Jump to content

A different mock with one trade


jidady
 Share

Recommended Posts

There was a comment earlier today that several of the mocks were starting to look the same. Many of them have some variation of DT in the first round, OT and MLB/QB in the second and third rounds. I thought this was valid, which is unfortunate since we should have some imagination on these things. What I wanted to do then was to see the whole board and maybe come up with a scenario that hadn't been discussed yet. Here is what I realized.

The Baltimore Ravens pick #8 in the draft. They selected a QB last year in Troy Smith, so if they are happy with him, this is a non-starter. Let's say they are not, however, and that Matt Ryan is on the board when we pick at #3. What if the Ravens were willing to swap basically what the value chart requires in order to cut a deal to lock up the presumptive #1 QB in the draft? They have paid more in the past to do such a thing, albeit in the regrettable Kyle Boller deal. We know the GM is willing to make such a bold move. What would the Falcons do with the picks they acquired? Here is what such a move would allow:

1-8) Dan Connor, MLB - Penn State

We keep saying the same names. Let's try a different one. Before you say that this is too early for him, let's consider two things. The first is that our team has a desperate need at MLB with a new GM who has claimed to draft based on need (although I think he's exaggerating the point). The second is that we do occasionally see guys get late heat that boosts their stock into the top 10. Generally, it's a mistake, but sometimes it's valid to have this happen. As an example, everyone believed Buffalo made a huge mistake when they took a relatively unheralded safety named Donte Whitner at #8 overall. All he did after that was outplay the much more heavily championed Michael Huff thus far.

So, if we need a MLB, why not draft the best one? We'd clearly have to move down the board to do it. I would be much happier if we made an additional deal to the #15 range, thereby getting additional compensation along the way. No matter how we do it, however, the honest evaluation is that the Falcons want to avoid a repeat of last year's mistake. Patrick Willis was a better selection than Jamaal Anderson. Our hole at MLB killed us. Dan Connor had 145 tackles including 6.5 sacks this past season. He is a hunter. Locking him in at MLB secures our front seven. Right now, we pick too early to make that move but if we moved down, he's a name to remember.

2-36) Calais Campbell, DE - Miami

2-39) James Hardy, WR - Indiana

2-49) Ali Highsmith, OLB - LSU

Here is the other exciting aspect of the deal. We saw last year with Chris Houston and Justin Blalock just how valuable selections are in the upper half of the second round. Guys that teams have given first round grades slide. It doesn't take much. Only a few teams each round are considering taking your guys after the first twenty are gone. All of these players are going to be right on the cusp of that 1C/2A grade. Sure, it's possible someone reaches for one of them, but let's assume they haven't. None of these names is getting tossed around a lot for our selections, which I find odd.

People keep talking about this team getting stronger on defense, making the assumption that DT is the only way to do it. What if we went a different way? It has been pointed out how tall some of Smith's defensive linemen were at Jacksonville. Personally, I think that's coincidence rather than tactic, but what if it is not? Campbell is a much bigger end than we have had in the past. At 6-8 and 285, he is a proven pass rusher with 22 sacks as well as 38 tackles for loss over the past three seasons. He also had 84 (!) tackles last year before plummeting to 50 in 2007. This is the perfect example of a stellar junior struggling as a senior when defenses schemed to take him out of the game. Along with Anderson, he would be an intriguing piece for match-ups in our future d-line rotation.

The Hardy pick might seem confusing at first as none of us is sure if we are looking at WRs. The idea of taking one when a QB prospect might be on the board seems crazy at first. Let's consider something before reaching that conclusion. Michael Jenkins is gone after this year if not before. We are all pretty sure of this. Brian Finneran is no longer a part of our plans due to injury. So, the two WRs we know we have moving forward are Roddy White and Laurent Robinson. Hardy presents a unique complement to them as a 6-7 athlete with a basketball player's hands. He has 36 career TDs in three seasons at Indiana. Given that he was the only player defenders had to worry about in the red zone, this is a striking accomplishment. The Falcons have said they intend to build a QB-friendly system. I can't think of a friendlier thing for a QB than a gigantic receiver with a forward's hands.

