Let's Debate: Draft History, OL

[gorebd82]

I don't see Bruce Campbell getting past the 1st round. He has had some injury concerns but he is just too athletic and has too much upside. I would guess that, barring a poor combine or individual workouts, he is a mid 1st guy. Charles Brown is an interesting prospect. Athletic and a pretty good finesse player but is light (6'5, 285 I think) and, from what I've read, isn't very powerful so has a hard time dealing with bull rushes in pass pro and getting to the 2nd level in run blocking. If he put on some muscle mass and worked on his strength but kept his finesse qualities he could end up being excellent. I could possibly see him going high 2nd round.

All the tackle prospects seem to be dropping. After some poor showings at the Senior Bowl, there don't seem to be many gems at tackle. The opinions about Okung and Trent Williams also seem to be in decline as the film seems to say that they didn't live up to the hype. Those juniors and Charles Brown have the most room to move up, but if Okung and Trent Williams slip, the others may get pushed down. Should be interesting. I've said all along that I see there being a run on DL causing OL to fall. Similar to the 2008 run on OL that caused WR to slip.

Point being that someone will be there in the second that should start at OT for us. I doubt that Okung, Davis, Bulaga, Williams, Campbell and Brown all go in the 1st round. This draft is too strong. If they all do go in the 1st, then that means that Iupati is probably still on the board. If they're all gone, then screw offensive line because their is a dominant defender on the board.

Here's ESPN's latest draft blog that discusses Okung and Williams.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4886319&name=nfl_draft

[cjrugger]

Youre really beating a dead horse here dude.

I think I'm right in assuming everyone would love to draft the next Peyton Manning this year. The problem is, and I think a lot of people agree with me, Clausen and Bradford are not in that type of class. And please don't post youtube videos for me to watch. I've watched these guys play the last 3/4 years. If you think they are then we'll agree to disagree

So either you 1) draft a qb just to draft one, or 2)you take a very good player at a position you have a gigantic hole at. I'd like #2 please

[gorebd82]

Why again are you saying that we shouldn't draft an OL with the 4th pick?

Because there's no one worth that pick at OT. There's talk that Okung could even potentially slip to the later part of round 1 if he doesn't put on strong showings in the next couple of months. See the link I posted above

[HailfrmDEN]

If Levi is re-signed soon. Then maybe. I dont see in bradfrod and clausen what you guys see. If these guys are to top be 10 nfl qbs then great, but we dont know that. What i see is bradford is like pennington and clausen is like ramsey. Once each one of them take a hit its over. If we take a qb campbell probley wont be here and the rookie will be playing. We have something like the smallest ol in the league. This is the one position we havent drafted early for in almost ten years. We do get cap hits for cuting the players we dont wont. We dont have alot of space to go for free agents. I mean for the long run not just next year if it is uncapped or not.

[cjrugger]

Because there's no one worth that pick at OT. There's talk that Okung could even potentially slip to the later part of round 1 if he doesn't put on strong showings in the next couple of months. See the link I posted above

Well I have a hard time taking that article seriously. One of their concerns with Okung is that he's 6'8 and thus not flexible enough.

Great, except well, he's 6'5

[gorebd82]

Well I have a hard time taking that article seriously. One of their concerns with Okung is that he's 6'8 and thus not flexible enough.

Great, except well, he's 6'5

Well, that would be an even bigger concern if he's only 6'5" and is showing up stiff. I've seen him listed at 6'5", 6'6", and 6'8". Like most prospects, we won't really know until the combine.

[Looking For Number Four]

No offense but saying that both of those guys with "likely" be top 10 QBs in the NFL is a bit wishful thinking isn't it? Seeing as how neither has taken an NFL snap and both have some pretty decent size question marks. As far as an RB in the 4th I would be more inclined toward Blount, myself. I think he has raised his stock into the mid rounds after his Senior Bowl performance and practices.

