stevemcqueen1

2018 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

It may be a lazy comp, but early in the draft process a few guys I follow compared Burnett to Smith-Schuster. SS went in the 3rd, I believe, but similar skill-set, same school, and possibly similar outlook ... I would love Burnett ... could be someone we snatch if he's there in the 4th and especially the 5th, but suspect others will jump on him sooner.

 

Just watched his game against Texas.  I don't see how he lasts until the 5th, or how he's not on someone's Top 150 list, etc.  I can easily see him going in the 3rd.

 

With how much people talk about Sam Darnold possibly going #1 overall...how is no attention being played to Burnett?  He's not quite the astonishing aerial acrobat that Josh Doctson is, but Burnett lays out for a lot of catches.  Unlike Smith-Schuster though, Burnett can not block.  So maybe that's why.

 

If he's there in the 4th round, I take Burnett, and then I likely don't pay Crowder the 8 million or whatever he might get.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Farrar isn't the only guy touting Guice being comparable to Barkley.  Ledyard thinks Guice is flat out better.  I know the Barkley #1 back drill is a scared point and I agree with it but I think it brings home how good Guice could be.   

 

Doug Farrar below

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2770090-is-saquon-barkley-really-a-generational-rb-talent?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

Still, I'd pump the brakes on the "generational" label. In truth, Barkley may not even end up as the best running back in this draft class. If LSU's Derrius Guice returns to his pre-injury form in 2016, when he showed nearly equivalent speed and far better ability to move through defenders in power situations, he might prove to be more valuable. Guice doesn't have Barkley's receiving chops—no back in this class does—but Guice has the more polished skill set as a pure running back. And Barkley's inconsistency on those big plays is cause for concern if his future team doesn't have a fundamentally sound and potentially dominant offensive line.

 

 

He's not. Barkley's a significantly better talent, and Chubb is more polished than Guice as a runner period. Chubb has a Ph.D. in vision, and technique. Textbook RB. Genius. If he hadn't blown out his knee, he would be neck and neck with Barkley. Guice, in an ideal scenario with Chubb, is below both of them (though I like Guice).

 

I also keep waiting for these people to stop insisting on talking up RB's who eat up contact like Guice, and John Kelly. It IS NOT a good thing. That's how you get injured. I understand that everyone loves to see their RB punish defenders rather than get punished. It's totally understandable and is why Earl Campbell vids are such an epic form of football porn for old school football fans, but there's a reason he's a total unknown for most football fans under 40, and it's because his style of running destroyed his body in just five seasons. RB's that use that approach almost always inevitably break down, and break down quickly. Your body has only so many shots to the solar plexus and knees and legs before you're done. Earl Campbell's prime lasted all of four years, and his career just 7 complete seasons (and 8 in all). I want a RB that knows when to run out of bounds and evade a hit, and when to lay the wood down, and be able to delineate the difference. Just bashing through people isn't going to help anybody. Guice on the shelf for six weeks aint helping anyone, and as 2017 can attest to, when Guice is hurt, he's just a very average RB, and running like that will insure he'll be hurt a lot. Would much prefer taking Chubb or Penny later to Guice at slot. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.  Also, this new helmet rule for offensive players decreases the value of runners like Guice. Maybe not this year, when it is new and hard to enforce, but definitely within the next few years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

He's not. Barkley's a significantly better talent, and Chubb is more polished than Guice as a runner period. Chubb has a Ph.D. in vision, and technique. Textbook RB. Genius. If he hadn't blown out his knee, he would be neck and neck with Barkley. Guice, in an ideal scenario with Chubb, is below both of them (though I like Guice).