While we drafted a WLB last season, I still believe Highsmith will be on our board due to the inevitable leaving of D-Mo. Highsmith is the best Will in this draft, and in addition to being a productive tackler, he's a surprisingly good blitzer. He had three sacks on the year and was second on LSU in QB pressures. With Connor and him, we are not only upgrading the core of our front seven as well as creating a dynamic LB unit, we are also adding to the pass rush. Both of them have shown they disrupt upfield. I've been preaching about making our front seven ferocious on defense. Putting Campbell into the d-line rotation and swapping out Brooking and D-Mo for Connor and Highsmith should do just this over the long haul. And we're not done yet. In fact, we still have 10 picks left.

3-67) Andre Woodson, QB - Kentucky

3-71) John Greco, OT - Toledo

3-96) John Carlson, TE - Notre Dame

4-102) Marcus Griffin, FS - Texas

By now, we are all aware of the various QB prospects. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the postseason thus far is the slippage of Woodson down the board. The hitches in his delivery, his having to learn to take snaps under center, and the new style of offense all contributed to a disastrous Senior Bowl showing. What hurts him helps us as this is a guy who has played at a high level against the toughest defenses in the SEC. There isn't any downside to our taking him at this point in the draft. Nicks is a mammoth LT who is surprisingly agile for a man his size. His stock has been all over the place since he only had one great year in college, but he has measurables out the wazoo. I wouldn't be surprised if he went 50 picks before this or 50 after. He's a complete roll of the dice, but his payoff could theoretically be on the Jason Peters level. Carlson is a pick we have discussed previously. We are going to take a TE early in this draft as that is the NE m.o. As for DJ Parker, I frankly hate the FS options in this class, but even if we sign someone like Ken Hamlin, I still expect us to draft one in preparation for the likely cutting of ties with Jimmy Williams at some point in the next year.

5-142) Robert Felton, OG - Arkansas

5-145) Trae Williams, CB - South Florida

6-177) Ahtyba Rubin, DT - Iowa State

6-198) Kirk Barton, OT - Ohio State

7-214) Jacob Hester, FB - LSU

7-255) Art Carmody, PK - Louisville

Felton is an accomplished run blocker while Barton's flexibility would offer the same value that his teammate, Doug Datish, did for us last year. Our O-line depth would be improved dramatically with this influx of new talent. As for Williams, I have three different comments from the past two seasons indicating scouts liked him better than his teammate, Mike Jenkins. He did have more interceptions at 6 to 4 while Jenkins had more pass break-ups at 12 to 10. While I believe saying he is better is outlandish, he would offer tremendous value at this spot. He's another press-cover speedster, which would give us a core of four of them in our rotation. I also believe that with such track speed, he could probably return kicks for us over time.

With regards to Rubin, I'm not sure if I have seen him mentioned much (at this point, I'm started to go glazed from all of the various mocks), but this is one of the best pure run stuffers in the draft. He's a true nose with the glorious description of being "built like a Coke machine". How can you not love that? Rather than us select Ellis or Dorsey in round one, maybe we go the other way with it and try to find another Trey Lewis steal quite late. As for Hester, we keep talking about bringing in a power back. His selection would be going another way with it. He's just a great football player, and I think he will hang around the pros for a long time due to his versatility. And the Carmody pick speaks for itself.

Looking over the scope of this mock, we accomplish a few things. The first is that we dramatically upgrade the talent level on the front seven, particularly in the linebacker core. We also bring in the run stuffing DT we missed so much at times last year. We would have three good young DTs to build around and our top 4 LBs would all be first to fourth year players. Plus, we would have two unique, supremely talented DEs from the past two drafts, both of whom were accomplished college rushers.This also brings in three more O-line players in addition to the two from last year. Five new guys is a strong step forward. We get some toys on offense at TE and WR while bringing in an undervalued QB and a flex runner/bocker. We (hopefully) secure the kicker position. We bring in a couple of new pieces for the secondary, one of whom I believe would offer even better value than David Irons did last year.

In short, we add 25 new players in the 2007 and 2008 drafts thanks in large part to only two deals: the Matt Schaub trade and dealing down from #3 to #8 this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DT, then QB and then OT draft format is popular because those are our needs. I like the idea of a trade with the Ravens but I see no chance of use drafting 2 LBs and a WR under your scenario. Our line needs are much worse. If we pick 8th and Clady is still there

I would go with him. Maybe a MLB with one of the 2nd round picks. QB and NT in the 2nd probably. Like the Greco pick, Felton probably will be gone in the 4th. Hester was a nice

college player but we will get an everydown back before the 4th round most likely. Forte or Choice, don't see Arthur signing off on DMac. Like Williams and Carmody but I suspect Rubin will be gone before the 6th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gulfcoastdawg (2/10/2008)
The DT, then QB and then OT draft format is popular because those are our needs. I like the idea of a trade with the Ravens but I see no chance of use drafting 2 LBs and a WR under your scenario. Our line needs are much worse. If we pick 8th and Clady is still there