Most guys, fresh out of college, need to add a little weight but other than that they both have perfect frames. Brady was a beanpole and is still not in the Rivers or Peyton realm. Why I think they are both going to eventually become top 10 QBs, if they are not drafted by OAK, is that they are REALLY intelligent and accurate with quick releases and the ability to make quick decisions without making too many mistakes. Could be wrong though, certainly.

Blount is a punk, IMO, who was the heart of one of the most embarrassing and unforgettable nightmares who I hope never comes near this team, talent or not. He also does not have electric speed, exceptional hands, and would not work well returning kicks.

No excuse:

[Looking For Number Four]

Youre really beating a dead horse here dude.

I think I'm right in assuming everyone would love to draft the next Peyton Manning this year. The problem is, and I think a lot of people agree with me, Clausen and Bradford are not in that type of class. And please don't post youtube videos for me to watch. I've watched these guys play the last 3/4 years. If you think they are then we'll agree to disagree

So either you 1) draft a qb just to draft one, or 2)you take a very good player at a position you have a gigantic hole at. I'd like #2 please

Sorry, did not know we were going to have someone who is utterly enlightened and seen all the relevant tape to grace our presence.

There is no reason to think either of them could not be Rivers, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and so on. The problem with taking your option #2 is that if we do not being to develop another QB then we are either sticking with Campbell or remaining at least one year away. I'm sure you already know this but, Peyton's one of the very few rookie QBs to start his rookie season and amasses a TD/INT ratio of 28/28. They take at least one year. Best hope is to have them be a playmaker and lean on the rest of the team. Which we could very well do with gamebreakers like Moss, Cooley, Davis, and potentially Thomas and Kelly. Along with a defense that might be just starting to scratch the surface.

[darrelgreenie]

Because there's no one worth that pick at OT. There's talk that Okung could even potentially slip to the later part of round 1 if he doesn't put on strong showings in the next couple of months. See the link I posted above

There is always gonna be opinions on both sides.

McShay thinks there are 2 OT worthy of the 4th pick.

http://www.stationcaster.com/player.php?s=65&c=428&f=42583

[mistertim]

Most guys, fresh out of college, need to add a little weight but other than that they both have perfect frames. Brady was a beanpole and is still not in the Rivers or Peyton realm. Why I think they are both going to eventually become top 10 QBs, if they are not drafted by OAK, is that they are REALLY intelligent and accurate with quick releases and the ability to make quick decisions without making too many mistakes. Could be wrong though, certainly.

Blount is a punk, IMO, who was the heart of one of the most embarrassing and unforgettable nightmares who I hope never comes near this team, talent or not. He also does not have electric speed, exceptional hands, and would not work well returning kicks.

No excuse:

While I'm sure they are both intelligent, Bradford didn't really have to do much reading of the defense at the LOS. Most things were called in to him from the box and then the sidelines. That is a pretty big knock, IMO. Especially if you're even thinking about comparing him (or hoping him to be) a guy like Manning who, even in college, practically made his living dissecting defenses from the LOS. If I HAD to choose between them I'd take Clausen. No injured shoulder, played in a pro style offense where he had to make reads from the LOS and, from what I have seen when I've watched him play, has more zip on his arm and is better at fitting the ball into tight spaces.

As far as Blount goes, no he isn't a 5'9 change of space speedster, but the guy is extremely agile and quick for his size (6'1 245). We'll just have to disagree about how serious that situation was. I'm not saying it was ok. But he has since talked about it and how he let an emotional loss get the better of him and made a very stupid mistake. IMO, without that incident he would be an easy 2nd rounder. Getting him in the 4th would be a steal.

[WALEOVECHKIN]

Gallery isn't a bust. He started terribly but converted to LG and has been an animal. He's allowed like 3.75 sacks in the last 38 games hes played

[mistertim]

There is no reason to think either of them could not be Rivers, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and so on.

And there is no reason to think either of them could not easily be a Carr, Alex Smith, Cade McNown, etc. IMO Bradford has a lot more in common with Alex Smith than he does with Peyton Manning. An interesting article from WalterFootball about possible reasons for college QBs becoming busts in the NFL:

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackbusts.php

[darrelgreenie]

There is no reason to think either of them could not be Rivers, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and so on.

