Campin's Preseason Top 32

[KempBolt 498]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like McCarron. He's certainly better than Ponder was coming out IMO. He throws a nice deep ball... that's something that I don't see many taking note of. Barr would be an interesting choice for the Vikings. If they stuck 4-3, they could use him the same way that the Broncos use Von Miller. Would still be leave big voids at the DE spots (I believe Allen, Robison, and Griffen are all FA's after this year), but he would certainly improve the defense.

 

We already extended Brian Robison, and we're in negotiations with Everson Griffen. Maybe the Vikings don't need Taj Boyd...

The Vikes just need to let the draft come to them. QB will probably be the most pressing need, but they might miss out on the ones worthy of a top 5

pick if they're not in the top 3. If the blue chip QB's are off the board, take talent at another position and wait for the next round. The worst thing they could do is reach for a 2nd round talent like they did with Ponder.

 

 

I'm of a different opinion.

 

Ultimately, I don't believe it's missing on R1 QBs that is the issue. I believe the issue is letting a bad pick fester and become a 5 year mistake.

 

The reality is, a percentage of QBs fail. It's a given. If you are a team that doesn't have a franchise QB, then there is no other position on your team that can give your club a boost as much as getting one. Yet so many franchises operate out of fear when it comes to resolving this issue.

 

Right now, Tennessee and Minnesota are both in year 2 of their QB evaluations. It's imperative that they avoid the St. Louis/NY Jets examples. Both clubs had young QBs who were not guaranteed to be answers at the position. Both clubs passed on other franchise QBs because it was 'too early' to give up on a QB. That's bunk. QBs can most definitely be evaluated more thoroughly after just a single season.

 

If you don't have a franchise guy, then you better well be doing everything you can to get one. That means not wringing your hands and worrying your way out of opportunities to get another shot at one. If I were in Minnesota's office, I'd be getting a QB anywhere in the top 3 rounds in every single draft until I got one that stuck. The odds are, it can take 3 picks before you get one you can live with if you are outside the top 3 picks in the draft.

 

Minnesota can risk averse themselves out of multiple franchise QB options because they are afraid to look foolish or afraid to retard the development of their current project. That kind of thinking is how you turn what should be an expected risk, into a franchise suffocating mistake.

 

Freeman is a good pick up, because it was essentially a free option. But Minnesota should be looking at QB with their first pick. If they don't like the guys at round 1, trade down to where the tier 2 guys go. Pick up additional picks (I'd highly suggest getting picks in future years at higher rounds). Make sure when you do get your franchise guy, you are in position to infuse the team with a lot of young talent straight away.

 

Reaching for a QB is the rule, not the exception. And it doesn't always work out like Ponder. If a QB that fits your system is there that is good, you need to make sure you get him. Taking him 20 spots too early is not a sin. Status Quo is the sin. You can't change the QB position unless you put your money down and roll the dice.

 

 

I only agree to a point. There are some year's (like this last one) where I don't think the dice are worth rolling in the first round. You have to be honest about the talent available. The Locker/Gabbert/Ponder year was a year of poor decisions, IMO. I didn't think any of those guys were 1st round franchise QB material and the organizations invested a 1st round pick for what amounts to as much or less than what the Bengals, 49ers, and Jets have gotten out of 2nd round picks.

 

But if there is a guy there who is a first round talent, but a 2nd round prospect due to development, I'm fine with that reach. Tannehill or Manuel being the prime examples. That's still a risk, but it carries the potential reward of top notch ability.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

 

 

 

I like McCarron. He's certainly better than Ponder was coming out IMO. He throws a nice deep ball... that's something that I don't see many taking note of. Barr would be an interesting choice for the Vikings. If they stuck 4-3, they could use him the same way that the Broncos use Von Miller. Would still be leave big voids at the DE spots (I believe Allen, Robison, and Griffen are all FA's after this year), but he would certainly improve the defense.

We already extended Brian Robison, and we're in negotiations with Everson Griffen. Maybe the Vikings don't need Taj Boyd...