The nice thing about acquiring a total of 14 picks in the draft is that we are no longer pressed to draft solely for need. In addition, the only pick out of the first seven I make that is not a high priority is WR. MLB is in fact our gravest need on the team. We don't have even a decent one on our roster at this point. Similarly, with D-Mo leaving in free agency, we will be taking an OLB as well. That's arguably a bigger need than DT as well. At worst, it's a push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it sure is different. But I kinda like it. Connor and Campbell are pretty good picks. I would rather secure our QB and LT instead of Hardy and Highsmith, but I understand your thinking. I would rather get more of a sure thing at QB then Woodson, and I don't know much about Greco. I like Carlson, and I would rather wait until '09 to get a FS (this years class sucks). And your picks from round 5 on are excellent. Overall, it's different, but I would actually be pretty happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think WR and TE are needs, especially depth wise. I know this goes against a lot of opinions, but the Falcons only have 2 "good" WRs, one of which was a rookie, and isn't completely proven. Horn is past his prime, Finn has had back to back ACL surgeries, Jennings is mostly a return man, and Jenkins plays for the other team lots of times.

What happens if White or Robinson get hurt? What if Atlanta wants to run a good 3 WR set? Or a 4-wide? Depth is important. What about Alge's knees? Are we going to trust the TE position to a guy who couldn't consistently catch the ball in college? A TE is a QBs best friend, so if we are going young at QB, shouldn't we get the guy a reliable TE for the future?

James Hardy could end up comparable to Moss (probably not as explosive) with his height, or at least Plaxico Burress. For a second rounder, it's a huge value for him. I think the Falcons will draft a WR and a TE, unless they add someone in FA. In any case, I think there will be 2 new WRs on this team next season, and two might be drafted.

Here are some round 3 and later guys I really like:

Jordy Nelson

Lavelle Hawkins

Dexter Jackson

Marcus Monk

Keenan Burton

Kenneth Moore

Kevin Robinson

Darius Reynaud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nice thing about acquiring a total of 14 picks in the draft is that we are no longer pressed to draft solely for need. In addition, the only pick out of the first seven I make that is not a high priority is WR. MLB is in fact our gravest need on the team. We don't have even a decent one on our roster at this point. Similarly, with D-Mo leaving in free agency, we will be taking an OLB as well. That's arguably a bigger need than DT as well. At worst, it's a push.

14 picks, why? Youre starting to sound like Dan Reeves. Draft enough something will turn up. Geez, i think the Falcons have had enough Jon Ollingers, Etric Pruitts, Quincy Wilsons, DeAndra Cobbs, LaTarence Dunbars and others over the year.

No more of this quantity over quality crap in the draft. Your philosophy is no where near the Patriots approach. They stockpile picks over years and trade in and out of rounds based on BPA that fits a need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)
The nice thing about acquiring a total of 14 picks in the draft is that we are no longer pressed to draft solely for need. In addition, the only pick out of the first seven I make that is not a high priority is WR. MLB is in fact our gravest need on the team. We don't have even a decent one on our roster at this point. Similarly, with D-Mo leaving in free agency, we will be taking an OLB as well. That's arguably a bigger need than DT as well. At worst, it's a push.

14 picks, why? Youre starting to sound like Dan Reeves. Draft enough something will turn up. Geez, i think the Falcons have had enough Jon Ollingers, Etric Pruitts, Quincy Wilsons, DeAndra Cobbs, LaTarence Dunbars and others over the year.

No more of this quantity over quality crap in the draft. Your philosophy is no where near the Patriots approach. They stockpile picks over years and trade in and out of rounds based on BPA that fits a need.If you are playing Roulette, would you rather have 7 numbers or 14?

The draft is a crap shoot. If you hit on 50% your doing good. If you have 7 picks and draft well, 3-4 of those will turn out. If you hit 50% with 14 picks, 7 of those will turn out. Which would you rather have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cush (2/10/2008)
Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)
The nice thing about acquiring a total of 14 picks in the draft is that we are no longer pressed to draft solely for need. In addition, the only pick out of the first seven I make that is not a high priority is WR. MLB is in fact our gravest need on the team. We don't have even a decent one on our roster at this point. Similarly, with D-Mo leaving in free agency, we will be taking an OLB as well. That's arguably a bigger need than DT as well. At worst, it's a push.

