I liked Mike Thomas coming out well enough but there was kind of a screwup factor that I recall in his college tape. He also never really seemed to develop pure receiving skills as opposed to being a ball carrier that lined up wide and caught the ball hoping to do something after the catch. Robert Herron hasn't really reminded me of him though he is also a good RAC player. He reminds me more of a shorter version of Victor Cruz than a Steve Smith. You have to say this about Herron...he seems to rise to the occasion. He started off 2012 against #19 ranked Texas and dusted them with 5 catches for 173 yards and 2 TDs. He suffered through some injuries that year and didn't seem to get his groove back until late in the year, finished the season with 10 catches for 187 yards and 2 TDs against a San Diego State secondary that featured Leon McFadden, Nat Berhe and Eric Pinkins, all of whom will be on NFL rosters in August if not September. They face Nebraska who should be overmatching them and he gets 4 catches for 91 yards and 1 TD. Also had 10 catches for 86 yards and a TD against Boise State this year. Having watched his offense I can see why there would be times when he got lost in the shuffle. They operate a spread out attack with 4 wideouts and they distribute the ball according to the defense more than according to receiver preference. The quarterback has a unique rushing skill set but not a unique passing skill set. What interests me is he looked pretty impressive in senior bowl practices, had a good combine, then had a good pro day (where he ran as low as a 4.29 after tinkering with his start technique). He's establishing a pattern and that's a really good sign. Senior Bowl practices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io-p8u6GJvs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp68hec0pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MXlrAEcpiA Combine workout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmmmJKynbuY Pro Day drills (I believe he's the WR in the blue shirt): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgUn0wTvwk 2012 vs Texas (several plays he makes over Kenny Vaccaro & Carrington Byndom) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDHrdSZwVug
Don't get me wrong, I actually like Herron a lot and drooled over his Senior Bowl stuff, but you know how it is with the 5'9 and under receivers- it takes a special player to get them over the fence into Steve Smith type success, and even falling a ball hair short of that specialness can be enough to leave them in Mike Thomas land. The latter isn't terrble [remembering Thomas caught 66 balls for 820 yards in year 2], but it wasn't enough to maintain longevity. Then again, it could be argued Jacksonville ruined Thomas by playing him out of position. Maybe his career would've followed a different path had the Jags been able to introduce him to the slot from day one rather than years of playing on the boundary where he wasn't best suited IMO. I think Herron looks close enough to representing that type of special player that I'd feel comfortable taking him in the 3rd and prioritizing him ahead of most of the other 3rd round receivers, including the ones who drop from round 2.
I fully agree with you that the height is a concern. I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel or anything and pretend all the sudden height limitations aren't a factor at the position. I just don't see it quite as all-or-nothing as you do. I think if you track the shorties that have had some success in the NFL you really see guys that span the whole spectrum. You've got guys like Steve Smith, Wes Welker, Troy Brown and Santana Moss with incredibly well-decorated NFL careers, but you've also got guys like Deion Branch, Lance Moore, Eddie Royal, Antwaan Randle El and Davone Bess (pre-insanity) who have managed to carve out nice little careers without necessarily being on that level of a Smith, Welker, Brown or Moss. Here are the guys I've found that have had success at under 5'11" height: Ace Sanders (5070), Mike Thomas (5077), Terrence Wilkins (5080), Sinorice Moss (5080), Tavon Austin (5084), Dexter McCluster (5086), Wes Welker (5086), Jacoby Ford (5087), Marquise Goodwin (5087), Steve L. Smith (5090), Deion Branch (5091), Lance Moore (5092), Sammie Stroughter (5093), Troy Edwards (5094), Jeremy Kerley (5094), T.Y. Hilton (5094), Anwaan Randle El (5095), Eddie Royal (5095), Santana Moss (5095), DeSean Jackson (5096), Davone Bess (5097), Antonio Brown (5101), Ryan Broyles (5101), Golden Tate (5102), Josh Reed (5102), Kendall Wright (5102), Bobby Wade (5102), Randall Cobb (5102), Stedman Bailey (5102), Dennis Northcutt (5103), Peter Warrick (5105), Devin Hester (5105), Santonio Holmes (5105), Lee Evans (5107), Peerless Price (5107), Andre Roberts (5107), Emmanuel Sanders (5107). I believe Robert Herron measured 5091. Again not my intention to cite all these guys as a reason that height should be a non-factor in evaluating a wide receiver. I'm not one of those arrogant enough to make sweeping generalizations about how decades worth of smart people have been evaluating players all wrong, etc. I'm just saying that when you look at that list of guys you see some guys who were marginally impactful, some guys who were more impactful but fizzled quickly, other guys who carved out nice little niche careers for themselves, other guys who were consistently impactful starters...and then finally Hall of Fame quality players. The whole spectrum is there. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily look at "Zoom" Herron as I've heard him called on Twitter as a guy who is boom-or-bust.
