Should We have Gotten Nick Fairely?

by Civ216 on Jun 5, 2011 12:51 PM EDT

Why We Should Have Taken Nick Fairley Wiith the 10th Pick. When we were up on the board with the 10th pick of the 2011 draft we should have taken Nick Fairley. Now first before you say that we did better by trading down I support that argument because we did end up picking up a lot of draft picks. BUT Nick Fairley was rated by nfl.com a 8.5. That is higher than our 8.3 on Ryan Kerrigan. Nick Fairley at Auburn had 56 tackles and a monster 11.5 sacks. Now Auburn is in a tough competition in the SEC. Possibly the hardest competition in the NCAA. He also had an INT but nobody cares. This was his junior he did all this and his sophomore was shown that he was used limited with 28 tackles and only 1.5 sacks. I could compare Nick Fairley to Albert Haynesworth with his beastlyness. No before y’all go crazy on me Albert before being a little prick to everyone had 8.5 sacks IN THE NFL. He was regarded as the top DT in the nation at one point of time. Now Nick Fairley was used in a 4-3 defense which we do not run. But he could have gone to DE and still boss. When I was watching the draft and our pick was up I was just thinking "Let Dan Synder pay a couple of guys to take Orakpo’s and Fairley’s girlfriends and let those two on the field. We don’t need anyone else." This guy is a beast who was regarded at one point, better than Dareus Marcell and a first pick overall. This was literally a god-send to us. The only thing nfl.com and nationalfootballpost.com said was lacking with him was his maturity. He seemed to be not taking things seriously. Now we did have a player who had those same qualities back in last year’s draft. Yes I am talking to you "Trench" Williams. But we did not take Nick Fairley which could have proved to be monstrous for us and absolutely destroy the North East division. For now we can only hope that if we do have a lockout during the season it lasts until RIGHT after the lions game. I am deathly scared to see Suh and Fairley lined up right at our questionable interior line.

Poll

Should We Have Gotten Fairley?

Yes

13 votes

No

110 votes

123 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I award you no points

and may God have mercy on your soul

by DoWork on Jun 5, 2011 1:46 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 12 recs

rec'd

Editor at Hogs Haven - Redskins Blog
Twitter: @RVAparks Check it out for the latest Redskins news and opinions

by Parks Smith on Jun 5, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

yes, easy rec.

@Diesel__44 on the twitter machine.

by Diesel44 on Jun 6, 2011 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ&feature=related

by KonartistNupe on Jun 7, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't have any regrets about passing on Fairley

I think they could have taken Gabbert – great value at 10, but it was a close call – I can’t blame them for trading down. Remember, they probably thought they’d be able to get Ponder at 16. And they may have liked Kerrigan better than Fairley, anyway. You also could argue that they got Kerrigan and, say, Hankerson instead of Fairley – not too bad.

by Donnio1234 on Jun 5, 2011 2:57 PM EDT reply actions

Thing is,

Would you rather have gotten
Fairley (who fits 4-3 DT)

Kerrigan, (who can play OLB well) Jenkins (who will support our LB corps, wherever he plays), Hankerson, (who could be a great WR and a steal) Helu Jr. (who Shanny lovse), and even more picks!

by Andrew DeFrank on Jun 5, 2011 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I agree with the overall point (though Jenkins was drafted with our original selection)

Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com

by Steve Shoup on Jun 7, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions

You could make a case for picking Gabbert at 10

not Fairley. He will probably be a beast in Detroit, playing his natural position of DT in a 4-3 but IMHO we did just fine with Kerrigan & the extra players we picked up by moving back.

by ENsDad27 on Jun 5, 2011 10:30 PM EDT reply actions

Thing is

@ Andrew
We could have traded down our 2nd round severely to a team with a 28- around place like patriots. I dunno who would have traded but most say right after the draft, we DID take jenkins quite early but Fairley would replace him as he is a boss. Hankerson could have been taken with second round or traded down to the third round crap.

Fasten the bayonets in case we need 'em

by Civ216 on Jun 6, 2011 10:10 AM EDT reply actions

Who wouldn't want a lazy, overrated prospect who had one good year?

Fairley would replace him as he is a boss.

There is a reason Fairley’s draft stock plummeted throughout the course of the process.

Editor at Hogs Haven - Redskins Blog
Twitter: @RVAparks Check it out for the latest Redskins news and opinions

by Parks Smith on Jun 6, 2011 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Fairley didn't plummet far, did he?

