Jamal Adams - #3 overall?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:08 pm

He's flying up boards, and with Hooker taking a hit due to his surgeries, I wonder more and more if Adams is worth being an elite pick in this year's draft.

Here's some amazing analysis of his game.

[video][/video]

mmmc_35 · Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:51 pm

I have only loosely looked at the safeties so far. He is very good, and is Hooker. I like Hooker more right now.

I personally don't prescribe to the positional draft value as some like Wab. If your getting a guy who is a all pro caliber player, especially at a position of need, draft positron means little to me.

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:01 pm

I like Hooker more than Adams but considering Pace drafted White (legless glassman) and Floyd (undersized), drafting a guy who's already injured before he's played an NFL game is risky as hell. TOO risky with that third overall pick.

alexwilkins · Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Adams has the experience you want. He's played Alabama 3 times. He's a proven leader, and he's genuine. What you see is what you get. Unless he takes a "Tunsel" hit, and something happens draft DAY. The old "safeties don't go high" adage is the only thing I see from him going #1.

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:32 pm

I think, if the need at QB wasn't so great right now, and there wasn't so much pressure (that he put on himself) to fix the QB position, I'd consider Adams at 3. As it is, the Bears have no QB, and about 9 strong safeties. The case could be made that Adams could play FS with no problem, but it's also a deep class at defensive back.

That just all adds up to QB at #3 for me. Which means they'll take Solomon Thomas.

BamaBear09 · Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:45 pm

UOK wrote:He's flying up boards, and with Hooker taking a hit due to his surgeries, I wonder more and more if Adams is worth being an elite pick in this year's draft.

Here's some amazing analysis of his game.

[video][/video]

I love Kollmann's breakdowns, he did a really good one on Pernell McPhee last year.

Adipost · Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:34 pm

https://mobile.twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/834788419427586048

IotaNet · Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:15 pm

This is a repost of something I said in a different thread. Adams has turned into "my guy" in this draft.

I absolutely, positively LOVE this kid. I would have no problem taking him at #3. Smart, hard-hitting, tone-setter and a natural leader. From a great family including an NFL dad. Yeah, sign me up for the Jamal Adams bandwagon -- I'm all in!

Check out these draft profiles:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/ ... id=2557979" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/11/30/nfl- ... nn-mathieu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://lastwordonprofootball.com/2017/0 ... t-profile/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G08 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:59 am

I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.

BamaBear09 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:05 pm

G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.

Jake Delhomme...

Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:59 pm

G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.

Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.

G08 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:03 pm

wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.

I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.

Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:06 pm

G08 wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.
I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.

Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.

Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:07 pm

wab wrote:
G08 wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.
I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.
Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.

Honestly? I think the Bears organization would be absolutely content with a decade plus of 9-7.

Rusty Trombagent · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:08 pm

UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.
I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.
Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.
Honestly? I think the Bears organization would be absolutely content with a decade plus of 9-7.

G08 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:09 pm

wab wrote:
G08 wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.
I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.
Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.

That's the John Fox special my man... have an 8-8 template as your base, get a few lucky bounces and you're 11-5, if it goes the other way you're 7-9.

G08 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:09 pm

RustyTrombone wrote:
UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.
I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.
Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.
Honestly? I think the Bears organization would be absolutely content with a decade plus of 9-7.

Please tell me you're a Dan Harmon fan

Rusty Trombagent · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:10 pm

i worship at the altar

Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:10 pm

UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:
wab wrote:
G08 wrote:I am starting to think we got defense at #3 and see what QB falls. I don't like it but with Fox around here, I think QB play is going to be marginalized.
Yeah. Adams at #3, whatever WR is there in R2, and Peterman in the 3rd. FML.
I feel like our template is the Ravens... just get a QB that doesn't fuck it up (Flacco) and rely on a strong defense and run game to win.
Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.
Honestly? I think the Bears organization would be absolutely content with a decade plus of 9-7.

You are absolutely right. It's consistently good enough to keep fans hopes up every year, and not really bad enough to be in the public eye.

So yeah... basically the Ravens.

G08 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:15 pm

RustyTrombone wrote:i worship at the altar

Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:19 pm

Can Adams play FS? Because the Bears already have about 9 strong safeties. It also says that the last 3 picks at safety were pretty much a waste. So that's fun.

Middleguard · Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:05 pm

wab wrote:Yay! Let's be 9-7 for three years.

Don't knock it! In the last 10 years, 25 teams have been 9-7. 16 of them (or worse) made the playoffs. If the Bears could finish 9-7 every year, they could expect to be in the playoffs nearly 2 out of every 3 years (64%). That's a whole lot better than what we're used to.

mmmc_35 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:35 pm

wab wrote:Can Adams play FS? Because the Bears already have about 9 strong safeties. It also says that the last 3 picks at safety were pretty much a waste. So that's fun.

Yes he can play FS. Amos and Adams would make the positions very inter changeable.

Plus the Bears may have 100 strong safeties but if they are bad you don't really have any.

mshu7 · Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:01 am

From Matt Bowen (former NFL safety) from ESPN:

Watched tape of LSU safety Jamal Adams -- Love the way he plays the game. Natural instincts on the field. High football IQ. Tough. And he leads by example. Adams plays much faster than his stopwatch speed (4.56 40-yard dash). I see very little wasted movement with his footwork too. That shows up in his run reads. Quick downhill to close the distance to the ball carrier. And he finishes tackles. Adams also has the technique and coverage ability to match up to the slot. The skill set is there to play multiple roles in defensive sub-packages at the NFL level. If Adams can post a 40 time at his Pro Day in the low 4.5 range, I think he has the talent to come off the board in the Top 5 of the draft. He's the type of impact safety that coaches want in the secondary.

Matt Bowen, ESPN Staff Writer

staleystarch · Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:56 pm

I'd prefer the Bears take a shot at Hooker

G08 · Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:15 pm

If Thomas isn't there... I'm starting to think Adams makes a lot of sense. Draft a brute somewhere in rounds 3-5 to play 5T and let Bullard play 3T in sub packages.

You can go Adams at #3 and take a stud corner at #36 and you've completely overhauled your secondary.

mshu7 · Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:26 pm

For those that are in the Hooker corner, I just don't think Pace can take a chance on a guy coming off 2 surgeries, especially with only 1 year of experience. With White's situation and now Flloyd having a couple concussions, i think Pace would get raked over the coals for using another 1st round pick on an "injured" player, especially at 3.

I'm not questioning Hooker's talent, but there are a couple big red flgs on him. Lack of experience and injuries that have required surgery.

mshu7 · Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:38 pm

Someone on Twitter asked Matt Bowen who would be a better fit for the Bears. His answer:

Adams. More impact on Day 1. More versatility to move around in nickel/dime.

Mikefive · Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:13 pm

The argument between Adams and Hooker is interesting. As a general rule, I personally prefer the centerfield playmaker FS as there seem to be fewer of them than the guy like Adams, who is at his best as a SS who plays in the box more.

But I like the Adams package better than Hooker's. And I do really like Hooker who I think has the higher ceiling. If he gets the mental aspect of the game down, he could be a hall of famer with his toolbox, and he's already shown dynamic playmaking ability. But he's an unfinished product with an injury, although that's only a minor concern. From what I read, Adams is not as fast as Hooker, thus a lower ceiling, but he still is a solid, starter from day one, natural leader and enforcer with the potential to be a perennial pro bowler. I'll take that.

Adipost · Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:41 pm

Hooker all the way.