I agree fully, I wouldn't look at Herron as boom or bust either. In the very least I think he's a contributor. I'm just saying that if I were looking at drafting Herron, especially in the third round, I'd want to be doing so with the confidence level of him becoming an impact player who outperforms his draft status rather, which I think he's close to being. I wouldn't want to spend a 3rd on him to become a Branch, Moore, Randle-El, or Bess level contributor. I just think there's a fine line in the NFL between becoming great and average in the NFL when you're talking about undersized receivers. For instance, if Herron were 6'2 he's a first rounder, done deal. There'd be no concerns about his future greatness other than injury or his own head holding him back. As we incrementally reduce his height inch by inch, we're eventually gonna reach his breaking point, and the graph won't look like a consistent, 45-degree angle decline. We'd most likely witness two precipitous drops, one when he goes from great to average [which could be anywhere from 6'0 to 5'8, ball-parking it], and one where he goes from average to CFL bound [which could be anywhere from 5'10 to 5'7]. Therefore, at some point he's really gonna be toeing the line between great and average, and then again between average and AMF. Steve Smith was able to hold his ground until 5'9, made all the more amazing by the fact he's a playmaker on the perimeter rather than a more forgiving possession receiver out of the slot like Welker, but Smith was right there at his breaking point. Had he hit 5'8.5 or 5'8, his career could've easily taken a different trajectory b/c that's an extra half inch+ off his catch radius & vertical ability, a few pounds off his frame, a slight adjustment to his overall level of strength, and an even greater size advantage given to his defender. When you look at his career and notice the stuff that made him special- his toughness, the tackles he broke, and all the contested balls he grabbed [including went over DBs for], how many of those would've been thwarted by losing that extra half inch to inch? At 5'9, Herron is really close to his breaking point between great and average. Maybe he's already there; maybe he's not. I like him enough to take that chance he's not. My point was just to mention in general how narrow the line is at some point between great and good once you dip below that 5'11 mark, that a specific receiver could go from being great at 6'2, great at 6'1, great at 6'0, great at 5'11, great at 5'10, and then BAM- average at 5'9. His talent level and ability remain the same from 5'10 to 5'9. It's only the size that's changed, meanwhile the competition's hasn't. It's a tough battle trying to do things at 5'9 that others do at 6'0+.
I think I kind of see where you're going here but it would seem like a guy would need to convince you he's Steve Smith for you to draft him 3rd round at 5090. Personally if a guy looked like Steve Smith I'd like to think I'd draft him 1st round. Tavon Austin was a legit 1st round selection and he was 5084. It seems like in the construct you have, either that wouldn't happen for you period, or Tavon Austin needed to look like...hell, I don't even know what the level above Steve Smith is. But that's what it seems Austin would've needed to look like in order to justify 1st round selection. You mentioned questioning whether he's a Mike Thomas and to answer that question I would just want to compare him with what I remember of Mike Thomas coming out. My memory of Thomas was of a guy who looked underrated on tape back when nobody was talking about him, but who ended up rising high because he ran really fast. Yet on tape you wondered if his pure receiving skills warranted him rising quite that high. I think I recall him having a lot of drops and him getting a lot of catches where he didn't necessarily have to work to get open. I'm not sure if I ever ended up seeing him show skills like for instance you see on Herron's Senior Bowl practice tape where he's beating guys one-on-one. He never seemed to get open deep. But he always looked pretty interesting after the catch. It's a good exercise though to compare him, make sure you know what separates this guy from that guy, if anything. Once I get below the 6 foot mark I already openly question whether a player can play on the outside anyway...and at that point going from 5'11" down to 5'9" isn't going to matter to me.