I gotta disagree with you here, there are a bunch of reasons why Claussen or Bradford would not become one of the best QBs in the league.

This is not a strong QB class; i think we can all agree that Ryan, Flacco, Stafford and Sanchez were all considered better prospects then Claussen and Bradford.

I think you underestimate how long the odds are that a QB reaches elite status. Right now we don't even know if Ryan, Flacco, Stafford and Sanchez will ever reach that level. (Some 'fans' in Baltimore already want Troy Smith to start)

Imo judging by situation vs production Jason has just a good a chance to become an upper echelon QB as any of those QBs i mentioned.

The problem with taking your option #2 is that if we do not being to develop another QB then we are either sticking with Campbell or remaining at least one year away.

Mike/Kyle will probably bring in a journeyman QB that knows his system.

Colt might have a chance to become the developmental QB for the Shanahans.

And we could still draft a QB after the 1st round.

[gorebd82]

There is always gonna be opinions on both sides.

McShay thinks there are 2 OT worthy of the 4th pick.

http://www.stationcaster.com/player.php?s=65&c=428&f=42583

That's amazing to me. Both the Todd McShay interview and that article are coming from Scouts Inc. on the exact same day. That's suspect.

I gotta say that McShay is losing a lot of credibility with me. Even in that interview, he says a lot of questionable things. He says a lot of conflicting things.

First of all, he lost me when he said that he wouldn't draft anything other than QB, LT, CB or pass rusher in the top ten. That's a ridiculous statement. His philosophy is obviously one where he doesn't mind reaching for some positions that he feels are important, but not for others. How can he possibly say that there are 4 OTs he would take over Bradford? That's insanity. He'd take a guy he called a mid-first in Trent Williams over the top rated QB.

Also, he says some crazy things about QBs. He's the only expert I've seen that says Clausen should be in the 20s. His biggest knock on Bradford is basically where he went to school. More and more of college football is going to the spread so does that mean that you should only draft QBs from certain schools and disregard the other talent around the nation?

But then, after all of that, he goes and hypes up Locker. What??? Locker is talented, but he's more of a physical marvel than a proven passer. His completion percentage is terribly low. Locker went from a role as a predominantly running QB to the WCO in one season under Sarkisian and now all of a sudden he's the best QB ever. What makes him think that a season studying under Mike and Kyle Shanahan wouldn't have Bradford even more prepared to run a WCO?

Like I said, McShay doesn't even make sense because he's constantly contradicting himself. His analysis is way different from what the most respected experts are saying about this class. He's the only expert I've heard say that Bulaga is a top ten guy. He's telling us to draft Okung #4 even if he thinks he's not a lock to play LT. And then he's directly contradicting the analysis that came out on the same day from his own organization, Scouts Inc. I think he works off a lot of personal biases and every year, I've seen his evaluations change dramatically as the draft nears and ends up looking more and more like Kiper's. He put out his mock draft in December before juniors even declared.

I don't like to call experts a joke and he's said some insightful things in the past, but after this interview, I'm starting to feel like he's a joke.

[gorebd82]

I gotta disagree with you here, there are a bunch of reasons why Claussen or Bradford would not become one of the best QBs in the league.

This is not a strong QB class; i think we can all agree that Ryan, Flacco, Stafford and Sanchez were all considered better prospects then Claussen and Bradford.

Just because this QB class is considered weak doesn't mean that there's not strong prospects available. This OT class is weak, but there are a few good prospects. The 2008 QB class was weak but still produced Ryan and Flacco. I'm actually more leery of strong QB classes because normally that means that there are some busts who are overhyped. Look at 2003 when there were 4 QBs in the first round (Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, Grossman).

As for how Bradford is considered as a prospect, he was considered to be the top prospect if he had come out last year. This is before the juniors declared. That means he was more highly regarded than Stafford, Sanchez, Suh or McCoy because all of them were considered to possibly come out. All that changed is that he hurt his shoulder and that has been repaired. He will probably sit on the bench as a rookie anyway and that will provide plenty of time for further healing.