14 picks, why? Youre starting to sound like Dan Reeves. Draft enough something will turn up. Geez, i think the Falcons have had enough Jon Ollingers, Etric Pruitts, Quincy Wilsons, DeAndra Cobbs, LaTarence Dunbars and others over the year.

No more of this quantity over quality crap in the draft. Your philosophy is no where near the Patriots approach. They stockpile picks over years and trade in and out of rounds based on BPA that fits a need.

If you are playing Roulette, would you rather have 7 numbers or 14?

The draft is a crap shoot. If you hit on 50% your doing good. If you have 7 picks and draft well, 3-4 of those will turn out. If you hit 50% with 14 picks, 7 of those will turn out. Which would you rather have?

Cush, you are smarter than this. That type of "crapshoot" approach is what has put the Falcons in such a bad way. Look at the great and even good teams and how they draft. They treat the draft as a science and target players that fit their system. Sure you miss sometimes. But overall qualitative drafting is always better than quantitative drafting.

An example overdrafting in a smart way could happen if we drafted Ryan with the #3 overall pick. Would he be a value at #1 or #3 overall? Absolutely. Cause guess what if he is the one that our FO and coaching staff wants to make the face of the franchise (which they may very well do), they'll have to pull the trigger, because KC, Baltimore, Carolina and Chicago (picks 5-14) all have a need for a young QB, and odds are one of them will nab him if we don't.

Similar situation if the falcons target Henne or Woodson. If the Falcons choose to go Jake Long or Dorsey with the top pick; there exists a great possibility that we'll trade back into the first or up in the second to "overdraft" our QB. To do so may cost us our other second, a third and maybe a 5th or sixth and potentially a pick next year. Don't believe me that's what it cost the Chargers for Eric Weddle. But you know what, that's smart drafting. Walking away with 4 targeted prospects that you feel fit your system/scheme and fill a position of need is always smarter business than 14 "oh we hope they work out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, I can point you to several trades that the Falcons made, where they "targeted" players, and traded up, and it cost them dearly.

Michael Jenkins, Jimmy Williams, and Reggie Kelly come to mind. They traded up for Martin Bibla. When you trade down, it doesn't mean you aren't targeting players, and it doesn't mean you won't get players that fit your scheme.. A good example: the Colts targeted Bob Sanders, traded down twice, and still got him!

Here's another example... Green Bay added 6 extra picks a couple seasons ago and still got the players they wanted. Trading down is a way of managing the draft, still getting players to fit your system, and getting more players to boot. You look at the successful franchises and they stockpile draft picks, rarely trading up. If you are New England, you can now trade up because your team is so deep, you won't have a whole lot of picks that make your team. You want to know how they made that team so deep? I think you know the answer...

You can still draft for need and fit when you trade down. The Draft may be a science, but's not an exact one. And yes, quality is better than quantity, but staying put doesn't guarantee you'll end up with the better player. You should know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we go lite on the skill positions. we need a RB and QB and for the first 5 rounds those will be the only skill positions addressed. I think we need size and strength at DT,OT,MLB,and we need a backup DE if we don't resign chauncey davis. there are many other positions needed. we do need a KR though terribly bad. we need someone who can change field position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trubirdfan4life (2/10/2008)
I think we go lite on the skill positions. we need a RB and QB and for the first 5 rounds those will be the only skill positions addressed. I think we need size and strength at DT,OT,MLB,and we need a backup DE if we don't resign chauncey davis. there are many other positions needed. we do need a KR though terribly bad. we need someone who can change field position.
I agree. We'll go QB and RB in the first 3 rounds, with the other picks mostly on the lines and maybe at MLB. I wouldn't rule out TE in the first 3 rounds, though. I think after Round 3, we'll look at CB depth as well as the skill positions, with a lot of help for special teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)

14 picks, why? Youre starting to sound like Dan Reeves.

No.

# of Falcons draft picks under Reeves:

6

8

10

6

9

9

9

6

The Falcons never even approached that many selections in a draft. That's 63 picks in 8 seasons, an average just under 8 a year. If we do first day picks (those in the top 3 rounds), the numbers dwindle to 18 picks in 8 seasons, which is 2 1/4 a year. You have 3 to start. Had you researched this rather than flying off the handle, you would have realized the Dan Reeves example works exactly against the idea that fewer picks is better.

