2011 Comprehensive NFL Draft Database

[theboomking]

Just thought I'd add some extra framework as we look at the draft this year. I know a lot of us, myself included, liked Tate and Hardesty last year. Both have been injured again this preseason, and Hardesty's injury is his ACL. Per PFT:

Initial diagnosis for Browns back Montario Hardesty isn't good

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on September 3, 2010 11:27 AM ET

The Browns draft Montario Hardesty because they loved his smarts and his skills. But they also knew he was only available late in the second round because of his injury history.

On Thursday night, that history caught up to him in heartbreaking fashion.

The initial diagnosis following Hardesty's injury is that the impressive rookie suffered a torn ACL, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter. Further tests will be taken today to confirm the news.

Hardesty was expected to lead the Browns backfield, but this is one position the team has sufficient depth. Jerome Harrison is a quality option, and Peyton Hillis will probably play more tailback now. James Davis also looked impressive on Thursday night.

As if Malcolm Kelly wasn't enough of a reminder, this reinforces my hope that we can steer clear of guys with significant history of knee or lower extremity injuries this year, at least in the first 2 rounds.

[theboomking]

Hey guys/gals. Any recommendations on which games/prospects you think would be best to watch today?

[Uno Mas]

Did anyone watch the Arizona/Toledo game last night? They have a receiver, Juron Criner, that looked really good. He's a junior, 6'4", 210 with amazing hands. He's never really stood out before last night but he looked great. I think he had 11 grabs for 180ish yards and a score.

Anyone else know anything about him?

[theboomking]

Did anyone watch the Arizona/Toledo game last night? They have a receiver, Juron Criner, that looked really good. He's a junior, 6'4", 210 with amazing hands. He's never really stood out before last night but he looked great. I think he had 11 grabs for 180ish yards and a score.

Anyone else know anything about him?

http://cdsdraft.com/profile.php?id=5586

Looks like a he's a Junior and should be draft eligible this year. CBS has him listed as a likely entrant for the 2012 draft. They have an unofficial 40 time for him of 4.55. He had 7 receptions for 88 yards and 1 TD as a freshman, 45 receptions for 582 yards and 12.9 TD's as a sophomore. CBC seems to think he won't be drafted.

Here are some quotes about Criner from rotoworld...

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=cfb&line=14916&id=123628

The Arizona Daily Star answers five questions as the Wildcats head into camp, and one deals with wide receiver Juron Criner carrying the offense. Quarterback Nick Foles calls the big wideout "a playmaker" and one who's "even better this year."

Any time you see a talented target in such a wide open offense then he's one to certainly consider. Factor in the growth of Foles and the expectations for Criner and we have one of the Pac-10's best fantasy prospects out wide.

Source: Arizona Daily Star

The Arizona Daily Star reports that Arizona wide receiver Juron Criner has been very impressive during spring ball, and coach Mike Stoops said, "Juron's starting to emerge as the player we felt he could be. He's the No. 1 go-to guy."

Criner is coming off a very nice sophomore campaign that saw him score nine times. His development, along with that of quarterback Nick Foles, means that we could be looking at the Pac-10's top receiver and one of the best in the nation in 2010.

Source: Arizona Daily Star

Draft insider.net has this to say about Criner:

Juron Criner is a developing receiver with a solid game. He displays good timing and anticipation, gets vertical over defenders and fights to make the reception. Criner shows a lot of quickness in his overall game and is a consistent hand catcher that easily makes the reception downfield running full speed.

http://www.draftinsider.net/blog/?p=3104

I know stevemcqueen really likes Nick Foles, and I was going to try to watch some Arizona games to get a look. I'll take a look at Criner as well.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I'd much rather spend a second round pick on a good back one year and have him start for five good seasons for us, then spend our mid round picks on one every single draft.

Whoa, I disagree with this absolutely, especially in an NFL where, quite frankly, running back just doesn't matter that much anymore.