The Vikes just need to let the draft come to them. QB will probably be the most pressing need, but they might miss out on the ones worthy of a top 5
pick if they're not in the top 3. If the blue chip QB's are off the board, take talent at another position and wait for the next round. The worst thing they could do is reach for a 2nd round talent like they did with Ponder.

 

 

I'm of a different opinion.

 

Ultimately, I don't believe it's missing on R1 QBs that is the issue. I believe the issue is letting a bad pick fester and become a 5 year mistake.

 

The reality is, a percentage of QBs fail. It's a given. If you are a team that doesn't have a franchise QB, then there is no other position on your team that can give your club a boost as much as getting one. Yet so many franchises operate out of fear when it comes to resolving this issue.

 

Right now, Tennessee and Minnesota are both in year 2 of their QB evaluations. It's imperative that they avoid the St. Louis/NY Jets examples. Both clubs had young QBs who were not guaranteed to be answers at the position. Both clubs passed on other franchise QBs because it was 'too early' to give up on a QB. That's bunk. QBs can most definitely be evaluated more thoroughly after just a single season.

 

If you don't have a franchise guy, then you better well be doing everything you can to get one. That means not wringing your hands and worrying your way out of opportunities to get another shot at one. If I were in Minnesota's office, I'd be getting a QB anywhere in the top 3 rounds in every single draft until I got one that stuck. The odds are, it can take 3 picks before you get one you can live with if you are outside the top 3 picks in the draft.

 

Minnesota can risk averse themselves out of multiple franchise QB options because they are afraid to look foolish or afraid to retard the development of their current project. That kind of thinking is how you turn what should be an expected risk, into a franchise suffocating mistake.

 

Freeman is a good pick up, because it was essentially a free option. But Minnesota should be looking at QB with their first pick. If they don't like the guys at round 1, trade down to where the tier 2 guys go. Pick up additional picks (I'd highly suggest getting picks in future years at higher rounds). Make sure when you do get your franchise guy, you are in position to infuse the team with a lot of young talent straight away.

 

Reaching for a QB is the rule, not the exception. And it doesn't always work out like Ponder. If a QB that fits your system is there that is good, you need to make sure you get him. Taking him 20 spots too early is not a sin. Status Quo is the sin. You can't change the QB position unless you put your money down and roll the dice.

 

 

I would like this an infinity amount of times if I could. I say this almost every season when people argue back and forth about a QB needy team in the draft.

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like McCarron. He's certainly better than Ponder was coming out IMO. He throws a nice deep ball... that's something that I don't see many taking note of. Barr would be an interesting choice for the Vikings. If they stuck 4-3, they could use him the same way that the Broncos use Von Miller. Would still be leave big voids at the DE spots (I believe Allen, Robison, and Griffen are all FA's after this year), but he would certainly improve the defense.

 

We already extended Brian Robison, and we're in negotiations with Everson Griffen. Maybe the Vikings don't need Taj Boyd...

The Vikes just need to let the draft come to them. QB will probably be the most pressing need, but they might miss out on the ones worthy of a top 5

pick if they're not in the top 3. If the blue chip QB's are off the board, take talent at another position and wait for the next round. The worst thing they could do is reach for a 2nd round talent like they did with Ponder.

 

 

I'm of a different opinion.

 

Ultimately, I don't believe it's missing on R1 QBs that is the issue. I believe the issue is letting a bad pick fester and become a 5 year mistake.

 

The reality is, a percentage of QBs fail. It's a given. If you are a team that doesn't have a franchise QB, then there is no other position on your team that can give your club a boost as much as getting one. Yet so many franchises operate out of fear when it comes to resolving this issue.

 

Right now, Tennessee and Minnesota are both in year 2 of their QB evaluations. It's imperative that they avoid the St. Louis/NY Jets examples. Both clubs had young QBs who were not guaranteed to be answers at the position. Both clubs passed on other franchise QBs because it was 'too early' to give up on a QB. That's bunk. QBs can most definitely be evaluated more thoroughly after just a single season.

