Jump to content

Drafting: hype vs. utility


Pacific_Falcon
 Share

Recommended Posts

After spending some down time the last couple days looking over some mock drafts and where some players were rated, I started thinking about whether or not our OC would use their talents.

Starting with Titus Young...a lot of peeps here are high on him, and understandably so. There have been some comparisons I have seen to both DeSean Jackson (WATCH OUT FOR DUNTA ROBINSON, DESEAN!! oh, too late...) and wallace from Pittsburgh. My thought on Titus Young is that he would change the way defenses play against us, in theory. However, would MM really use him to his strengths? We supposedly drafted Douglas to be that speed threat, but every pass Douglas caught (or at least the few I can remember), he was on a crossing route over the middle, not sprinting downfield to push back the safeties. So would drafting Young make sense? To be fair, Douglas missed an entire year, but even when healthy, I don't remember him being anything resembling a vertical threat. I believe he caught one semi-deep ball (against the Saints?), but my point is, if we take Young, would MM even use him much vertically?

This is why I think DT and co. will look pretty hard at Baldwin. The one thing that gives me pause is that he's basically a Jenkins clone...great size, good but not great speed. This type of receiver seems to fit MM's system much better. Understandably, a lot of peeps here I'm sure would go 'why do we need 2 Jenkins type players, that does nothing to upgrade our offense'? Jenkins is under contract for I think 2 more years, WR's take some time to develop usually (see Roddy White), and I think he will be an upgrade over Jenkins. Jenkins takes some flak on this board, but he has made some outstanding sideline catchess...that said, from what I have read on Baldwin, he will be better at getting seperation.

I think there's a good chance of us taking both, and I guess I'd be happy with either, unless of coarse they become yet another falcon draftee to blow out a knee (Jerry, Douglas, Meier). Then we'll be right back to where we started.

I agree with a lot of other posters that we need that "x-factor" type of player like a McCluster, Woodhead, etc. A guy we can split out wide or have in the backfield, and either way the defense has to respect him. While I agree that Hunter and Locke are good prospects for this, has anyone checked out Jacquizz Rodgers from Oregon State? I saw a few OSU games this year, and this guy leaves defender's jocks all over the field once he gets into open space. While he has the same knock that Hunter has (size), this kid actually ran pretty tough between the tackles and is pretty good catching the ball out of the backfield. But again, will we actually use this type of player? These types of players are great with screens, draws, etc., which Mularkey uses sparingly or not at all. We had a great scatback type in Norwood, and while he obviously wasn't on the field much, even when healthy, he rarely got used. Half the time he got a touch, it seemed like he was running between the tackles.

I still like our chances of taking one of these types of players thanks to Snelling, otherwise I have a feeling the front office would be looking at taking another power-type back.

Lastly, while this isn't really much of a scheme question, do we address the OL at all with this draft? We took a couple of guys who look like they will be Dahl's and McClure's heir apparents, but we seem to tend take an OL in the middle part of the draft. I like Valdez as an eventual RT, I liked what I saw in the little play time he got. While I think Baker takes a little too much flak about his pass protection, I'm more concerned about his durability. I admittedly don't know a lot about LT play, but the OT prospects I read up on seem to either have a good, hard hand punch, but bend too much at the waist or need footwork improvement, or vice versa. I would think the hand punch would be the easiest to correct, but I could be wrong. I think if we look at drafting any OL, we should look at OT for depth.

Just my .02, not trying to rain on anybody's parade about the players they're excited about, but I was just thinking with the conservative style of offense we have, whether or not we take any 'flashy' players, and if so, if it will even matter when you consider MM's playcalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD does not have deep speed so we do need a down the field guy. I watched Titus Young all year and he has put together two really good years as a WR. While he is a little frail, he is taller and Jackson. I don't really think he has the speed of Jackson or Wallace, but I don't doubt that he is a 4.4 guy. Baldwin just seems like a match-up problem to me so I would look at him as well.

Falcons do need a change of pace back. I'm not really high on Rodgers, I don't want a smurf out of the backfield. A third down back still has to pass protect and I would at least like some sort of threat as a runner in a 3rd down back. If he is listed at 5' 7'', chance are he is shorter than that. He is not as thick as Jones-Drew and he does not have long speed. Da'Rel Scott has intrigued me but I like DeMarco Murray the best followed by Shane Vereen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD does not have deep speed so we do need a down the field guy. I watched Titus Young all year and he has put together two really good years as a WR. While he is a little frail, he is taller and Jackson. I don't really think he has the speed of Jackson or Wallace, but I don't doubt that he is a 4.4 guy. Baldwin just seems like a match-up problem to me so I would look at him as well.

Falcons do need a change of pace back. I'm not really high on Rodgers, I don't want a smurf out of the backfield. A third down back still has to pass protect and I would at least like some sort of threat as a runner in a 3rd down back. If he is listed at 5' 7'', chance are he is shorter than that. He is not as thick as Jones-Drew and he does not have long speed. Da'Rel Scott has intrigued me but I like DeMarco Murray the best followed by Shane Vereen.

I'll have to take your word for it on Douglas, I thought one of his biggest assets was his vertical speed when he was a college prospect, abeit that might no longer be the case NOW due to the knee injury. I agree with your comment about the pass protection, but smaller guys like Sproles have succeeded as a pass-catching/3rd down back. If our goal is to use the guy to create match-up problems, he shouldn't be doing a lot of pass blocking anyhow. IMO that's what we have Snelling for. Snelling = can block or catch out of backfield, or run a draw. That said, I can't disagree with your assessment of needing a bigger back for our 3rd down/change of pace guy. Supposedly Rodgers was adequate in pass blocking when he did it, but going by your idea of what we should go after, we should go after a GOOD pass blocker, because good at the college level will probably translate to merely adequate at the pro level. Don't know much about Vareen, but I do like the idea of getting our change of pace back in the 4th or later if we can get away with it. I keep harping on this, but I don't trust Baker staying healthy, so I'd like us to take a good technical guy at OT and developmental DE (both for depth) before the 4th round and a WR in the 3rd round at the latest. Honestly I'm sick of drafting WR's but with Jenkins being an OK 2nd, Meier and Douglas both blowing out knees, and Finneran on his last leg, we don't really have a choice. It's almost depressing to look at how many WR's we have drafted, and how little we have to show for it. Douglas and Meier blown knees, Laurent Robinson, and while we have 2 first rounders at Z and X, Jenkins kind of has his position by default. He's made some good grabs, but just doesn't get the seperation or create the matchup problems that in my opinion a 1st round WR should.

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...