Chris Johnson went 8-8.

So did Maurice Jones-Drew.

So did Frank Gore.

Peterson never broke 10 games before Favre came to town.

Meanwhile, the Saints, Ravens, and Colts win with guys you've never heard of at RB.

The fact is, RB is the most easy to replace offensive position in football, and arguably the one with the least individual impact, because we now know you can have an efficient run game with a platoon of RBs. So if you can get an efficient running game by not using high draft picks, then that is a net positive.

[Uno Mas]

http://cdsdraft.com/profile.php?id=5586

Looks like a he's a Junior and should be draft eligible this year. CBS has him listed as a likely entrant for the 2012 draft. They have an unofficial 40 time for him of 4.55. He had 7 receptions for 88 yards and 1 TD as a freshman, 45 receptions for 582 yards and 12.9 TD's as a sophomore. CBC seems to think he won't be drafted.

I know stevemcqueen really likes Nick Foles, and I was going to try to watch some Arizona games to get a look. I'll take a look at Criner as well.

Thanks for the 411.

He's not super fast but he's a big body and from what I saw last night, excellent hands. Im definitely gonna keep an eye on him.

[postong]

First: Thanks to Dukes and stevemcqueen for providing insight and information.

What do y'all think about this running back from Notre Dame, #5 Armando Allen? He looks like he has great vision and agility.

[postong]

Another player I've been highly impressed with today is Denard Robinson, QB for Michigan.

I don't normally like scrambling QB's, but this guy is awesome! He knows when to run and he knows when to throw. He seems to be a pretty good passer too.

Let me know what y'all think of him.

EDIT: Also, thoughts on T.J. Yates? Could he be a good QB to develop under McNabb?

[gorebd82]

Chris Johnson went 8-8.

So did Maurice Jones-Drew.

So did Frank Gore.

Peterson never broke 10 games before Favre came to town.

Meanwhile, the Saints, Ravens, and Colts win with guys you've never heard of at RB.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Chris Johnson, MJD and Gore all went 8-8 without much at QB. You use Peterson and Favre as your example of success, but how wouldn't our situation be more similar to that if we have McNabb and add an elite talent at RB?

And as far as you listing those teams with guys you never heard of, the Saints drafted Reggie Bush #2 overall, the Colts have spent four 1st rounders on tailback over the last 15 years or so (Faulk, Edge, Addai, Brown), and I wouldn't call McGahee a no name guy when he came to the Ravens. Point is that all of those teams have invested heavily at RB and while some more successful than others, those guys have all greatly contributed to the success of their teams.

A tandem of Portis and Ryan Williams has a lot of potential. Depending on our stability at other positions going into next season, but adding elite RB talent could have a big, instant impact on our offense.

[Laron Burgundy]

And as far as you listing those teams with guys you never heard of, the Saints drafted Reggie Bush #2 overall.

Let's be honest with this one, Reggie Bush has not contributed much to their success. They have several 7th rounders and undrafted players who are more important to their team.

[Going Commando]

Meanwhile, the Saints, Ravens, and Colts win with guys you've never heard of at RB.

You picked terrible examples to make your point. The Saints drafted Reggie Bush 2nd overall. The Ravens drafted Ray Rice in the second round of an absurdly deep RB class and he's already a household name. They also traded two third round picks and a seventh round pick to get Willis McGahee, who himself is a former first round pick and one of the highest paid running backs in the league. And the Colts spent two first round picks on their tandem of Joseph Addai and Donald Brown.

Each of those franchises spent a lot of draft resources on their current runningbacks.

[Going Commando]

Let's be honest with this one, Reggie Bush has not contributed much to their success. They have several 7th rounders and undrafted players who are more important to their team.