 

If you don't have a franchise guy, then you better well be doing everything you can to get one. That means not wringing your hands and worrying your way out of opportunities to get another shot at one. If I were in Minnesota's office, I'd be getting a QB anywhere in the top 3 rounds in every single draft until I got one that stuck. The odds are, it can take 3 picks before you get one you can live with if you are outside the top 3 picks in the draft.

 

Minnesota can risk averse themselves out of multiple franchise QB options because they are afraid to look foolish or afraid to retard the development of their current project. That kind of thinking is how you turn what should be an expected risk, into a franchise suffocating mistake.

 

Freeman is a good pick up, because it was essentially a free option. But Minnesota should be looking at QB with their first pick. If they don't like the guys at round 1, trade down to where the tier 2 guys go. Pick up additional picks (I'd highly suggest getting picks in future years at higher rounds). Make sure when you do get your franchise guy, you are in position to infuse the team with a lot of young talent straight away.

 

Reaching for a QB is the rule, not the exception. And it doesn't always work out like Ponder. If a QB that fits your system is there that is good, you need to make sure you get him. Taking him 20 spots too early is not a sin. Status Quo is the sin. You can't change the QB position unless you put your money down and roll the dice.

 

 

I only agree to a point. There are some year's (like this last one) where I don't think the dice are worth rolling in the first round. You have to be honest about the talent available. The Locker/Gabbert/Ponder year was a year of poor decisions, IMO. I didn't think any of those guys were 1st round franchise QB material and the organizations invested a 1st round pick for what amounts to as much or less than what the Bengals, 49ers, and Jets have gotten out of 2nd round picks.

 

But if there is a guy there who is a first round talent, but a 2nd round prospect due to development, I'm fine with that reach. Tannehill or Manuel being the prime examples. That's still a risk, but it carries the potential reward of top notch ability.

 

 

This kind of highlights my point as I read it. The fact is, Locker, Gabbert and Ponder were all better prospects coming out of the draft than Dalton or Kaepernick. Passing on them in the first round wouldn't have guaranteed they'd be there later. For instance, it was widely reported that Seattle and Schneider had targetted Gabbert as the best prospect in the draft. He would not have lasted beyond #25 if he slid that far. The reality is, Minnesota, Tennessee and Jacksonville just happened to roll snake eyes on their QB picks. It is the nature of the draft that there aren't guarantees. If you accept that, then you will also accept that hits and misses aren't predictive year to year. What is most important for an organization, is to have the willingness to take a shot, and the balls to immediately and publicly admit failure by keep churning the prospects until you are satisfied.

 

Those teams needed QBs. Those prospects simply didn't work out. Statistically, that should be a given. A painful given, but nonetheless true. In nearly every way, they were better prospects than both guys that were taken in round 2. Dalton and Kaepernick both developed better at the professional level. You can't account for that.

 

Seattle traded for Charlie Whitehurst, dropped Matt Hasselbeck for Tarvaris Jackson, signed Matt Flynn to a big contract and drafted Russell Wilson in the third round. We churned that position aggressively and missed many times. But ultimately, the misses aren't what's important. You only have to hit once. The misses we had didn't have a franchise crushing impact because we didn't care about wasting picks or about putting the franchise on hold because we "weren't sure" if we'd missed. We rolled the dice, and made the determination early that we missed and rerolled immediately. Over and over again. I guarantee you, if Seattle didn't get Wilson last year, we'd have taken a QB early again this year too. I'd also guarantee you that if we'd have taken Gabbert in '11, we would have picked a QB in '12 as well.