[mistertim]

As for how Bradford is considered as a prospect, he was considered to be the top prospect if he had come out last year. This is before the juniors declared. That means he was more highly regarded than Stafford, Sanchez, Suh or McCoy because all of them were considered to possibly come out. All that changed is that he hurt his shoulder and that has been repaired. He will probably sit on the bench as a rookie anyway and that will provide plenty of time for further healing.

He was considered to be a top prospect well before the draft even rolled around and he said he was going back to school. If it had gotten this far he would have faced much of the same scrutiny for the system he played in, if his stats were inflated because of it, how he didn't have to do much reading of defenses at the LOS, etc. IMO he would quite possibly have eventually dropped past Stafford and Sanchez. Both of those guys put up good stats and did it against MUCH tougher defenses in pro style offensive systems. The bad taste from the Alex Smith debacle would have, IMO, probably left some teams just a bit too leery of drafting a guy from a spread system that high.

[darrelgreenie]

There is always gonna be opinions on both sides.

McShay thinks there are 2 OT worthy of the 4th pick.

That's amazing to me. Both the Todd McShay interview and that article are coming from Scouts Inc. on the exact same day. That's suspect...........I gotta say that McShay is losing a lot of credibility with me. Even in that interview, he says a lot of questionable things. He says a lot of conflicting things.............I don't like to call experts a joke and he's said some insightful things in the past, but after this interview, I'm starting to feel like he's a joke.

LoL, there is always gonna be opinions both ways but apparently when you disagree with an opinion you rip the author

HTTR!

BTW-Imo, Mayock gives most reasonable draft info

[gorebd82]

He was considered to be a top prospect well before the draft even rolled around and he said he was going back to school. If it had gotten this far he would have faced much of the same scrutiny for the system he played in, if his stats were inflated because of it, how he didn't have to do much reading of defenses at the LOS, etc. IMO he would quite possibly have eventually dropped past Stafford and Sanchez. Both of those guys put up good stats and did it against MUCH tougher defenses in pro style offensive systems. The bad taste from the Alex Smith debacle would have, IMO, probably left some teams just a bit too leery of drafting a guy from a spread system that high.

Well, now you're talking "what ifs". The point made was that he wasn't as highly regarded. Also, you mention the Alex Smith debacle, but last year's draft was after Joe Flacco came from a spread to lead the Ravens to the AFC championship game. As many have said, Brees, Roethlisberger, and Rivers all came from the spread. Kevin Kolb came from the spread to run the WCO and showed well in games. If these guys can do it, why can't Bradford?

For every guy from the spread that failed, I can name a guy from a pro-style that failed. JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, Kyle Boller, and Jason Campbell. That's just 2003-2007. We'll see what happens with the 08 and 09 prospects.

[gorebd82]

LoL, there is always gonna be opinions both ways but apparently when you disagree with an opinion you rip the author

HTTR!

BTW-Imo, Mayock gives most reasonable draft info

No, this is actually probably the first time I've ripped an expert. I actually take what all of them say into account and don't follow anyone in particular. Don't ask me to quote any of them, but I take multiple opinions into account and look for consistent points that are made.

I'm just ripping McShay right now because that interview was really ridiculous in terms of his contradictions of himself and his own crew, Scouts Inc.

[darrelgreenie]

No, this is actually probably the first time I've ripped an expert. I actually take what all of them say into account and don't follow anyone in particular. Don't ask me to quote any of them, but I take multiple opinions into account and look for consistent points that are made.

I'm just ripping McShay right now because that interview was really ridiculous in terms of his contradictions of himself and his own crew, Scouts Inc.

Nah dude, whatever floats your boat, i just found your post amusing.

A dissenting opinion was presented and you proceded to rip it.

[cjrugger]

Sorry, did not know we were going to have someone who is utterly enlightened and seen all the relevant tape to grace our presence.