That's a bit linear and I don't think it's entirely accurate. If Bush wasn't considered important to their team, the Saints would have cut him by now because of his contract. That'd be like saying Josh Cribbs isn't important to the Browns. Or that Devin Hester from ~ 2006 wasn't important to the Bears. Bush is one of the better returners in the league right now and he's a good multipurpose weapon that brings a dynamic to their offense they wouldn't have without him. He's also a face for that team.

Regardless of how much of an impact he has in the run game, the point still stands that the Saints spent an incredibly valuable draft pick on him and thus invested heavily in the position.

[darrelgreenie]

People make a big deal about Mike Shanahan being able to get elite production at RB cheap, but the cost of his method quickly adds up. The flipside to him saying he can bargain shop in the draft is that he had to draft a running back almost every single year. I actually don't think Mike Shanahan is an efficient evaluator of RB talent. His ideology is to throw a bunch of mediocre at the wall and see what sticks for a year or two. Denver's running game required constant upkeep because of it. When Shanahan was coach in Denver, he drafted 13 running backs, none in the first. So in his 15 years as a HC, Shanahan has basically had to draft a RB every year and a very high number of them were busts.

I'd much rather spend a second round pick on a good back one year and have him start for five good seasons for us, then spend our mid round picks on one every single draft.

The fact is, RB is the most easy to replace offensive position in football, and arguably the one with the least individual impact, because we now know you can have an efficient run game with a platoon of RBs. So if you can get an efficient running game by not using high draft picks, then that is a net positive.

Although i don't agree with your argument using the team records of the top backs in the league(plenty of teams have great players but don't have winning records), i agree with your overall point.

I don't think you need to draft a RB in the 2nd round or higher you find a true elite back in some area (usually speed) like Adrian Peterson/C.J . Spiller type.

I don't see why there would be an aversion to drafting the same position year after year.

Players are expendable.

You keep drafting until you find some that stick well enough to be effective within your scheme.

And b/c you take the backs later in the draft you aren't fiscally or otherwise obligated to play/keep them past there usefulness.

[Laron Burgundy]

That's a bit linear and I don't think it's entirely accurate. If Bush wasn't considered important to their team, the Saints would have cut him by now because of his contract. That'd be like saying Josh Cribbs isn't important to the Browns. Or that Devin Hester from ~ 2006 wasn't important to the Bears. Bush is one of the better returners in the league right now and he's a good multipurpose weapon that brings a dynamic to their offense they wouldn't have without him. He's also a face for that team.

Regardless of how much of an impact he has in the run game, the point still stands that the Saints spent an incredibly valuable draft pick on him and thus invested heavily in the position.

Let's clear this up, Bush's avg punt return last year was lower than Antwaan Randle El's. I don't think I have to go much past that tbh! :pfft: Bush has more handoffs inside the 1 than any other RB and yet his td's are modest. Why would the saints hand off inside the 1 to a smaller rb?! And why are they keeping this guy at a top 10 rb money when he gets fewer and fewer carries per year (his carries per game went from 9.7->13.1->10.6->5)?! Also, his number of receptions have gone down every year. And let's not forget his fumbling problem (not to mention I have never seen a player gifted with so many non-catch calls on what should have been catch and fumbles). I'll tell you why, he sells jerseys. Easily the second most popular jersey for saints fans. He was so over-hyped coming out of college, was in so many commercials and every td he attempts he does his stupid dive to make the highlight reel that the saints pretty easily make a profit on how many people still tune in to watch him play. Don't get it twisted, he still gets paid because of his value to the business, not because of his value to the team.

Clearly the saints invested heavily in an rb, but their example is a horrible one. Over-drafting a mediocre situational player isn't what we should be looking to do.

Ok, you got me, that 2005 USC team is why I'm so wary of players coming from stacked teams, a la Robert Quinn. Their offense had something crazy like 7 players drafted in the first 3 rounds and they've all been varying degrees of failures. Though maybe it is different for defenses, seeing as how 2001 miami was stacked with good to great nfl players. Yes, yes, generalizing but sometimes you have to look into the trends. It's not like game tape made those USC players look bad, but it's easier to look good when your team usually wins 9+ matchups out of 11 on one side of the ball. That's probably just an irrational fear, but that 2005 USC team still haunts my nightmares.