They stockpile picks

Well, if you take away intent and only quote specific wording, you would at least have gotten this right.

# of Patriots picks since 1998:

10

9

10

10

6

10

8

7

10

9

That's right. Half of the time over the past ten years, they have had 10 picks. 70% of the time, they have had at least 9 picks (i.e. 2 more than normal). Only once over the past 10 years have they drafted less than the 7 picks the NFL gives you. Not coincidentally, they are the deepest team in football.

This is just common sense. Research more and rant less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cush (2/10/2008)
Eric, I can point you to several trades that the Falcons made, where they "targeted" players, and traded up, and it cost them dearly.

Michael Jenkins, Jimmy Williams, and Reggie Kelly come to mind. They traded up for Martin Bibla. When you trade down, it doesn't mean you aren't targeting players, and it doesn't mean you won't get players that fit your scheme.. A good example: the Colts targeted Bob Sanders, traded down twice, and still got him!

Here's another example... Green Bay added 6 extra picks a couple seasons ago and still got the players they wanted. Trading down is a way of managing the draft, still getting players to fit your system, and getting more players to boot. You look at the successful franchises and they stockpile draft picks, rarely trading up. If you are New England, you can now trade up because your team is so deep, you won't have a whole lot of picks that make your team. You want to know how they made that team so deep? I think you know the answer...

You can still draft for need and fit when you trade down. The Draft may be a science, but's not an exact one. And yes, quality is better than quantity, but staying put doesn't guarantee you'll end up with the better player. You should know this.

Don't you realize that we did the same thing in last years draft that the Packers did? We drafted 11 players and all of them made the squad. In fact, all but one Datish (early IR) contributed nicely. Antoine Harris and Renardo Foster were two UDFAs that were key contributors as well.

Have you noticed a common thread among all the teams that you mentioned? They all have franchise QBs. Something we lack. And while everyone notes that Brady was a 6th rounder, what many leave out is the fact that the Pats had the former #1 overall pick, Drew Bledsoe, entrenched as their franchise QB, as they developed brady. While Favre was a second round er, the Packers gave up a first to get him. And Peyton obviously was a top tier pick.

In this draft, the more I observe him, the more I think that Matt Ryan is indeed a franchise QB and if available we should draft him rather than move down.

Additionally, i'm not certain that we have as many holes in our roster as many experts (MB and non MB experts) claim. Our Oline definitely needs shoring up. But this years FA OT market is very nice. Flozell Adams, Max Starks (my fav), Travelle Wharton (my second fav)or Jordan Gross (i think he gets resigned) will all be available, and signing one of them gives us an instant upgrade. Blalock is a very good young player. If we sign either Wharton or Starks, we could then use a second on Cherilus or Carl Nicks for the RT position.

W/o getting into a huge discourse on falcons needs my point is that we don't need to bring in 12 or 13 new faces again. We have talent--young talent. OUr biggest problems last year were the loss of Vick and petrino debacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)

In this draft, the more I observe him, the more I think that Matt Ryan is indeed a franchise QB and if available we should draft him rather than move down.

Observe what exactly? He hasn't played in any games lately. This is the textbook example of a guy's stock going up due to absolutely nothing in-game related. When Matt Ryan played, he was exactly the 61st most efficient passer in Division 1 football. If you want to waste a top 5 pick on that guy, yikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jidady (2/10/2008)
Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)

14 picks, why? Youre starting to sound like Dan Reeves.

No.

# of Falcons draft picks under Reeves:

6

8

10

6

9

9

9

6

The Falcons never even approached that many selections in a draft. That's 63 picks in 8 seasons, an average just under 8 a year. If we do first day picks (those in the top 3 rounds), the numbers dwindle to 18 picks in 8 seasons, which is 2 1/4 a year. You have 3 to start. Had you researched this rather than flying off the handle, you would have realized the Dan Reeves example works exactly against the idea that fewer picks is better.

They stockpile picks

Well, if you take away intent and only quote specific wording, you would at least have gotten this right.

# of Patriots picks since 1998:

10

9

10

10

6

10

8

7

10

9

That's right. Half of the time over the past ten years, they have had 10 picks. 70% of the time, they have had at least 9 picks (i.e. 2 more than normal). Only once over the past 10 years have they drafted less than the 7 picks the NFL gives you. Not coincidentally, they are the deepest team in football.

