LISTEN: Looking For The 49ers' New DC With Jason Aponte →

There are 258 users in the forums

Bradley Chubb DE North Carolina State

  • jcs
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 38,883
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.

Why is he a lesser if everything is the same, but chubbs is more consistent? Sounds like Chubbs > Garnett
Originally posted by braap49er:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.

Why is he a lesser if everything is the same, but chubbs is more consistent? Sounds like Chubbs > Garnett

Think he means Garrett is just more genetically superior.
  • jcs
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 38,883
Originally posted by braap49er:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.

Why is he a lesser if everything is the same, but chubbs is more consistent? Sounds like Chubbs > Garnett

Garrett is a little stronger and more explosive a slightly better athlete with just a bit more length.
  • jcs
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 38,883
Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:
Originally posted by braap49er:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.

Why is he a lesser if everything is the same, but chubbs is more consistent? Sounds like Chubbs > Garnett

Think he means Garrett is just more genetically superior.
Originally posted by evil:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
I can see Chubb being lynch/peters guy, and they've proven they ain't afraid to go get they're guy. So if four qb's and barkely are gone in the first five, I think we'll trade up to six and get him.

If he's our guy.

Why would Indy not take him for themselves? Fills a glaring need and this is a weak class for edge rushers and they just added in a couple second rounders this year so they have a good load of capital already.

Indy has glaring needs ... everywhere. If they loved him they would have stayed at 3. I think this trade this early on means Indy sees a few guys as fairly even on their draft board and sees Denver as picking QB. At 6 they figure they can get one of those players. Who knows? If they think they can still get one at 9 and pick up more picks, why wouldn't they trade down? If they loved Chubb and had him No. 1 on their board it's a hell of a gamble moving to 6 because Cleveland at 4 and Denver at 5 could trade out to a team that wants him.
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:
Originally posted by braap49er:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.

Why is he a lesser if everything is the same, but chubbs is more consistent? Sounds like Chubbs > Garnett

Think he means Garrett is just more genetically superior.

But who's better??
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
Originally posted by daragon:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
Landry still isn't BPA at 9. If we are going to pick him, need to trade down to at least 15+ and then I can get on board.

Who would be your pick at #9? If you trade down - then to what pick do you trade down to and what will be the compensation you will be looking for?

Marcus Davenport is my pick at 9.

We could trade down and probably still find him available.

I agree. Between Davenport and Landry, I'd pick Landry. But I'd be ok with either if we can't get Chubb. I really do think that last piece of the puzzle is a good pass rusher. I think it would be a good move to trade up to get Chubb if he's there but if they think they can trade down and still get Landry, that's also a good move in my opinion.

G...I get your thinking and agree about the last piece of the puzzle being Chubb. But it would mean giving up at least one of our top 4 picks , so it would mean Chubb was worth two starters. Would JL and Kyle do that?
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
Originally posted by daragon:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
Landry still isn't BPA at 9. If we are going to pick him, need to trade down to at least 15+ and then I can get on board.

Who would be your pick at #9? If you trade down - then to what pick do you trade down to and what will be the compensation you will be looking for?

Marcus Davenport is my pick at 9.

We could trade down and probably still find him available.

I agree. Between Davenport and Landry, I'd pick Landry. But I'd be ok with either if we can't get Chubb. I really do think that last piece of the puzzle is a good pass rusher. I think it would be a good move to trade up to get Chubb if he's there but if they think they can trade down and still get Landry, that's also a good move in my opinion.

G...I get your thinking and agree about the last piece of the puzzle being Chubb. But it would mean giving up at least one of our top 4 picks , so it would mean Chubb was worth two starters. Would JL and Kyle do that?

That's assuming all of our top 4 picks are gonna be starters. Big assumption.

If we can get a bonafied starter on a cheap 5 yr rookie contract and have to give up a 3rd rounder - worth it. Elite rushers rarely come after round 1 so odds are against you. Elite rushers rarely come out during FA either.

Strike while you're in striking distance since we'll likely be drafting around 20 next season.
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
Originally posted by daragon:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
Landry still isn't BPA at 9. If we are going to pick him, need to trade down to at least 15+ and then I can get on board.

