This is a guy the Jaguars have shown interest in. Vereen has played corner and safety. Decent size at 6'0 200. Was first team all Big Ten.

 

He put up some eye popping numbers at the combine.

 

4.4 40 time, 25 reps on the bench. Also the best time for his position in the 3 cone and 20 yard shuttle.

 

I am not sure if he makes it the fourth round but if he does, he would be an intriguing prospect.

 

I am not as high on Josh Evans as some people are. While he showed some ability, he got burned way too often and unlike Cyprien, I didn't really see any improvement throughout the season. And I am not sure Winston Guy is anything more than well, just a guy.

 

Has NFL bloodlines too. Dad was a draftpick by the Bucs and his brother Shane plays for the Pats.

 

Also a distant cousin of Ben Vereen (unconfirmed).

 

His NFL Draft profile:

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/profiles/b...id=2543820

---

We do need a safety who can cover.  We don't have that atm.

---

We do need a safety who can cover.  We don't have that atm.

 

We need a Safety / CB who is a ball hawk. We don't have that at any of the DB positions. 

---

We need a Safety / CB who is a ball hawk. We don't have that at any of the DB positions.

Then a guy with 4 career interceptions probably isn't the guy for you.

---

We need a Safety / CB who is a ball hawk. We don't have that at any of the DB positions. 

 

why do we have to have one? every super bowl champion has a ball hawk?

 

edit: also you have a love affair with desir, that guys competition are worse than guys that play in my flag football league. while he has good measurables, speed, seemingly has ball skills... who knows if he is going to be able to cover NFL wide receivers. he seems like more of a zone guy, not good on the jam. doesnt seem like a fit for the jaguars defense. but how are you gonna draft a guy in the second round that spent his college years covering people that wont even sniff an nfl field?

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

why do we have to have one? every super bowl champion has a ball hawk?

 

Because it is long proven that teams that win the turnover battle usually win the game. 

 

We need to get defensive players in here that are good at creating turnovers. 

---

Because it is long proven that teams that win the turnover battle usually win the game. 

 

We need to get defensive players in here that are good at creating turnovers. 

 

the pass rush will help that. also i added more to the previous post. and id like you to show me the last 10 game changing ball hawks from the past 10 super bowl champs. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Ball hawks have a tendency to be one or two trick ponies. 

 

Give me a guy who has good size and speed, excellent coverage skills, and most importantly, a proficient tackler.  I want a guy who can not only cover, but tackle. 

 

It's really as important to have an effective pass rush as it is to have a CB or S who can create turnovers.  Most of the time, it's what happens at the line that generates the turnover. 

 

Being related to Ben Vereen, well, that's just gravy.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Because it is long proven that teams that win the turnover battle usually win the game. 

 

We need to get defensive players in here that are good at creating turnovers. 

 

Maybe take the guy that holds leads the NCAA in forced fumbles?

---

why do we have to have one? every super bowl champion has a ball hawk?

 

 

 

Earl Thomas (5) and Richard Sherman (8) count as ball hawks for Seattle.

 

Even though Ed Reed was basically finished, he was known as a ball hawk for Baltimore.

 

Corey Webster notched 6 INTs for the Giants in the 2011 season.

 

The Packers' secondary featured Tramon Williams, who notched 6 INTs their championship year.

 

Darren Sharper had 9 INTs for the Saints during their championship season in 2009.

 

The Steelers of 2008 boasted Troy Polamalu, who recorded 7 INTs.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Maybe take the guy that holds leads the NCAA in forced fumbles?

 

 

No, no, no.  Must be a ball hawk for the ball ONLY when it's in the air.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Earl Thomas (5) and Richard Sherman (8) count as ball hawks for Seattle.

 

Even though Ed Reed was basically finished, he was known as a ball hawk for Baltimore.

 

Corey Webster notched 6 INTs for the Giants in the 2011 season.

 

The Packers' secondary featured Tramon Williams, who notched 6 INTs their championship year.

 

Darren Sharper had 9 INTs for the Saints during their championship season in 2009.