This is just common sense. Research more and rant less.

big difference btwn 9 picks and 14 picks. Huge difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jidady (2/10/2008)
Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)

In this draft, the more I observe him, the more I think that Matt Ryan is indeed a franchise QB and if available we should draft him rather than move down.

Observe what exactly? He hasn't played in any games lately. This is the textbook example of a guy's stock going up due to absolutely nothing in-game related. When Matt Ryan played, he was exactly the 61st most efficient passer in Division 1 football. If you want to waste a top 5 pick on that guy, yikes.

Interview with him and the allstar challenge, if you must know. And i actually saw most of Ryan's games--not just the VTech one. Including his junior year game. How much have you followed him? Youre a big Dixon fan, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do like Conner, he's aggressive and he really likes to attack, that's something we need. But Campbell just doesn't do it for me, he has all the physical talent, but he really didn't get it done last year. I like thinking different, but I'd still be more tempted towards a DT or a starting tailback at that spot. Hardy and Highsmith are both great talents that would be worth those spots if available, though, and that draft fills a lot of needs, this is definitely one of my favorite mocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Obraiden (2/10/2008)

Interview with him and the allstar challenge, if you must know.

Yup. Stuff that has nothing to do with real football.

And i actually saw most of Ryan's games--not just the VTech one. Including his junior year game. How much have you followed him?

I've probably watched 10 games over the past two seasons, 7 of them coming this year. I think I broke down his play 4 times (it might have been 5) during that period. If you missed it, the summary is that Matt Ryan's decision making is so shoddy that I wouldn't spend a draft pick on him. You can't coach that out of a player for the most part. The 19 INTs are plenty scary enough on their own, but the idea that he could have easily had a dozen more is beyond the pale.

Youre a big Dixon fan, right?

I was a bigger fan before the injury, but I like him a lot as a player. He's got moxie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Nixon (2/10/2008)
But Campbell just doesn't do it for me, he has all the physical talent, but he really didn't get it done last year.

Oh, I think that's valid. I look at Campbell the same way I look at guys like Baker and Henne. These are the ones who have been solid throughout their careers but they lost a bit of their luster as seniors. Generally speaking, I love drafting players like this. On the one hand, they're well established and know what it takes to play at a high level. On the other hand, they're a lot hungrier because they didn't get the expected press clippings nor did they go out on the high note they dreamed about.

Campbell's 2007 is 50 tackles, 12.5 TFL and 6 sacks.

Campbell's 2006 is 84 tackles, 20.5 TFL and 10.5 sacks.

If he had come out last year, he probably would have been a top 10 pick. I always like it when we get players with that sort of value outside the first round. Let's split the difference on Campbell, saying he is somewhere between 2006 and 2007 as a player. That's 67 tackles, 16.5 TFL and 8 sacks. For a DE prospect from an established program like Miami, that's a guy you would strongly consider, right?

Then again, this is also why I believe Campbell might get overdrafted. Some team might see him as the 2006 guy more than the 2007 one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jidady (2/10/2008)
Richard Nixon (2/10/2008)
But Campbell just doesn't do it for me, he has all the physical talent, but he really didn't get it done last year.

Oh, I think that's valid. I look at Campbell the same way I look at guys like Baker and Henne. These are the ones who have been solid throughout their careers but they lost a bit of their luster as seniors. Generally speaking, I love drafting players like this. On the one hand, they're well established and know what it takes to play at a high level. On the other hand, they're a lot hungrier because they didn't get the expected press clippings nor did they go out on the high note they dreamed about.

Campbell's 2007 is 50 tackles, 12.5 TFL and 6 sacks.

Campbell's 2006 is 84 tackles, 20.5 TFL and 10.5 sacks.

If he had come out last year, he probably would have been a top 10 pick. I always like it when we get players with that sort of value outside the first round. Let's split the difference on Campbell, saying he is somewhere between 2006 and 2007 as a player. That's 67 tackles, 16.5 TFL and 8 sacks. For a DE prospect from an established program like Miami, that's a guy you would strongly consider, right?

Then again, this is also why I believe Campbell might get overdrafted. Some team might see him as the 2006 guy more than the 2007 one.

Some guys get hungrier, but a lot of others just seem to get lazier. He could turn it on in the pros, no doubt, and he definitely would have gone much higher last year, but it's scary taking someone that high that put out so little last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...