[Going Commando]

I don't see why there would be an aversion to drafting the same position year after year.

Players are expendable.

You keep drafting until you find some that stick well enough to be effective within your scheme.

And b/c you take the backs later in the draft you aren't fiscally or otherwise obligated to play/keep them past there usefulness.

There is an obvious problem with having to spend mid-round picks on a 3 man position group every single season. While you're doing that, you're not spending those picks on the other 6 or 7 position groups and they can deteriorate around you. The Redskins had few draft picks in the 2000s and we only spent three on running backs that I can think of (when you count the second rounder in the Portis trade). For the most part, we've had excellent production from the position group--comparable success to what Shanahan enjoyed in Denver although he had to spend nearly three times the number of draft picks on running backs.

The goal of any draft pick is to find a player than can contribute. The goal of any draft pick from the fourth round on up should be to find a player that can eventually start for you for multiple seasons or contribute as a key reserve.

Saying players are expendable sounds a lot like trying to justify bad drafting. The limits of FA being such as they are, teams that don't draft well don't contend. It's pretty much as simple as that.

[darrelgreenie]

There is an obvious problem with having to spend mid-round picks on a 3 man position group every single season. While you're doing that, you're not spending those picks on the other 6 or 7 position groups and they can deteriorate around you.

You have 6 other picks to improve other positions.

And if your drafting your RBs after the 2nd round you have 2 chances to draft impact players at other positions to improve your team.

The Redskins had few draft picks in the 2000s and we only spent three on running backs that I can think of (when you count the second rounder in the Portis trade). For the most part, we've had excellent production from the position group--comparable success to what Shanahan enjoyed in Denver although he had to spend nearly three times the number of draft picks on running backs.

I don't want to quible too much but how much did we spend trading/drafting for and paying Portis, Betts and during the time frame you mention we still drafted other RBs. On the flip side how much did the Broncs invest in the likes of Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell etc...

[Chicken Fried]

First: Thanks to Dukes and stevemcqueen for providing insight and information.

What do y'all think about this running back from Notre Dame, #5 Armando Allen? He looks like he has great vision and agility.

I'm a huge ND fan and have watched Armando for a while. He does have good vision and agility, but I think he lacks elite speed. I haven't heard anyone really hyping him up for the draft this year. I feel like he could go in the 3rd maybe. Today, I was almost more impressed with Cierre Wood. Where did that dude come from all of a sudden? He had 51 yards rushing off 4 carries. His string of runs was pretty darn fun to watch.

[Chicken Fried]

Another player I've been highly impressed with today is Denard Robinson, QB for Michigan.

I don't normally like scrambling QB's, but this guy is awesome! He knows when to run and he knows when to throw. He seems to be a pretty good passer too.

Let me know what y'all think of him.

EDIT: Also, thoughts on T.J. Yates? Could he be a good QB to develop under McNabb?

What happened to Tate Forcier? Did he get hurt or benched?

And what do you mean by develop? Eventually start or backup? I don't think he's going to be a starter but could maybe be a backup. Then again, I haven't seen all that much of him so I could be wrong.

[postong]

What happened to Tate Forcier? Did he get hurt or benched?

And what do you mean by develop? Eventually start or backup? I don't think he's going to be a starter but could maybe be a backup. Then again, I haven't seen all that much of him so I could be wrong.

Chicken fried:

Cierre wood was awesome! Michael Floyd looked pretty damn good too; especially that one catch he made towards the end of the game. He has awesome hands and is a great blocker.

As far as TJ Yates goes, I was thinking starter...but maybe he isn't that good? The true freshman QB from BYU, Heaps is his name I think, has a cannon. Looks like he could be real good in the future.