Steve Smith looked like Steve Smith but he wasn't drafted until round 3. If I'm looking at an undersized playmaker, which is ultimately what we're talking about here, he wouldn't have to first convince me that he's another Steve Smith to draft him. He'd just have provide me with enough conviction to use a 3rd rounder on him like Caroline did with Smith. Obviously I have nothing against smaller receivers b/c I loved Tavon last year and very much like Herron this year. I'm simply just making generalizations about size and how quickly a receiver can go from great to average just by having one inch removed from his height as he surpasses his threshold. Like you intimated, if people knew Steve Smith would become Steve Smith, he would've been a 1st rounder. Secondly, I wasn't using Steve Smith as a benchmark for Tavon since they're different players. Tavon is in a separate category because, unlike Smith, his traits are tangible, as in- you know you're getting one of the fastest players in the league and possible the most elusive of all time, and that's the benchmark I was using. You didn't get that with Steve Smith. Instead you got a collective of good to great attributes all falling into place to overcome his height, the biggest of which being a confident, fierce and fearless little guy thinking like he's 6'2.... and then actually playing like it. If Herron possessed Tavon's elite attributes, I'd take him in the first as well. I'm with you, I think ostensibly there's a noticeable difference between Herron & Thomas coming out like you mentioned.... and like you say, I think it's helpful to use a guy like Thomas to compare and contrast. In case it was misperceived, my initial reference to Steve Smith and Mike Thomas wasn't so much of a direct comparison to them but was more of a reference to their level of NFL production as small but talented players, as in- does Herron realize full potential on a Steve Smith level or does he only turn out a Mike Thomas level of production? I'd spend a 3rd rounder hoping for the former rather than passing on Herron in the 3rd b/c I'm too concerned with the latter.
I'd be really excited if the Phins draft Beckham Jr. I was initially lukewarm but he really does everything pretty well and has a full-speed attitude towards kick off returns.
Haven't had much chance to do a lot of vids this year but here's one: [video=youtube;1ZvisQJMXNM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZvisQJMXNM[/video] Basically Jack Tyler is the Chris Borland of the ACC. He's just got less pub than Borland.
Love that play at 3:10 where he stays with the QB, pressures him, and then jumps twice to try to deflect the pass - showed so much effort and determination. I captured that one for later when I was watching/charting James Gayle, great stuff.
You named your fund Shamas Hereth? I'm ranked 148. Was stagnant for about a week but finally getting some of the traction I expected.
This guy does some decent analysis of some of the prospects going in the first round. Most notably, for the Dolphins, he covers Joel Bitonio and Zack Martin. Seems like he plans on doing Ryan Shazier next. http://www.youtube.com/user/MpernKu
Prevailing positions among the private workouts listed at WF : OL, WR, DB, LB in that order (with a sprinkling of QB).
With how deep this draft is with competent Olineman, with how uncompetitive Jerry and Clabo were last year, I don't see the need to go oline in the first or 2nd. I'd go Cooks/Beckham/Lee in the first. Niklas in the 2nd to compliment Charles Clay, and add to the overall blocking prowess while I'm doing it.
Just something to note but you should keep in mind that a 2nd tight end and 3rd wide receiver will tend to cannibalize one another's value to the team. Just putting that out there. You're talking about using 1st and 2nd round picks on guys that will directly compete with one another for playing time. Troy Niklas is not usually going to be on the field while Cooks/Beckham/Lee are on the field, and vice versa. Long term they aren't as exclusive as you expect Cooks/Beckham/Lee would eventually take the place of Hartline or Wallace. But in 2014 there would be cannibalization going on.