 

It's a fallacy to think that just because you bust on a QB, that you've 'wasted the pick'. Every position is fraught with risk. You can bust on any player. Avoiding a QB because you think he's a reach just to take another position doesn't guarantee a successful pick. It only guarantees status quo. It's a philosophy based on fear of failure. Which is inherently stupid considering the near certainty that a team will have to make more than one attempt to secure a franchise QB. It paralyzes bad GMs/organizations and ensures stagnant outcomes and literally wastes valuable years of service of the talent a team already possesses.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Attyla the Hawk

[KempBolt 498]

Maybe that's where we differ. I didn't personally see much of a gap between those three first rounders and Geno/Dalton. The only difference I saw were organizations being less willing to take 2nd round talent in the 1st round. And it seems to have worked out in their favor.

 

I draw a personal distinction between "reaching" for QB's who have first round talent, but perhaps aren't first round picks due to development (Tannehill and Manuel) and "reaching" for QB's who don't even have that talent (in my own opinion-- I can't speak for anyone else) just because they're considered the best in a given class. The former I think of in the light that you're describing (a risk worth taking), and the latter I think is foolish. Now I do completely understand trading away a ton of resources to get the right talent. I would do that before I'd draft Christian Ponder in the first round.

 

The reason being that when you spend a first round pick on a QB, you end up investing at least two years in said player before you decide he isn't going to cut it and you draft another one. I know you highlighted the need for FO's to have the courage to bail as soon as it's evident that they have the wrong guy, but the real world doesn't work like that. Jobs are tied to the performance of premium draft picks. If a GM scraps a first round QB after one year, that GM might not be around long. And the end results are years of sub-mediocrity tied up in sub-par QB's because you felt like you had to take one.

 

Imagine if the Jags had taken Geno Smith in lieu of Joeckel. There's no telling whether or not Geno will be a good QB long term, but in so doing Caldwell and Bradley would have committed themselves to him for at least a couple of seasons. Meaning in that in the first round of 2014, they would likely have felt pressure to grab a player to help him instead of taking an elite QB prospect like Bridgewater. That, I think, is the downside of following the philosophy you're describing.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Yeah I don't think Attyla was saying reach just to roll the dice. He said in one of his posts to trade back then draft one of the 2nd tier guys. But maybe I'm wrong. I understand both your points. That's the balance. The QB fear is REAL. Some Jags fans have been notorious for this. They've been burned by Leftwich and Gabbert so they're shook of drafting one of the highly touted QBs coming out next year (namely Bridgewater.)

 

I love Attyla and Dmac's philosophy on taking a QB until one sticks, I believe in it myself. I also understand you don't just reach to reach like Kemp said. But with your Geno/Joeckel Jags point Kemp, I think what Attyla and Dmac were saying (and I believe the same) is if we were GM of the Jags and say we took Geno #2 but he played utterly terrible — we would go ahead and take a QB in the 1st the very next year. We wouldn't wait those 2 years if we saw the guy just out right struggling like a Gabbert has and panic to get him weapons like Gene Smith did by drafting Blackmon the next year way too high (Smith stupidly traded up for both Gabbert and Blackmon* too, giving up picks to get them.) There's value in taking QBs nearly every year. Ted Thompson and the Packers have shown us as much. Brunell, Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, etc. They got back the picks they drafted them with plus more. The Jags turned backup QB Rob Johnson into Fred Taylor when the Bills traded their 1st and 4th for Rob Johnson in the late 90s.

 

What Attyla is saying is it's important for GM's to be willing to admit failures on QBs early. History shows 1st round QBs have a 50% success rate. It goes down from there the more rounds you go. So the nature of the process guarantees you're going to miss sometimes. The key is to not let that carry your team into multiple mediocre or losing seasons because you won't admit you picked a guy who doesn't have it.

 

What's ironic, is a GM who did just that is ex-Panthers GM Marty Hurney. He took Jimmy Clausen in the 2nd, but realized he wasn't the guy and took Cam Newton the very next year. That's the right thing to do. Obviously he still got fired but that was for other reasons, not failure to get a QB — because Cam was a hit.