Who would be your pick at #9? If you trade down - then to what pick do you trade down to and what will be the compensation you will be looking for?

Marcus Davenport is my pick at 9.

We could trade down and probably still find him available.

I agree. Between Davenport and Landry, I'd pick Landry. But I'd be ok with either if we can't get Chubb. I really do think that last piece of the puzzle is a good pass rusher. I think it would be a good move to trade up to get Chubb if he's there but if they think they can trade down and still get Landry, that's also a good move in my opinion.

G...I get your thinking and agree about the last piece of the puzzle being Chubb. But it would mean giving up at least one of our top 4 picks , so it would mean Chubb was worth two starters. Would JL and Kyle do that?

I hope so.
Originally posted by midrdan:
Originally posted by evil:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
I can see Chubb being lynch/peters guy, and they've proven they ain't afraid to go get they're guy. So if four qb's and barkely are gone in the first five, I think we'll trade up to six and get him.

If he's our guy.

Why would Indy not take him for themselves? Fills a glaring need and this is a weak class for edge rushers and they just added in a couple second rounders this year so they have a good load of capital already.

Indy has glaring needs ... everywhere. If they loved him they would have stayed at 3. I think this trade this early on means Indy sees a few guys as fairly even on their draft board and sees Denver as picking QB. At 6 they figure they can get one of those players. Who knows? If they think they can still get one at 9 and pick up more picks, why wouldn't they trade down? If they loved Chubb and had him No. 1 on their board it's a hell of a gamble moving to 6 because Cleveland at 4 and Denver at 5 could trade out to a team that wants him.

Ballard said that going to 6 still allows them to get a premium player. Even if Chubb is gone, then one of Nelson or Barkley will be there. They cannot lose in this situation, and have 3 second round picks to continue to build a young core.

Indy likely has no interest in moving back further because the premium guys will be gone. It is wishful thinking that they will move off of 6 unless you are willing to overpay like the Jets just did.
Originally posted by Mertonschickendance:
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
Originally posted by daragon:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
Landry still isn't BPA at 9. If we are going to pick him, need to trade down to at least 15+ and then I can get on board.

Who would be your pick at #9? If you trade down - then to what pick do you trade down to and what will be the compensation you will be looking for?

Marcus Davenport is my pick at 9.

We could trade down and probably still find him available.

I agree. Between Davenport and Landry, I'd pick Landry. But I'd be ok with either if we can't get Chubb. I really do think that last piece of the puzzle is a good pass rusher. I think it would be a good move to trade up to get Chubb if he's there but if they think they can trade down and still get Landry, that's also a good move in my opinion.

G...I get your thinking and agree about the last piece of the puzzle being Chubb. But it would mean giving up at least one of our top 4 picks , so it would mean Chubb was worth two starters. Would JL and Kyle do that?

That's assuming all of our top 4 picks are gonna be starters. Big assumption.

If we can get a bonafied starter on a cheap 5 yr rookie contract and have to give up a 3rd rounder - worth it. Elite rushers rarely come after round 1 so odds are against you. Elite rushers rarely come out during FA either.

Strike while you're in striking distance since we'll likely be drafting around 20 next season.

Merton remember we have two 3s so odds are if your HC and GM are decent(and they are), you should be getting starters in first 3 rds, but i agree it is no guarantee, and believe me, I would love to have Chubb. But here he is worth 2 starters. The "missing piece " is the operative word, and i agree with that. Still staying at #9 could still mean Chubb or Nelson, and we keep our top 4 picks in first 3 rds. I dont' have an answer, but am just thinking out loud. I'm torn between the two scenarios.
Actually we are missing starter CB, 2 LBs, and 2 OGs, and of course, the missing piece, EDGE. That is 6 guys. With 4 picks in first 3 rds, mmmhhhh....i'm Still torn because the missing piece is so hard to get . Easy to find, hard to get. Maybe you convinced me. Still IDK.
Originally posted by evil:
Originally posted by midrdan:
Originally posted by evil:
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
I can see Chubb being lynch/peters guy, and they've proven they ain't afraid to go get they're guy. So if four qb's and barkely are gone in the first five, I think we'll trade up to six and get him.

If he's our guy.