We ended up with three picks in the first three rounds, and got three pretty good players. Not too bad, although I wish they had gotten a QB. I don’t complain on QB because we just got aced out. Assuming they wanted Locker and Ponder a lot, and Kaepernick or Dalton only in a lower round, then the worst came to worst – Locker was gone at 10, Ponder was gone at 16 (a big surprise, I think), and Kaepernick and Dalton were gone at 41. And they didn’t want Mallet at any price. So we were screwed, stuck with Rex and Beck. I would have taken Gabbert at 10, but that’s just me – it was a close call, and Shanahan’s choice might prove to be brilliant.

by Donnio1234 on Jun 6, 2011 11:37 AM EDT reply actions

I think when you're project as the #1, #2 pick in January and you end up at 13 that that's a pretty severe drop.

Not as bad as Bowers, but still pretty bad. Fairley is in a good spot to develop now, but I think we made the right move by passing on him.

Editor at Hogs Haven - Redskins Blog
Twitter: @RVAparks Check it out for the latest Redskins news and opinions

by Parks Smith on Jun 6, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions

yes, I;d forgotten that he dropped to 13 - that was a big drop from most of the mock drafts

Is Fairley the one who was talking so big about his abilities, what a beast he was, etc?

by Donnio1234 on Jun 6, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Only if we switched back to a 4-3 would this make sense

by Jim America on Jun 6, 2011 11:51 AM EDT reply actions

And only if we were trying to replace Haynesworth (not the the player) but his...

@Diesel__44 on the twitter machine.

by Diesel44 on Jun 6, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Hell no.

I’d rather have Kerry/Jenkins/Hank/Helu than Fairley/Hank. Fairley was a 1 hit wonder and would look terrible in the pros if he was drafted by any team other than the lions.

by TheDeepBall on Jun 6, 2011 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Our trade down worked too perfectly

I think Fairley still will be a good NFL player, but not the top DT in the draft and I think Jenkins will be a long time starter at DE and will contribute and do his job well. The 3-4 defense doesn’t need beasts at DL, it needs the guys who can hold blocks. Jenkins did that for Bowers. Fairley is a lighter guy, and is a 1vs1 superstar, not a double team guy.

by BigOLinemen on Jun 6, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions

it was a great pick for the Lions though.

by MagicHat on Jun 6, 2011 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Fairley doesn't really fit our scheme

He is more of a penertator, with that really quick first step. He was a disruptive force in college as a 3 tech. He would not be as effective if he was asked to play a gap-control and absorb blockers so the LB’s can run free.

I got Tiger Blood running through my veins!

by Tiller56 on Jun 7, 2011 7:20 PM EDT reply actions

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

@Diesel__44 on the twitter machine.

by Diesel44 on Jun 7, 2011 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions

it's not

by MagicHat on Jun 7, 2011 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I assume

it’s because the casual fan doesn’t know the difference between 3 and 5 tech

I got Tiger Blood running through my veins!

by Tiller56 on Jun 7, 2011 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah it's no knock on Fairley but he's just not a fit. Much like Marvin Austin in the 2nd.

Regardless of the red flags for both

@Diesel__44 on the twitter machine.

by Diesel44 on Jun 7, 2011 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand

Still think we should have gotten Marvin in the 2nd, especially if Jenkins is only being brought in to play DE. Would eat up 2 blockers a snap and is relentless both against the pass and the rush. Never gives up on a play, he’s the fast fat guy you see running down the field after the RB and catches him.

I’m terrified he’s on the giants

"You're fucking out!"

by travisjh86 on Jun 8, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions

I like how the argument starts off

Nick Fairley was rated by nfl.com a 8.5. That is higher than our 8.3 on Ryan Kerrigan.

The team has its own board and ratings, I doubt they care about what the NFL.com experts say about draft ratings.

by Nobetterthenbob on Jun 8, 2011 1:11 AM EDT reply actions

Great point

and I think most teams give a shit less about NFL.com/ESPN rankings. Those rankings are more for us to get into debates over.

I got Tiger Blood running through my veins!

by Tiller56 on Jun 8, 2011 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I could compare Nick Fairley to Albert Haynesworth with his beastlyness. No before y’all go crazy on me Albert before being a little prick to everyone

You should compare the two because they’re cut from the same cloth. We’ve already got one fat asshole why do we need his twin? Fairly has the same nasty unsportsmanlike streak that Fatso has.

by DudleyDoright on Jun 8, 2011 8:35 AM EDT reply actions

Happy with our trade down and just about all our selections.

This, added to the fact he’s a 4-3 DT makes the ’Skins correct to trade down and take Kerrigan et al.

I think Fairley will be excellent alongside Suh in Detroit though. Wonder how many sacks van den Bosch will get from DE with those guys collapsing the middle?

by Stephen Beagrie on Jun 11, 2011 12:52 PM EDT reply actions