It's interesting that Jeremy Hill has such a large following in this draft, as do many of the big backs. I wonder what could've been for Central Michigan's Zurlon Tipton if he'd not broken his ankle early in the Michigan game back in September. He should've missed the remainder of the season but he played again only 8 weeks later against Ball State. By 10 weeks post-injury he was already carrying a full load for the final 3 games of the season, carrying the ball 65 times for 380 yards and 7 TDs in the final 3 games. He didn't look the same. He looked big and soft around the middle, a bit sluggish. It's hard to keep in shape when your ankle is broken and he had no time to try and get back into shape. He had power but he lacked the same explosiveness he had in 2012 when he ran for 1500 yards at 6 yards per carry with 19 rushing TDs. If you want to see what he was like in 2012 then I suggest watching some Eric Fisher videos. It's worth it. For example here he is carving up the same defense that held Eddie Lacy and T.J. Yeldon to only 61 yards at 4.1 yards per carry with 0 TDs. This was the bowl game, CMU vs. WKU. This is an Eric Fisher video but just look for big RB #34 running, catching and blocking. [video=youtube;RD_FKoyzMxc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD_FKoyzMxc[/video] Some more links if you're interested... Eric Fisher vs. Iowa 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Feds4__59A Eric Fisher vs. Michigan State 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RsXH4ln4E Zurlon Tipton 2012 Highlight Reel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHYIaAjGm7s What has always grabbed me about him is his explosiveness at that size. He can really bounce around, get up to speed and change directions, make people miss and fall off their tackle attempts. You'd hope a big guy like this is powerful, and he is indeed powerful. He's got better physical measurements than Jeremy Hill and virtually identical to Arian Foster when he came out of Tennessee...so I wouldn't necessarily preclude anything based on his 4.70 speed at 6'0" & 223 lbs.
I don't see that amount anywhere in the leader board. ?? I've been playing for 16 days and am at $13,327,758.
I do plan on buying Bridgewater before the draft because its mind-boggling how many people are listening to the media.
The reality is it's about both the long and short term. Short term matters because the rookies are only cheap for 3 or perhaps 4 years max. After that, you pay for what you get. You can't afford to pretend that just because you draft a guy all you need do is make sure he pans out long term and then everything will be cakes and rainbows. If a guy is essentially going to be nothing to you in the short term, versus another guy who will be contributing from the start, all else being equal you definitely steer toward the guy that's giving you greater value over the life of his cheap rookie contract. On the other hand I firmly believe you don't draft players to fill immediate holes on your roster because it places too much responsibility on uncertain shoulders. You have to strike a balance. I'm just saying that taking a #3 WR and then a #2 TE in the 1st and 2nd rounds practically guarantees that one of those two players will be relegated to obscurity for one or perhaps even two years. They cannibalize one another. You can say you're playing the long game, but how long? Four years from now when everyone is going to be expensive and you might as well just buy some help off the market?
My first round pick could be my better #2 or better, and Troy could be utilized as much as any role on offense, it's about hitting on players, building a team to attack from all angles, to me these two players skillsets are completely absent from our roster, so their worth it. If Brandon cooks was on our team I wouldn't consider him a third receiver, I'd consider him a dangerous weapon thats every bit as valuable as any other player.
You draft players that you think are the best players for your team, with a vision on the present and future,plain and simple. So Brandon cooks and Troy Niklas wouldn't help us this year.? Please, this roster is desperate for those types of skillsets. Not sure what your disagreeing with.
no one knows what will hapen in 2015. A team should draft for the upcoming season and that is the end of it. It just happens that guys who can play, be productive, help you win in the upcoming season, will likely stay in the NFL and do so beyond.
That's an incredibly silly position. Following your logic, the team shouldn't care about the cap or rookies that cannot contribute immediately. Also player development means nothing. Hell, I guess as far as you're concerned all contracts should be for one year too.