 

The Steelers of 2008 boasted Troy Polamalu, who recorded 7 INTs.

 

ed reed did pretty much nothing that year. and im saying they need to be TMDs definition of ball hawks, not just a guy who had a good season because who is to say its not the pass rush, and someone like mack hurrying those throws?

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Reading his analysis, the guy doesn't sound like much of a tackler.  Haven't we suffered through enough sub-par tackling in the past?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Earl Thomas (5) and Richard Sherman (8) count as ball hawks for Seattle.

 

Even though Ed Reed was basically finished, he was known as a ball hawk for Baltimore.

 

Corey Webster notched 6 INTs for the Giants in the 2011 season.

 

The Packers' secondary featured Tramon Williams, who notched 6 INTs their championship year.

 

Darren Sharper had 9 INTs for the Saints during their championship season in 2009.

 

The Steelers of 2008 boasted Troy Polamalu, who recorded 7 INTs.

 

corey webster had 1 interception in college, according to TMD, he would never do better than that in the NFL. players dont change.

troy only had a max of 3 during a season. not a ball hawk....according to TMD. shouldnt draft him. 

richard sherman had 2 one season and 4 another, adding up to only 6 over his career. of course only having 6 interceptions in his entire college career there is no way that sherman would ever have something like maybe.... idk.... 8 interceptions in one season in the NFL. 

 

these guys just dont change, theyre not gonna get better. there is no hope for cyprien or gratz to ever create turnovers. we should be drafting desir with the third pick in the draft and not mack. does that all sound correct TMD?

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Earl Thomas (5) and Richard Sherman (8) count as ball hawks for Seattle.

 

Even though Ed Reed was basically finished, he was known as a ball hawk for Baltimore.

 

Corey Webster notched 6 INTs for the Giants in the 2011 season.

 

The Packers' secondary featured Tramon Williams, who notched 6 INTs their championship year.

 

Darren Sharper had 9 INTs for the Saints during their championship season in 2009.

 

The Steelers of 2008 boasted Troy Polamalu, who recorded 7 INTs.

 

And its not only evident in Championship teams, but simply very good playoff level teams as well. 

 

For him to imply/ insinuate as if having a DB that is a ball hawk is not needed, its just stupid. 

 

Winning the turnover battle is one of the time tested proven ways of winning football games. 

---

Maybe take the guy that holds leads the NCAA in forced fumbles?

 

After a trade down, say at 6? No problem. Forced fumbles are also very important to a defense. 

 

Actually the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Whats the matter with selecting Mack at 6 after a trade down and then selecting Pierre Desir in the 2nd or 3rd round to be the ball hawk we need??

---

After a trade down, say at 6? No problem. Forced fumbles are also very important to a defense. 

 

Actually the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Whats the matter with selecting Mack at 6 after a trade down and then selecting Pierre Desir in the 2nd or 3rd round to be the ball hawk we need??

 

Because there is a good chance he won't be there at 6.

---

Because there is a good chance he won't be there at 6.

 

Theres actually a pretty good chance Mack will be there at 6.....well, pending we don't select him at 3. 

 

Oakland & Cleveland will likely take QB. 

---

ed reed did pretty much nothing that year. and im saying they need to be TMDs definition of ball hawks, not just a guy who had a good season because who is to say its not the pass rush, and someone like mack hurrying those throws?

 

Ed Reed, despite being in decline, still registered 4 picks that year.

 

Of course the pass rush plays a factor.

 

But you still need guys with enough awareness to read the QBand the route combos, speed and quickness to cover the receivers, make breaks on the ball, track the ball and come up with the ball.

 

You still need guys who can force fumbles.

 

I'm not sure what the debate is here.  Perhaps whether the guy who is the subject of this thread is a ball hawk or not.

 

But good teams force turnovers.  That includes guys in the back seven.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Ed Reed, despite being in decline, still registered 4 picks that year.

 

Not only that, but at that point he still carried the ball hawk rep with him as well, so QB were still very leery to put one up in the air where he was. Thats an advantage for the defense. 

---