 

I also keep waiting for these people to stop insisting on talking up RB's who eat up contact like Guice, and John Kelly. It IS NOT a good thing. That's how you get injured. I understand that everyone loves to see their RB punish defenders rather than get punished. It's totally understandable and is why Earl Campbell vids are such an epic form of football porn for old school football fans, but there's a reason he's a total unknown for most football fans under 40, and it's because his style of running destroyed his body in just five seasons. RB's that use that approach almost always inevitably break down, and break down quickly. Your body has only so many shots to the solar plexus and knees and legs before you're done. Earl Campbell's prime lasted all of four years, and his career just 7 complete seasons (and 8 in all). I want a RB that knows when to run out of bounds and evade a hit, and when to lay the wood down, and be able to delineate the difference. Just bashing through people isn't going to help anybody. Guice on the shelf for six weeks aint helping anyone, and as 2017 can attest to, when Guice is hurt, he's just a very average RB, and running like that will insure he'll be hurt a lot. Would much prefer taking Chubb or Penny later to Guice at slot. 

 

 

 

They need to be selective in when to give or take contact, absolutely. Hopefully wisdom will come with experience in that department. Guys will learn real quick in the NFL that style of play isn't conductive to achieving long careers. I like Chubb, but don't think he's the same guy he was before the injury (duh). I don't know if he ever will be. I do like his vision but I just think Guice is the clear winner. Yes he may have some flaws, but most guys do.  But flaws and all, he's still a fantastic runner who has great power and athletic ability.

 

Penny I'm not sold on one bit. The guy got over due to weak competition. That's not his fault and you'd expect the superior athlete to dominate lesser competition, but something about him just bugs me. Maybe it's the stride, I dunno. Not very scientific but just a feeling. Athletically he's great, but something is missing from his game when it comes to playing the big boys. That's the other reason I like Guice and to a lesser extent Chubb. Both them boys were able to dish it out in the SEC and not only get by, but they were the best guys in the toughest division. That says a lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

He's not. Barkley's a significantly better talent, and Chubb is more polished than Guice as a runner period. Chubb has a Ph.D. in vision, and technique. Textbook RB. Genius. If he hadn't blown out his knee, he would be neck and neck with Barkley. Guice, in an ideal scenario with Chubb, is below both of them (though I like Guice).

 

Chubb is who I want at #44.  I think a lot of his power and how he breaks tackles is used after he sets them up so they can't get a clear shot on him.  A surprising amount of tackles against him are arm tackles, I don't think that's a coincidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HigSkin said:

Seems like if they are looking at a guy like Anthony Miller, it's a slot replacement for Crowder next year in case his price goes too high.

My thoughts as well but I definitely feel as if he'll go too early. Seems like a top 100 guy and are we really going to take a WR that early? I do like him though. 

 

But if were looking for a slot guy, then I'm hoping to target one of these guys (amongst those I suspect would last to day 3 or late day 2):

More or less in this order:

 

Tier 1:

D. Pettis: Can play all over+slot Round 3-4

A. Callaway: Can play all over+ slot Undrafted or day 3 (due to character red flags)

 

Tier 2:

T. Smith: Slot guy, excellent. Round 4-6

D. Hamilton: Slot guy, excellent Round 3-5 

J. Watson: Inexplicably left out of combine, monster athlete and producer.Round 4-7

 

Tier 3:

T. Quinn Actually outproduced Courtland Sutton at SMU after fransferring from LSU, elite athlete.  Round 4-6

K. Coutee: Exciting guy. Round 3-5

D. Burnett: Interesting player but a long way to go. Round 4-6

 

If these projections in terms of round selection from walterfootball were to prove correct, I'd target Daeshawn Hamilton if he's there early on day 4, otherwise I'd go after Pettis (if he somehow slips), Tre'Quan Smith, Justin Watson, Trey Quinn and Callaway. Best value is probably between Hamilton and Pettis and Callaway if they fall to day 4, and Smith, Watson, and Quinn if they're still available at round 5 or later. 

 

I can see doing all of that. I am nearly 100% sure Pettis and Callaway will be legit starters at the next level, Callaway is contingent on cleaning up his act. I am fairly confidence Hamilton and Smith will make it (about 75-80%) and I view as a slight uptick above a coin flip for Watson, Coutee, and Quinn.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Just watched his game against Texas.  I don't see how he lasts until the 5th, or how he's not on someone's Top 150 list, etc.  I can easily see him going in the 3rd.