Why would Indy not take him for themselves? Fills a glaring need and this is a weak class for edge rushers and they just added in a couple second rounders this year so they have a good load of capital already.

Indy has glaring needs ... everywhere. If they loved him they would have stayed at 3. I think this trade this early on means Indy sees a few guys as fairly even on their draft board and sees Denver as picking QB. At 6 they figure they can get one of those players. Who knows? If they think they can still get one at 9 and pick up more picks, why wouldn't they trade down? If they loved Chubb and had him No. 1 on their board it's a hell of a gamble moving to 6 because Cleveland at 4 and Denver at 5 could trade out to a team that wants him.

Ballard said that going to 6 still allows them to get a premium player. Even if Chubb is gone, then one of Nelson or Barkley will be there. They cannot lose in this situation, and have 3 second round picks to continue to build a young core.

Indy likely has no interest in moving back further because the premium guys will be gone. It is wishful thinking that they will move off of 6 unless you are willing to overpay like the Jets just did.

Jets WAY WAY WAY overpaid. Look at the draft chart. To get that haul and still have a strong chance to get Chubb at 6 still is a no brainer, and if the Browns decided to take him their consolation prize is Barkley or Nelson. What a great position to be in.

They aren't moving from 6 unless someone way overpays again, and Shanalynch won't do that. Only way to land Chubb is to trade up to 5 with Denver who may think they can still grab Mayfield at 9 and risk another team jumping up to 7 or 8 for Mayfield.

I'd trade up with Denver if their demands are reasonable, and they very well might not be reasonable. I'd still make the phone call though to Elway and see what he wants for #5. I've said this earlier, but I'd give 59, 124, 223, and a 2019 3rd to move up to 5. If he bites do it. If not, we are still sitting pretty at 9 and will get a great player.

We have leverage there. We are not desperate to move up like the Jets just were. I'm not happy right now if Im a Jets fan. If Denver won't be reasonable they can just select Mayfield, Indy takes Chubb, and then we can see if Tampa is willing to be reasonable and trade down to 9 so we can grab Nelson in front of Chicago. If Tampa is unreasonable, they can select Barkley, Nelson, Minkah, or Davenport, Chicago selects Nelson, and we still have great options at 9 with Roquan and/or Fitzpatrick on the board.

If Minkah goes 4 though, we could have Barkley and Nelson available at 7.....right within our reach if we really want one of them.

Would Tampa be willing to deal with Chubb and Minkah off the board and needing defense? And if they were, are we trading up to 7 to take Barkley or Nelson....?????!!!!

How exciting would that be to see us trade to 7 with both on the board and having no idea who we will select...

If Tampa wanted Davenport or another defensive player they would know they could still get him at 9. The question becomes who does Chicago draft if we leaped them to get Nelson. Barkley or the best defensive player? Or trade down and try to pick up a boatload of picks to a team wanting Barkley.
[ Edited by Ezekiel38 on Mar 17, 2018 at 6:47 PM ]
Originally posted by braap49er:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:
Originally posted by braap49er:
Originally posted by jcs:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I don't get the Bradley Chubb love. I'd equate it to this- we still need help at guard and if Mike Iupati were coming out this year, drafting him at 9. Clearly a great run blocking guard at the time he was drafted, but doesn't fit what we are doing at all.

He's like a lesser Myles Garrett...and by that I mean by the smallest margin. Same size, almost same length coming out. Same 40 but Garrett is a slightly better athlete where Chubb was more consistent statistically. Chubb has probowl potential and prototypical Passhrusher stamped all over him.

Why is he a lesser if everything is the same, but chubbs is more consistent? Sounds like Chubbs > Garnett

Think he means Garrett is just more genetically superior.

But who's better??

There's no debate. Miles dominated the moment the stepped on the field. He's an animal. He's better than Chubb in every way and I really like Chubb. Miles was a slam dunk #1. Chubb is the best DE in a relatively weak class.

While I think Chubb will be a really nice pro and likely Pro Bowler, he doesn't have near the burst or athleticism that makes Miles so special. He's very good. But not that rare, freakish talent like Miles.
Chubb wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Honestly if I were a GM I would have Landry above Chubb but if he were there at 9 and we pick him I wouldn't be mad.
Search Share 49ersWebzone