What do you see being our draft needs for next year? I'm trying to scout LB's, RB's, and WR's.

[Going Commando]

You have 6 other picks to improve other positions.

And if your drafting your RBs after the 2nd round you have 2 chances to draft impact players at other positions to improve your team.

It's poor team building to spend so many picks on such a small position group. The backbone of any contender is not formed by it's first rounders, but rather the guys you take in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds. If we're spending those picks on running backs who never make it more than three seasons with us, we're throwing those picks away. Look at the offensive line the New Orleans Saints built with mid rounders, it's the best group in the entire league: Carl Nicks (5th 2008), Jahri Evans (4th 2006), Jon Stinchcomb (2nd 2003), Jermon Bushrod (4th 2007). Their Pro-Bowl center was a low key FA signing, but he was a 5th round pick for the Jets in 2002. That's the way to use your mid round picks. It's the same story with how the Jets and Ravens load up on defensive front seven talent to build their Superbowl caliber defenses, or how the Colts draft linebackers and defensive backs with their mid rounders. Mid round picks are very valuable and a failure to understand this is why we sucked so badly at drafting this decade--a big part of the reason why our team is old and lean on talent today. I don't want to see us blow them on such a tiny group where only one man starts. I'd rather see us spend them on 8-10 man groups like the OL, DL, LBs or DBs.

I don't mind bargain shopping for undrafted backs like Keiland Williams obviously, or like Shanahan did with Mike Bell in 2006. I'd just rather address the position group like the Redskins did in the 2000's rather than how the Broncos did. In the end, it was way more cost effective to bring in three backs that formed the core of our running back group for eight years even though we essentially spent two second round picks and a seventh round pick on them.

I don't want to quible too much but how much did we spend trading/drafting for and paying Portis, Betts and during the time frame you mention we still drafted other RBs. On the flip side how much did the Broncs invest in the likes of Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell etc...

Here's a good post by the Tris that's mostly in agreement with you. He lists the running draft picks Mike Shanahan spent on RBs over the years: http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7742384&postcount=177

Here are Shanahan's RB selections:

2008: 5th, 7th (Ryan Torrain), (Peyton Hillis)

2005: 3rd (Maurice Clarett)

2004: 2nd*, 7th (Tatum Bell), (Brandon Miree)

2003: 4th, 7th (Quentin Griffin), (Ahmaad Galloway)

2002: 2nd* (Clinton Portis)

2000: 6th* (Mike Anderson)

1999: 4th* (Olandis Gary)

1998: 5th

1996: 3rd

1995: 6th*

I wanted to restrict his choices to those he made this decade because beyond that, it's hard to remember how his choices fared. I did want to point out though that the Tris missed two backs: in 1996 he picked ones in the third and seventh, and in 1998 he picked ones in the fourth and fifth. That means Shanahan drafted 15 running backs in 14 years as a HC with the Broncos. That's a very high number of picks spent for what is essentially either a three or four man position group. What's troubling is that his bargain shopping system stopped working. Shanahan hit legitimate homeruns with his first two selections in '95 and '96 (the great Terrell Davis and his fullback, Detron Smith). But after that, he did well in '99, 2000, and 2002 picking Gary, Anderson, and Portis. Gary stayed on the roster for four seasons and Anderson made it to five. Portis only had two seasons there but the value he brought in trade made up for his selection. He just about recouped his draft selection getting a second round pick, and he also provided a graceful out for the Redskins to get something in return for Champ Bailey, and thus was the key to bringing in an All-Pro cornerback for the Broncos.