 

With how much people talk about Sam Darnold possibly going #1 overall...how is no attention being played to Burnett?  He's not quite the astonishing aerial acrobat that Josh Doctson is, but Burnett lays out for a lot of catches.  Unlike Smith-Schuster though, Burnett can not block.  So maybe that's why.

 

If he's there in the 4th round, I take Burnett, and then I likely don't pay Crowder the 8 million or whatever he might get.

 

Size:

Juju: 6'1" 215

Burnett: 6'0" 186

 

Breakout Age:

Juju: 93rd Percentile (youngest player in the NFL last year)

Burnett: 65th Percentile

 

Dominator: 

Juju: 57th Percentile

Burnett: 54th Percentile

 

40 Yard Dash:

Juju: 4.54 72nd Percentile Speed Score (size Adjusted)

Burnett: 4.70* Injured at pro day, 4.75 adjusted for pro day. (you can probably toss it out because he's still hurt (torn hamstring). 

 

Burst Score:

Juju: 23rd Percentile

Burnett: None

 

Agility:

Juju: 67th Percentile

Burnett: None

 

 

Burnett's interesting enough to take a look at, but I don't think they're all that close as prospects.

 

Freshman Production and Best Year:

Juju: 

2014 age 17/18: 54-724-5

2015: 89-1454-10

 

Burnett: 

2015: 10-161-0

2017: 86-1114-9

 

The biggest difference for me: 

 

#1 Early production. Juju absolutely killed it age 17, 18 and 19 at USC. Unbelievable 143-2,178-15 TD's. Burnett in his age 17/.18/19 seasons caught 66-783-7.

early production, ie. breakout age, is an important marker for future success, combine breakout age, with market share, with draft capital into a metric and you have a better predictor of future success than any other means of evaluating WR prospects based on the information we have since the year 2000.

 

#2 Size: Juju outweighs Burnett by nearly 30 pounds despite being a similar height. That matters. There aren't a lot of successful NFL WR's that are rail thin in terms of frame. Luckily Burnett will play slot. 

 

#3 Measurables: We don't have much information on Burnett because he's still hurt, but what we do have suggests he's probably slower than Juju, who ran a much faster than expected 40 a year ago (People were projecting a 4.6-4.7 forty, and he ran a 4.54 and he did it at the combine. Pro Day's are notorious for being unreliable in terms of measurables, even at USC where they use laser marking, but still aren't as accurate as the NFL is. We also have a nice 3 cone from Juju and no 3 cone from Burnett. Lastly Juju beats Burnett in market share numbers, and breakout age as well.

 

I think Burnett belongs on our board as a slot WR, but in terms of slot guys available (or guys that could play some slot), I have him behind about 10 or 11 other guys, and I wouldn't take him until probably the sixth round. Some guys I prefer significantly amongst possible day 3 picks include Hamiton, Smith, Pettis, Callaway, Watson, and probably Quinn and possibly Coutee. Best value guys are probably Hamilton, Smith, Pettis, Callaway and Watson. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

He's not. Barkley's a significantly better talent, and Chubb is more polished than Guice as a runner period. Chubb has a Ph.D. in vision, and technique. Textbook RB. Genius. If he hadn't blown out his knee, he would be neck and neck with Barkley. Guice, in an ideal scenario with Chubb, is below both of them (though I like Guice).

 

I also keep waiting for these people to stop insisting on talking up RB's who eat up contact like Guice, and John Kelly. It IS NOT a good thing. That's how you get injured. I understand that everyone loves to see their RB punish defenders rather than get punished. I

 

I've watched plenty of Chubb and Guice.  I get the point you are making.  My take is slightly different. Like you, I like both guys.  But I prefer Guice and its not that much of a contest for me if we get 2016 Guice. 

 

Chubb totally fits the eat up contact drill you lay out here IMO and in a big way.  He has good vision, patience and for a big guy he has good agility and can be surprisingly elusive in the open field.  But a big part of his game is about breaking tackles, steamrolling defenders and wearing defenses down.   I think part of the difference as to physicality is Guice comes off like he plays wilder and angrier where his mentality is like he feeds off of contact.    You often needed multiple defenders to bring either guy down. As for injury, they might both be prone.  Arguably, Chubb is coming off the more serious injury. 

