Barrett Ruud

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by ImATitan, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. gran54

    gran54 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    401
    Only thing that kinda worries me is Seattle was a good destination for Luke Kuechly. I know there's other places he has chances to go such as KC, Buffalo, and Carolina, but really hoping he doesn't end up slipping to 20.
    #11
  2. xpmar9x

    xpmar9x Vote for Pedro

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,402
    That doesn't worry me. That makes me happy.

    I'd say Seattle is off the board for Kuechly. At #9, I think it's slightly to early for Luke. Plus they have Beason and Anderson at LB. They need another target for Newton (Floyd) or a DL monster.

    KC runs a 34, and they have 3 solid ILBs. Belcher, Johnson, and Williams can all play. They have other needs waaaay before being able to use #11 as a luxury pick.

    Buffalo makes sense though. So does Philly and Chicago. I'd be happy with taking Luke, only if some other players are off the board.
    #12
  3. JCBRAVE

    JCBRAVE Tweet me @JCBRAVE

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    44,379
    There's no way drafting Luke Kuechly could be a bad thing for us. I mean we don't need him at the moment, but he's a guy we could defiantly use. Jerry Grey does at times feature 4 LB's, and Munchak wants football players who are versatile. Luke Kuechly is versatile enough and a good enough football player to be a Titan. I still think we should get a DE because who knows if Morgan can last 16 games, and also having 3 DE's you can rotate is never a bad thing.
    #13
  4. xpmar9x

    xpmar9x Vote for Pedro

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,402
    I agree. But if we have the option between Kuechly or Mercilus... i'm going with Kuechly. Then go DE Rd 2.
    #14
  5. steverife

    steverife Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    The gap between Kuechly and what you would get in the 2nd or 3rd round at LB is much greater than at DE or even DT.
    #15
  6. gran54

    gran54 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    401
    I know it wouldn't be a bad thing, but I still agree about a DE. We definitely need some depth there. CB is the other glaring need IMO.
    #16
  7. LANGSTER

    LANGSTER Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,923
    Seahawks can have Ruud, I was not impressed he makes tackles down the field and runners carry him down the field
    #17