 

That's what I think GM's need to be able to do, take a QB until one sticks. You can't take one and when he struggles hope if you surround him with weapons and a good OL all of a sudden he's going to be great. Because that's not going to happen. Will he play better with those around him? Sure, but if he's not wowing you with ability his first year chances are he's not going to be a guy you can ride with to be a contender for the SB. That's how you get your team stuck in purgatory. Sticking with a guy who is good enough not to get rid of, but not good enough to be the guy to lead you to a SB win. Because that's the goal. The goal isn't to get to the playoffs and get beat by a team who has a legit franchise QB.

 

I feel the Bengals are kind of stuck in that purgatory. I don't think Dalton is the guy. But he's average and passable. So they're going to continue to stock weapons around him on offense and defense but I don't think he's going to be good enough to get them the true prize. He's not the guy.

 

*I said trading up for Blackmon was stupid not because Blackmon isn't a good player, he is, I just didn't think he was worth trading up for and especially not at the #5 pick. He is a good player though, no doubt. I just think trading up is pretty stupid regardless.

Edited October 26, 2013 by CampinWithGoatSampson

[KempBolt 498]

Yeah I don't think Attyla was saying reach just to roll the dice. 1. He said in one of his posts to trade back then draft one of the 2nd tier guys. But maybe I'm wrong. I understand both your points. That's the balance. The QB fear is REAL. Some Jags fans have been notorious for this. They've been burned by Leftwich and Gabbert so they're shook of drafting one of the highly touted QBs coming out next year (namely Bridgewater.)

 

I love Attyla and Dmac's philosophy on taking a QB until one sticks, I believe in it myself. I also understand you don't just reach to reach like Kemp said. But with your Geno/Joeckel Jags point Kemp, I think what Attyla and Dmac were saying (and I believe the same) is 2. if we were GM of the Jags and say we took Geno #2 but he played utterly terrible — we would go ahead and take a QB in the 1st the very next year. We wouldn't wait those 2 years if we saw the guy just out right struggling like a Gabbert has and panic to get him weapons like Gene Smith did by drafting Blackmon the next year way too high (Smith stupidly traded up for both Gabbert and Blackmon* too, giving up picks to get them.) There's value in taking QBs nearly every year. Ted Thompson and the Packers have shown us as much. Brunell, Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, etc. They got back the picks they drafted them with plus more. The Jags turned backup QB Rob Johnson into Fred Taylor when the Bills traded their 1st and 4th for Rob Johnson in the late 90s.

 

What Attyla is saying is it's important for GM's to be willing to admit failures on QBs early. History shows 1st round QBs have a 50% success rate. It goes down from there the more rounds you go. So the nature of the process guarantees you're going to miss sometimes. The key is to not let that carry your team into multiple mediocre or losing seasons because you won't admit you picked a guy who doesn't have it.

 

What's ironic, is a GM who did just that is ex-Panthers GM Marty Hurney. 3. He took Jimmy Clausen in the 2nd, but realized he wasn't the guy and took Cam Newton the very next year. That's the right thing to do. Obviously he still got fired but that was for other reasons, not failure to get a QB — because Cam was a hit.

 

That's what I think GM's need to be able to do, take a QB until one sticks. You can't take one and when he struggles hope if you surround him with weapons and a good OL all of a sudden he's going to be great. Because that's not going to happen. Will he play better with those around him? Sure, but if he's not wowing you with ability his first year chances are he's not going to be a guy you can ride with to be a contender for the SB. 4. That's how you get your team stuck in purgatory. Sticking with a guy who is good enough not to get rid of, but not good enough to be the guy to lead you to a SB win. Because that's the goal. The goal isn't to get to the playoffs and get beat by a team who has a legit franchise QB.

 

I feel the Bengals are kind of stuck in that purgatory. I don't think Dalton is the guy. But he's average and passable. So they're going to continue to stock weapons around him on offense and defense but I don't think he's going to be good enough to get them the true prize. He's not the guy.