But that's where the good ends. And I'd say the good from Gary and perhaps Anderson is pretty modest--Gary only had one fair season in 1999, Anderson only had two very good ones (2000, and 2005). After Portis it got ugly--Shanahan picked 7 backs, all of whom were busts, none of whom made it more than three seasons with the Broncos before they were gone. For whatever reason, during this time Shanahan spent a lot of draft capital on running backs and whiffed on every pick even though running back is probably the easiest position to evaluate. By the time Shanahan was fired in 2008, Denver's RB corps had become so drained of talent that his leading rusher for the season only had 343 yards. Not only that, Denver's defense had utterly fallen apart from poor drafting and neglect. It was so bad Josh McDaniels spent his highest pick on a RB even though he comes from the New England school of running back platooning and Denver's defense was in shambles needing serious help from the draft. Either Shanahan's system for drafting backs stopped working or he lost his ability to evaluate RB talent. Neither argue for him to continue spending our mid round picks on running backs every year.

[Going Commando]

Blaine Gabbert looked good passing the ball today Chicken Fried. I thought he looked better than Locker did this week. He got popped quite a few times and fumbled once, but he toughed it out and led a nice 4th quarter comeback win against a rival. This is going to be a rough year for Gabbert. His best running back got kicked off the team and his equivalent of Toby Gerhart, Danario Alexander graduated. He doesn't have much to work with at all on offense, and is going to have to rely on his talented defensive line to get him good field position.

It's nice to see some blue chip QBs play on untalented teams for a change. I think it's usually better for them in the end because it forces them to be the stud that has to put the team on his back to win early on. There can be no question that Gabbert, Luck, Locker, and Foles are the best players on their crappy teams. When they play poorly, their teams certainly lose. If you swapped any of them with a mediocre player, their teams would probably only win two or three games.

You're boy Andrew Luck put up huge numbers before he was taken out, but it should be pointed out that it was against a 1AA also ran. I'm looking forward to watching how he does down a tough looking stretch for the next five weeks where he'll probably face his stiffest competition all year.

[darrelgreenie]

It's poor team building to spend so many picks on such a small position group. The backbone of any contender is not formed by it's first rounders, but rather the guys you take in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds.

I don't understand how your point relates with my point.

I don't want to go back and look up ever draft the Bronc had with Shanahan vs ours over that same period of time.

But, i'm fairly certain they didn't draft a meaningful number of RBs more then we did.

Most teams take at least 1 RB in every draft.

Philosophically where you take the RBs doesn't change how many RBs you draft over a given period of time.

It would be different if you drafted a 1st/2nd round RB then didn't draft another RB for 10 years but that simply isn't the case.

The only point i'm making is that if you have a system that can produce productive RBs it makes sense to spend less draft/financial investment in that position.

And i think we can both agree that Shanahan/Turner have historically produced an effective running game almost irrespective of who or where the RB was taken.

If we're spending those picks on running backs who never make it more than three seasons with us, we're throwing those picks away.

But that's gonna happen at any postion regardless of where the player is taken. When you draft your gonna miss its not an exact science its more like a art. If those backs still produce an effective running that is all i'm looking for.

Look at the offensive line the New Orleans Saints built with mid rounders, it's the best group in the entire league: Carl Nicks (5th 2008), Jahri Evans (4th 2006), Jon Stinchcomb (2nd 2003), Jermon Bushrod (4th 2007). Their Pro-Bowl center was a low key FA signing, but he was a 5th round pick for the Jets in 2002. That's the way to use your mid round picks.......I don't want to see us blow them on such a tiny group where only one man starts. I'd rather see us spend them on 8-10 man groups like the OL, DL, LBs or DBs.

Taking 1 RB out of 7 player draft doesn't preclude you from drafting 6 other positions. Escpecially when you increase the quality of the other positions by taking them in the 1st 2 rounds.

I don't mind bargain shopping for undrafted backs like Keiland Williams obviously, or like Shanahan did with Mike Bell in 2006. I'd just rather address the position group like the Redskins did in the 2000's rather than how the Broncos did. In the end, it was way more cost effective to bring in three backs that formed the core of our running back group for eight years even though we essentially spent two second round picks and a seventh round pick on them.

I guess we'll agree to diagree imo aquiring Portis and Betts alone was expense both financially and in draft investment and over that same time period and we still spent draft picks and money on other RBs like the great TJ Duckett.