 

If its the 2016 version of Guice, I'd take him easily over Chubb.  That version of Guice looks much more explosive to me than Chubb.  Chubb's combine numbers are impressive and lend to the idea that he can be explosive.   And I like Chubb a lot.  But watching the 2016 version of Guice, I see nothing about Chubb that is comparable as to pure explosion.  That version of Guice has him as both a grinder and a home run hitter -- exciting.  Question is does Guice get the 2016 version burst back?  According to his coaches, yes -- and it started to resurface at the end of the year.  I guess will see.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I get it, and I don't completely disagree with it.  We don't want to take a guy at 13 if he's not worth that pick.  The question then becomes... to what level do you balance expected draft position vs team need vs value of pick.  For a team that has the luxury to truly going BPA in the draft due to a lower number of glaring holes, they may not want to take him there.  He doesn't grade out as the 13th best player in the draft for them.  Does that mean he's the 13th best pick for the REDSKINS?  You would hope that the draft board reflects a balance across those things, and as of now, Payne is 'more valuable' to us than he may be to someone who's set on the front 4. 

 

I am not a draft by need guy unless the need guy is really close to BPA.  Maybe an exception with me is being hung up on running backs this draft but I think the odds that BPA meet need or close enough will be in play. 

 

I've argued on behalf of plenty of players on these threads.  I am just gun shy to do it on defensive tackles -- its not my thing.  I trust Cooley more than most in this department as he has been almost 100% bulls eye correct on D lineman on this team.  His description of Payne (among others) doesn't get me jazzed.  And this is coming from someone who is practically screaming on the FA thread for two years running about signing a DT.   

 

Having said that, I trust Tomsula so if they end up going with Vea or Payne, I'll ride with it.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crabbypatty said:

 

They need to be selective in when to give or take contact, absolutely. Hopefully wisdom will come with experience in that department. Guys will learn real quick in the NFL that style of play isn't conductive to achieving long careers. I like Chubb, but don't think he's the same guy he was before the injury (duh). I don't know if he ever will be. I do like his vision but I just think Guice is the clear winner. Yes he may have some flaws, but most guys do.  But flaws and all, he's still a fantastic runner who has great power and athletic ability.

 

Penny I'm not sold on one bit. The guy got over due to weak competition. That's not his fault and you'd expect the superior athlete to dominate lesser competition, but something about him just bugs me. Maybe it's the stride, I dunno. Not very scientific but just a feeling. Athletically he's great, but something is missing from his game when it comes to playing the big boys. That's the other reason I like Guice and to a lesser extent Chubb. Both them boys were able to dish it out in the SEC and not only get by, but they were the best guys in the toughest division. That says a lot.

 

We'll agree to disagree. I don't really care about competition. We know enough these days with building models to project future success to see guys like Kareem Hunt at Akron vaulting his way onto day 2 because KC liked what they saw, especially in how he picked up on his one major flaw in his last year (catching the football). Akron doesn't play anybody for the vast bulk of the year and it didn't matter, Hunt and JUCO transfer Alvin Kamara torched the NFL all year (although in fairness both were recruited by big schools with Kamara transferring out of Alabama). 

 

So in regards to Penny. I don't care what school he went to, I care about his athletic profile, and after that, his production and draft capital. 

 

He did have a couple of games against the big boys:

 

@ASU: 18-216-1/4-38-1 & a 99 yard kick return TD. Kind of insane performance.