I wouldn't have a problem with Beckham & Niklas cannibalizing each other in year one. I mean, it's not like Philbin won't be cannibalizing them all on his own so this is the perfect coach to draft these guys under. Not to mention, I'm not so sure they'd be cannibalizing each other so much as they'd be cannibalizing the other tight ends & receivers. Under Philbin, I think what Beckham & Niklas do or don't do is irrespective of each other. Regardless if we draft Beckham in the first, Niklas won't see much action unless Philbin feels comfortable with it, and ditto for Beckham. As an inline TE, Niklas should see as much of the field as his execution allows, and ditto again for Beckham at WR. Ultimately we'd want both of them on the field together in base O, so maybe a year one transition would do them good, not just for them but for the offense and Lazor/Philbin as well since it's not only about Beckham & Niklas's execution and adjustment we're talking about here. Lazor would have a full year to implement our two shiny new toys' skill set into the offense/playbook, and Tannehill and his surrounding cast would have a year to adjust to it and learn it. IMO there could be an advantage to doing it this way [drafting both Beckham/Cooks and Niklas] because it'd expedite the offense by allowing Lazor to get all the design changes done now rather than some this year and then the rest in 2015. Look at Chip Kelly & Lazor's first year offensive success in Philly. They had all the working parts in place upon arrival [plus the draft] so that they could fly out the gates like Seabiscuit. I gave my personal reasons for loving Niklas in the Seferian-Jenkins thread, and personally, if we drafted Beckham/Cooks in round 1, I wouldn't pass on Niklas in round 2 if he were a priority target and considering he plays a different position. IMO Niklas's skill set and talent are special enough and rare enough to not pass on if we go WR in the 1st. If we draft Beckham/Cooks, that'd be all the more reason for me TO draft Niklas b/c Beckham/Cooks would likely mean the use of more 3WR formations, and if that's the case, it would be a priority for me to grab a prominent inline TE to balance the 3-WR packages out rather than using a less physical H-back like Clay. Drafting Beckham/Cooks is also all the more reason to grab take Niklas in order to maximize their ability as playmakers since he's the best in the draft at creating space for them all over the field via his herculean blocking ability. Imagine tossing screens to Cooks with Niklas out in front of him? Play-action to Wallace with Niklas serving as an extra right tackle? With a creative offensive mind I think the list goes on and on how you could use Niklas, Cooks, and Wallace, and even Clay.
I'm a long-term believer and am with dj on this. Take guys who you think will be high-impact players within the next couple years. To the list of justifications given by dj and phinsational, I'll add... This 'cannibalizing' stuff is kind of cancelled out by the fact that there are very low odds of a WR and TE being 'have to get them on the field on 70-80% of the snaps' guys in their rookie years. Those two positions have steep learning curves, especially when you're talking about guys who aren't in the top half of the first round. I've heard lots of people say that Niklas is somewhat of a project on passing downs anyway. Expecting both a receiver and tight end to be must-play stud impact guys right away is rather unrealistic and shouldn't weigh in on your the decision to draft them or not. And even then, look at the injuries we had the past year where we needed guys to step up (Keller, Gibson, Binns, Hartline). Forget immediate fit and just trust your grade when it comes time to pick.
Whoa, this couldn't be further from the truth, and the fact you speak so confidently about it is a little scary TBH. Good franchises use free agency for the upcoming season and the draft for the future, and THAT'S the end of it. Considering rookies don't impact in year one for the most part, it's pretty dumb and irresponsible to draft for the upcoming season. First off, all that does is shows you f***ed yourself in free agency and left yourself holding your dick during the draft. Secondly, what you're describing is drafting for need, and a team filled with need-based picks is nothing more than an average talent team that you're gonna be looking to replace in free agency. This is how it works: you fill needs in FA, even if it's just a 1 year stop gap, because more than likely a 1 year stop gap will prove more effective than a rookie starting. Then in the draft you grab the top talent on the board, and if it doesn't fill an apparent future need, you don't worry about it b/c you you have the following year's free agency to fill that need. Rinse repeat. Then after a few years you're left with a roster full of elevated an elevated talent level and thus also less likely to need replacing in FA or the draft, which means you can continue drafting for talent just like Seattle successfully does. The second half of your post is seriously flawed circular logic.