That means Shanahan drafted 15 running backs in 14 years as a HC with the Broncos. That's a very high number of picks spent for what is essentially either a three or four man position group.

I think we would need to consider other factors to make an accurate assessment in this regard like: how many RBs were taken by our team and other teams over that same period how much was the paid to those running backs and what was the overall effeciency of the total running game?

But that's where the good ends. And I'd say the good from Gary and perhaps Anderson is pretty modest--Gary only had one fair season in 1999, Anderson only had two very good ones (2000, and 2005). After Portis it got ugly--Shanahan picked 7 backs, all of whom were busts, none of whom made it more than three seasons with the Broncos before they were gone. For whatever reason, during this time Shanahan spent a lot of draft capital on running backs and whiffed on every pick even though running back is probably the easiest position to evaluate. By the time Shanahan was fired in 2008, Denver's RB corps had become so drained of talent that his leading rusher for the season only had 343 yards.

There are a lot of generalization here and factors not taken into account. For one your focus on individual performance not net production from the running game. Also who's to say that if he picked those RBs in the 1st 2 rounds they wouldn't have busted anyway? Also Mike S had a season when literally every RB on the roster was hurt and at least 3-4 ended up on IR that's gonna take a toll on the running game.

Not only that, Denver's defense had utterly fallen apart from poor drafting and neglect. It was so bad Josh McDaniels spent his highest pick on a RB even though he comes from the New England school of running back platooning and Denver's defense was in shambles needing serious help from the draft. Either Shanahan's system for drafting backs stopped working or he lost his ability to evaluate RB talent. Neither argue for him to continue spending our mid round picks on running backs every year.

It also seems like your focusing on Shanahan's draft overall and not the specific philosophy we're discussing which is not taking a RB in the 1st/2nd round unless they have special ability, which btw was my original statement.

But, i don't want to further side-track a very informative thread.

HTTR!

(PM me if you like)

[Dukes and Skins]

Chicken fried:

Cierre wood was awesome! Michael Floyd looked pretty damn good too; especially that one catch he made towards the end of the game. He has awesome hands and is a great blocker.

As far as TJ Yates goes, I was thinking starter...but maybe he isn't that good? The true freshman QB from BYU, Heaps is his name I think, has a cannon. Looks like he could be real good in the future.

What do you see being our draft needs for next year? I'm trying to scout LB's, RB's, and WR's.

postong first off good stuff you've added man good names and such. First off with Robinson I like his potential but also we have to look at it that he's a scrambling QB and they'll do well at times in the NFL but you need to be a developed passer in order to be a very successful one. Yates right now I think could be a backup down the road he can put up some good numbers but he also has had some pretty bad games too.

[Dukes and Skins]

Oh and let me throw a couple UVA names out there who shined yesterday and ones to keep a look at throughout the year. QB Marc Verica looked like a different animal last night, I was at the JMU game so I couldn't catch the UVA game but from the stats and the highlights he actually could be a QB drafted in the middle to late rounds and be a back up for a while. The other guy to watch is Keith Payne. He was an absolute monster in HS for Oakton I believe although I might be wrong and was a highly touted recruit coming out. He was pretty much written off under Al Groh but his running style is a lot like Tim Hightower's who was a player under Mike London. Look for Payne to be a force in the new running scheme

[The Tris]

The other guy to watch is Keith Payne. He was an absolute monster in HS for Oakton I believe although I might be wrong and was a highly touted recruit coming out. He was pretty much written off under Al Groh but his running style is a lot like Tim Hightower's who was a player under Mike London. Look for Payne to be a force in the new running scheme

Not just written off, he so loathed Groh, he quit the team last season, and London has to asked him to rejoin after he was hired. As a UVA alum, I'm excited for Payne, but I have no illusions of him being a viable option at the next level.

And no, just no to Verica.