 

*I said trading up for Blackmon was stupid not because Blackmon isn't a good player, he is, I just didn't think he was worth trading up for and especially not at the #5 pick. He is a good player though, no doubt. I just think trading up is pretty stupid regardless.

 

1. Trading back can be a great strategy, but it's not a reliable practice so it's tough for me to see basing a roster strategy around it.

 

2. I have no issue with that scenario. Because you're talking about taking Geno in the 2nd (which is what I suggested earlier was the smart move by NY), which makes it much easier to just move. As opposed to a top 10 pick, which puts pressure on the GM to ride out bad play early in the hopes that they turn it around (like Gabbert).

 

3. Totally agree. But what Hurney didn't do is draft Clausen in the first just because he felt the need to take the best QB that was on the board until one stuck. He took him, a 2nd round talent, in the 2nd. Rolled the dice on a lesser prospect and was able to move on because it was a 2nd rounder. That's my only point, which came up based on the idea of the Vikings passing on a QB if the first round talent is all dried up when they pick (IMO Bridgewater, Mariota, Mett, Boyd, and maybe Hundley). Basically, taking a guy like Anthony Barr instead of A.J. McCarron.

 

4. Totally agree.

[OSUViking 505]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9881630

 

More Hageman!

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Boyd and Hundley are playing themselves out of the 1st round IMO. Hundley has A LOT of problems. I was never a big fan but everyone was hyped so I gave him a further look, still has the same issues from last year. The best thing for him development wise would be to declare (but bad for him $$$ wise likely) and get legit NFL coaching so he can fix some of his mechanics. But the trigger issues will always linger, that's a mental thing. Boyd's solid, but there are serious questions about his leadership leaking out. He's overwhelmed by all his teammates coming to him apparently. He's playing like he's under immense pressure on the field because of it. Not a good sign. Going along with some of his other issues on the field. I think he's a guy who needs a lot of talent around him to be successful, more than other good QBs normally need.

 

I absolutely hated Carr last year, I still despise the offense he's asked to run, but the kid has definitely improved some of his pressure issues in the pocket. In terms of natural ability he's probably the most skilled of all the QBs. Which is why I get so annoyed by Fresno's dink and dunk offense.

 

Mett and Carr are the two most improved QBs this year. Mariota would be after them in terms of improvement. I don't know yet where I'd rank these guys I talked about against each other, but I did have Boyd the highest* going into the year. Now that's Mariota, Boyd is falling, Hundley is falling, and Mett and Carr are climbing.

 

*Highest as in just the names I mentioned in this post, Bridgewater is still tops for me. Mariota has joined the top tier with him though IMO.

[KempBolt 498]

Campin' (or anyone)- who are your top corners at this point in the season? Probably one of my worst areas in terms of assessment, partially due to the video that's available. And you see a lot of variance among the pundits.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Roby has been a disappointment obviously but I'd probably still ride with him as the best. I'd say something like:

 

1) Bradley Roby

2) Ifo Ekpre-Olomu

3) Darqueze Dennard

4) Kyle Fuller

5) Jason Verrett

6) Marcus Roberson

7) Atone Exum

8) Bene Benwikere

9) Loucheiz Purifoy

 

Some of these guys are better or worse depending on what type of corner you're looking for. For instance a guy like Dennard will be more attractive to press man teams like Seattle and Jacksonville. That's why I have him ranked a little higher. With Roby he can do everything so where ever he goes the coaches can coach him up on what type of corner they want him to be. I really like CBs who can attack the ball/receiver at the catch point because that's the way WRs are going too lately. Verrett is more of a shifty, feisty chance taker, has potential for more big plays but also getting burned. Ifo has great mirror skills and technique. My list will probably change closer to draft time obviously though but this is what I'm feeling right now.

[OSUViking 505]

With the season over, where do you guys have everyone ranked? Where did Hageman land?