@ Stanford 32-175-1/5-31

In the Armed Forces Bowl against Army: 14-221-4/1- -7

 

In terms of Chubb:

I'm not a film grinder, but i did watch enough of Chubb to feel that he wasn't back in '16, at all, even w/that enormous game against UNC, last year he looked a great deal more back, again maybe not 100%, but a lot closer, then you look at this game from '17, that Matt Waldman posted, and good lord, watching this, you understand why he was able to kill it at the combine, producing #'s superior to Michel:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, crabbypatty said:

 

all that talent and upside, yet next to no production. I understand he wasn't asked to shoulder the load at bama, but there ain't a whole lot there wrt even pedestrian production. I find that concerning. I know you said it's not the end all be all, and I agree. However he should have accidentally lucked into some more sacks/hurries/tackles with the amount of studs around him.. yet there's not much there. I'm convinced Payne is a 2nd round guy.

 

At Alabama he was a two gapping nose who saw a double on half his snaps and rarely got the chance to rush from the three tech.  You're only ever going to get so much pass rushing production from that kind of role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably spent more time last year arguing about and knocking down Malik McDowell than any player I've ever gone after relating to the draft.  Looks like his career is on the brink -- not just injury but he had off the field stuff last year.  Only bringing it up because part of my concerns about him last year is I kept reading multiple people questioning whether the dude loves football. 

 

It's unfair to say Davenport is apples to apples.  Davenport's character is good (Malik was questionable) but there is a little bit of the does the dude love to play narrative about him -- though granted coming from a much nicer place than Malik (has multiple interests, etc) 

Redskins Rant Retweeted Ian Rapoport

Some fans were rock hard for this guy last year.... how y'all feel now

Redskins Rant added,

Ian RapoportVerified account @RapSheet
The #Seahawks have not yet cleared 2017 2nd round pick DT Malik McDowell, and source said they are expected to release him in the near future. The hope is that another team will medically clear him.
 
 
Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

#1 Early production. Juju absolutely killed it age 17, 18 and 19 at USC. Unbelievable 143-2,178-15 TD's. Burnett in his age 17/.18/19 seasons caught 66-783-7.

early production, ie. breakout age, is an important marker for future success, combine breakout age, with market share, with draft capital into a metric and you have a better predictor of future success than any other means of evaluating WR prospects based on the information we have since the year 2000.

 

Something interesting about Burnett.  He sold out to go to USC.  He "blue-shirted" (I didn't even know what that was), which apparently means the school has already maxed out scholarships, so Burnett couldn't join the team until the school year began.  If we're looking at how early you break out, I suppose it says something that he didn't get the starting role until somebody tore their ACL in the middle of his sophomore season.

 

2016 Production as backup: 6 games, 23 catches, 229 yards, 9.96 ypc, 2 TD's

2016 Production as starter: 6 games, 33 catches, 393 yards, 11.91 ypc, 5 TD's

 

Here's Juju Smith-Schuster's stats over that same time period:

 

Juju production with Burnett as backup: 7 games, 40 catches, 565 yards, 14.13 ypc, 8 TD's

Juju production with Burnett as starter: 6 games, 30 catches, 349 yards, 11.63 ypc. 2 TD's

 

So Smith-Schuster's production fell off with another WR there to share the passing game with.  Not this means a whole lot because there are too many factors, but USC was 4-3 for the first 7 games and then 6-0 in the remaining ones.

 

To state it another way, over the same 6 game period where they were both starters, Burnett had more catches, more yards, more yards per catch, and more touchdowns.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

He's not. Barkley's a significantly better talent, and Chubb is more polished than Guice as a runner period. Chubb has a Ph.D. in vision, and technique. Textbook RB. Genius. If he hadn't blown out his knee, he would be neck and neck with Barkley. Guice, in an ideal scenario with Chubb, is below both of them (though I like Guice).

 

I also keep waiting for these people to stop insisting on talking up RB's who eat up contact like Guice, and John Kelly. It IS NOT a good thing. That's how you get injured. I understand that everyone loves to see their RB punish defenders rather than get punished. It's totally understandable and is why Earl Campbell vids are such an epic form of football porn for old school football fans, but there's a reason he's a total unknown for most football fans under 40, and it's because his style of running destroyed his body in just five seasons. RB's that use that approach almost always inevitably break down, and break down quickly. Your body has only so many shots to the solar plexus and knees and legs before you're done. Earl Campbell's prime lasted all of four years, and his career just 7 complete seasons (and 8 in all). I want a RB that knows when to run out of bounds and evade a hit, and when to lay the wood down, and be able to delineate the difference. Just bashing through people isn't going to help anybody. Guice on the shelf for six weeks aint helping anyone, and as 2017 can attest to, when Guice is hurt, he's just a very average RB, and running like that will insure he'll be hurt a lot. Would much prefer taking Chubb or Penny later to Guice at slot. 