There is no reason to think either of them could not be Rivers, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and so on. The problem with taking your option #2 is that if we do not being to develop another QB then we are either sticking with Campbell or remaining at least one year away. I'm sure you already know this but, Peyton's one of the very few rookie QBs to start his rookie season and amasses a TD/INT ratio of 28/28. They take at least one year. Best hope is to have them be a playmaker and lean on the rest of the team. Which we could very well do with gamebreakers like Moss, Cooley, Davis, and potentially Thomas and Kelly. Along with a defense that might be just starting to scratch the surface.

I didn't say I was enlightened. I said I've made my mind up about the two players after watching them play week in and week out for 3/4 years and didn't want a bunch of youtube highlight reels to try and change my mind

And there is plenty of reason to think they can't be any of those guys. Arm strength, mobility, leadership and injury history are all question marks one (or both) of them have. Prospects, imho, are guilty until proven innocent

[cjrugger]

That's amazing to me. Both the Todd McShay interview and that article are coming from Scouts Inc. on the exact same day. That's suspect

Its called Scouts Inc, not Todd McShay Inc. He just works for them

You think every reporter for the NY Times or Wash Post agrees with every article printed by the newspaper? You think every editor agrees with every story that gets published?

[gorebd82]

Nah dude, whatever floats your boat, i just found your post amusing.

A dissenting opinion was presented and you proceded to rip it.

However you want to interpret it. I read McShay plenty and take what he says into account. Most readers here swear by one expert or another, I don't. I've been in plenty of these draft discussions and have taken in many different perspectives from other ES members and recommended draft analysts.

My point here is that based on that interview, McShay looks like a joke. When you contradict your own reasoning, I can't take you seriously. Sorry.

[mistertim]

Well, now you're talking "what ifs". The point made was that he wasn't as highly regarded. Also, you mention the Alex Smith debacle, but last year's draft was after Joe Flacco came from a spread to lead the Ravens to the AFC championship game. As many have said, Brees, Roethlisberger, and Rivers all came from the spread. Kevin Kolb came from the spread to run the WCO and showed well in games. If these guys can do it, why can't Bradford?

For every guy from the spread that failed, I can name a guy from a pro-style that failed. JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, Kyle Boller, and Jason Campbell. That's just 2003-2007. We'll see what happens with the 08 and 09 prospects.

I would debate the idea that Flacco "led" the Ravens to the playoffs. He played better than most probably thought he would but he also wasn't asked to do that much besides not make too many mistakes. He was surrounded by a good cast and had a dominant defense. He was also a mid 1st round pick, not a top 5.

Brees came from the spread but was also taken in the 2nd round. Also, he took at least a couple of years to really get acclimated to the NFL game. Big Ben came from a small school and went to a team where he didn't have to do much besides not be completely godawful in order for them to win. Obviously he has progressed since then but if he had been on almost any other team in the beginning it would have possibly been a disaster. Rivers came from more of a spread offense but he also hadn't been injured like Bradford and had started in 51 college games before the draft. Still, even with all the accolades there were scouts skeptical about him which is one reason the Chargers wanted to go with Manning. Rivers ended up going to the Chargers and a very good situation with a team that was ready to sit him and build a high quality supporting cast around him before handing him the reigns.

So yeah, for every one of those guys who came from a spread system there are plenty of others who put up gaudy stats but either had too many questions and got drafted low or just ended up being busts. A guy like Brees, for example, is the exception to the rule. And it still took him some time to get used to the NFL.

If we draft Bradford, don't be surprised if he takes at least a couple years to truly be ready to play in the NFL. Especially considering the very poor supporting cast we have now.

[gorebd82]

If we draft Bradford, don't be surprised if he takes at least a couple years to truly be ready to play in the NFL. Especially considering the very poor supporting cast we have now.

That's fine. I think he deserves time. Look, JC has had 5 years. My point is that the debate about the spread hindering QBs is becoming less valid as time is going along because the spread is becoming more common and scouts know that falling for college numbers is short-sighted.