2.5" and thus does not have to room to add more weight Lawson is damn near 6' 6". I think it is a NO-BRAINER that Marvin takes this guy if he lasts til 24, and yeah you play him at DE. Speed, Quickness, Intelligence, Leadership all Marvin attributes. I was this hyped about Luis Castillo last year and really the only three defensive players I would draft ahead of Lawson for the Bengals at this point are Mario Williams, Broderick Bunkley, and Michael Huff I wouldn't even neccessarily take Hawk ahead of Lawson, not that I think Lawson is a better football player than Hawk but that I think Lawson fits the Bengals better than Hawk. I honestly see Lawson having the same impact Freeney had, and yes, I could be WAY off track but I really think the guy is special.Gil Brandt has Lawson ranked only behind Super Mario at DE and I tend to agree with his assessments more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.