 

 

7-8 seasons is actually getting to the higher end of how long you can expect from a bell cow RB who was the main weapon for 4 years in college (especially at Texas in the 70s) during a period when the main medical advice for players was to rub dings with dirt. 3 consecutive all-pro seasons is pretty good for a RB who is your only weapon. Campbell did not leave football until he was 30 and actually played in over 95% of the games available to him while starting just over 88% of the time. Guice does not have 4 years as LSU's prime back and has 300+ fewer rushing attempts than Campbell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched Casserly's draft special(I know, I know) and really like both D.J. Moore and Kyle Lauletta.  Think D.J Moore might be special...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm meh on Payne and/or Vea at 13. Think both will be solid pros but nothing more. Payne to me is the quintessential guy who gets overrated because the name on the front of his jersey. If he went to say Arkansas instead of Bama he'd 100% be a Day 2 guy. 

 

Vea on the other hand I like slightly more but more like a late 1st guy. 

 

Minkah, Derwin or Guice for me. We need impact players we have enough solid guys. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Blanka said:

I'm meh on Payne and/or Vea at 13. Think both will be solid pros but nothing more. Payne to me is the quintessential guy who gets overrated because the name on the front of his jersey. If he went to say Arkansas instead of Bama he'd 100% be a Day 2 guy. 

 

This is a purely speculative criticism, not a real one.  I could just as easily speculate that he'd have been a three year starter at Arkansas and played as a three technique penetrator and piled up TFLs and sacks and be a top ten lock instead of having to wait until his junior year to play and having to play as a two gapping nose.

 

We do know for sure though that if he hadn't gone to Bama, he wouldn't have gotten the chance to show out in the Sugar Bowl and dominate the NC game like he did.

 

At the end of the day, the school he goes to doesn't change the grades he gets from the film study.  That's about the traits and level of performance he displays as an individual.  He's got special athletic traits and his film is really good.  He's a good player and he'd be a good player at any school.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a secret that Washington would like to draft Guice. I also think many other teams would as well. It seems to be a consensus that the FO would like to drop back a few picks and then draft Guice around pick #20-24ish.  I could see a situation developing where we do trade back, only to have another Guice suitor trade up in front of us. The draft is a crapshoot in many,many ways and I don't think it will be a given that he will be available to us if we trade back.

   Not saying we should draft him at 13, be simply stating that everything is fluid come draft day. TBH, I'd be happy with a Hernandez and Phillips draft. Both seem to be fiery run through walls kind of guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything more than an all down nose I don't want our 1st rounder spent on a 3-4 specialist.  Like a 3-4 inside hybrid guy that will be stuck on the sideline anytime we go 4-3 / 4-2-5, or the opposition chooses to go hurry up on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

At Alabama he was a two gapping nose who saw a double on half his snaps and rarely got the chance to rush from the three tech.  You're only ever going to get so much pass rushing production from that kind of role.

 

Watching film on Payne, he seems to be doubled about as much as Jonathan Allen was last year.  Which makes sense, because both players were asked to two-gap and eat up blockers for the LBs and Safties to make plays behind them. Yet, the disparity between JA’s career sacks and TFLs vs Payne’s is laughable.  Payne can’t hide behind the excuse of being a NT in that scheme. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Watching film on Payne, he seems to be doubled about as much as Jonathan Allen was last year.  Which makes sense, because both players were asked to two-gap and eat up blockers for the LBs and Safties to make plays behind them. Yet, the disparity between JA’s career sacks and TFLs vs Payne’s is laughable.  Payne can’t hide behind the excuse of being a NT in that scheme. 