 

 

Also, and this doesn't pertain to this year's draft class, has anyone watched Eric Murray play? He is a sophomore CB for the Gophers, and the coaches are praising him this year. I haven't found much, but I was able to stumble upon this link:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/89584/eric-murray-manning-up-for-minnesota

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

Hageman should go in round 1. He improved his play over the season significantly. More importantly, he's shown the ability to dominate at times. Which for a prospect is very good.

 

He has a lot to clean up. But he's shown he can improve. His measurables alone will merit a top 25 selection.

[Bucman 891]

Khalil Mack>

 

Bradley Roby is no longer in the top 32. He played like shit this year and based on play should be a 3rd rounder. But after his combine is done he will probably be back in round 1.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Glennon4Ever

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Yeah I can't keep him as my top CB anymore his struggles at winning at the catch point will hurt him in the NFL. Dennard, Fuller, and Verrett gotta be my top 3 now.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

My top 10 by the end of the year.

 

1. Jadeveon Clowney, DE South Carolina
2. Teddy Bridgewater, QB Louisville
3. Khalil Mack, OLB Buffalo
4. Jake Matthews, OT Texas A&M
5. Darqueze Dennard, CB Michigan State (I'm a homer)
6. Louis Nix III, DT Notre Dame
7. Anthony Barr, DE/OLB California-LA
8. Eric Ebron, TE North Carolina
9. Ra'Shede Hageman, DT Minnesota

 

10:

Edited December 14, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[OSUViking 505]

Hageman is getting all sorts of praise from you guys, but Kiper had him just outside of the 1st round. I'll trust you guys, partially because I think Kiper is a douche and partially because you guys are legitimately draft experts in my eyes.

 

Back to my other question since we are kinda talking about CBs... has anyone heard about/seen Eric Murray from the Gophers? This is my homerism talking, but he was a pretty good CB imo.

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

He's a first round talent. Seattle won't let him pass at 32. I expect a top 12 selection after he destroys the combine.

[Bucman 891]

My top 10 by the end of the year.

 

1. Jadeveon Clowney, DE South Carolina

2. Teddy Bridgewater, QB Louisville

3. Khalil Mack, OLB Buffalo

4. Jake Matthews, OT Texas A&M

5. Darqueze Dennard, CB Michigan State (I'm a homer)

6. Louis Nix III, DT Notre Dame

7. Anthony Barr, DE/OLB California-LA

8. Eric Ebron, TE North Carolina

9. Ra'Shede Hageman, DT Minnesota

 

10:

Blake Bortles @ #10? IDK man. I think he is going to fly up draft boards throughout the process. But he is not among the top 10 college players coming out.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Yea I have been high on him all season then anything else. Its more of me being a huge fan then how hes been this past season compared to his peers number wise.

 

Outside of the game against OSU, he's looked great this year.

[Wannabe scout 33]

I really don't see the hype around hageman. He looks good but does he make anyone feel particularly comfortable with him in the first round? He struggles to shed blockers, has trouble with pad level, doesn't fight well with hands and can get overpowered one on one. He has talent but he has too much work to do to be considered a 1st rounder IMO

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I really don't see the hype around hageman. He looks good but does he make anyone feel particularly comfortable with him in the first round? He struggles to shed blockers, has trouble with pad level, doesn't fight well with hands and can get overpowered one on one. He has talent but he has too much work to do to be considered a 1st rounder IMO

Potential?

 

Its like when Poe got drafted really high. For a guy his size, he moves great.

 

Also, Bridgewater is going to be special. Imo he's every bit as talented Luck was as a passer.

[Wannabe scout 33]

 

 

I really don't see the hype around hageman. He looks good but does he make anyone feel particularly comfortable with him in the first round? He struggles to shed blockers, has trouble with pad level, doesn't fight well with hands and can get overpowered one on one. He has talent but he has too much work to do to be considered a 1st rounder IMO

Potential?

 

Its like when Poe got drafted really high. For a guy his size, he moves great.

 

Also, Bridgewater is going to be special. Imo he's every bit as talented Luck was as a passer.

Ya I get that but he really doesn't even flash the potential on tape. He looks heavily over rated to me