Watching Paynes highlight films are boring as **** and I love them. If there was a stat for RB gains of a yard or two, he would lead everyone. He may not get into the backfield very much, but he never leaves the middle of the line, no matter how many guys try and move him and he's very good at getting off those blocks and making the tackle. He just lives there and backs don't get past him. The best part is that's his floor. No idea where his ceiling is.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Watching Paynes highlight films are boring as **** and I love them. If there was a stat for RB gains of a yard or two, he would lead everyone. He may not get into the backfield very much, but he never leaves the middle of the line, no matter how many guys try and move him and he's very good at getting off those blocks and making the tackle. He just lives there and backs don't get past him. The best part is that's his floor. No idea where his ceiling is.

 

This is about where I stand on him.  I'm a FIRM believer in getting a player in the 1st round that can change the team.  Most of the time people correlate this with game changing, dynamic, home run hitter.  Me... I go deeper.  If a player is able to come in and be an impact player, the degree of 'sexiness' on me is lost.  A 3 down DT that can stop the run is about as big an impact player for our team as we are looking for.  I don't know if he's worth 13, but if he comes in, is able to be a mainstay on the D-line, and is able to anchor a very young and versatile unit... I'll take that.  Maybe we drop back 5 or 6 picks and grab him a little later while adding some more picks... I'd be ok with that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

This is about where I stand on him.  I'm a FIRM believer in getting a player in the 1st round that can change the team.  Most of the time people correlate this with game changing, dynamic, home run hitter.  Me... I go deeper.  If a player is able to come in and be an impact player, the degree of 'sexiness' on me is lost.  A 3 down DT that can stop the run is about as big an impact player for our team as we are looking for.  I don't know if he's worth 13, but if he comes in, is able to be a mainstay on the D-line, and is able to anchor a very young and versatile unit... I'll take that.  Maybe we drop back 5 or 6 picks and grab him a little later while adding some more picks... I'd be ok with that.  

Yeah my top choice is hands down Fitz, but Payne is a close second. 3 down nose who's a student of the game and can immediately help our run D? Absolutely. I'd be much happier to drop back a bit and pick up a 3rd to go with him, but I think Payne is a solid choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Watching film on Payne, he seems to be doubled about as much as Jonathan Allen was last year.  Which makes sense, because both players were asked to two-gap and eat up blockers for the LBs and Safties to make plays behind them. Yet, the disparity between JA’s career sacks and TFLs vs Payne’s is laughable.  Payne can’t hide behind the excuse of being a NT in that scheme. 

 

Payne got doubled more last year than Allen did.  Payne was the nose, Allen played end and Allen didn't two gap.  And during his junior year he was a passing down sub.  They had completely different roles at Bama.  Allen also played with more talent on the line his two big years than Payne did this year.  Reed and Robinson and Tim Williams and Ryan Anderson and Dalvin Thomlinson were all draft picks who were productive.  Williams was a particular boon to Allen's production as a dominant rusher on the other side.  The only other NFL guy Payne played with on the line or at OLB was Hand, and he's not the pass rushing talent that Williams/Anderson were or the block eater that Reed and Robinson (or Payne himself) were.

 

Some of my biggest concerns with Allen during last year's evaluation were that he saw so few doubles for a potential top five blue chip DL, that he was not productive against them when he saw them, and that such a large portion of his production came when he was unblocked or blocked by tight ends.  Payne simply never had it nearly as easy as a pass rusher as Allen did.

 

Another concern I had with Allen was that, while he had great body control and was a good open field runner, he wasn't fast off the line.  Payne is actually faster and more athletic than Allen was.  He is very explosive off the line and his ten yard split is faster than Joey Bosa's and almost as fast as Solomon Thomas's was.  Payne has the potential to be a very good rusher, something he wasn't able to show as a two gapping nose and block eater at Alabama.

 

 

 

To clarify: Payne saw more doubles in 2016 than Allen did and he CERTAINLY saw them more frequently in 2017.  He was doubled the majority of his snaps.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.