Skip to main content

LOL, I've told you all before to be wary of drafting IA db's. They play strictly zone on their back end; I doubt CDJ has played a down of true one-one defense in his IA career . IA coaches are very good. They know they can't recruit a position like corner with the blue bloods of college football, so they back off to getting 3 and 4 star db's, then play them in a zone concept. They do an excellent job of this. I just don't want to see an IA db one on one with the NFL elite receivers. Wait, we have! Josh Jackson

@DurangoDoug posted:

Personally, I view DeJean as a Safety/slot CB, not a boundary CB. Would love to have him in that role. His versatility as Safety/ slot corner could really help us. Or, is he just another great white hope for a DB from Iowa?

The issue is he doesn't have slot corner skills in man. In the highlights above, it's all zone and bail, which yeah, he's really good at, but they should have kept Barry if that's the kind of guy they're going after. 

If you can figure out where a player is slotted by the other 31 teams, you'll know whether you need to trade up or down to get your guy.....regardless of his position on the consensus board

And this is why McGinn is so good with his top 100. He speaks to scouts from all 32 teams. He usually has like 95-97 of the top 100 players. Pretty impressive.

Last edited by Boris

My interest in DeJean is more about safety than at corner, whether itโ€™s slot or boundary.

I donโ€™t think anyone is suggesting they line him up opposite Jaire Alexander day one.

I think itโ€™s a fair statement about schemes played (at Iowa) but what I do know is he can tackle and heโ€™s a pretty decent athlete in space that has a lot of versatility - including as a returner.  I view him as a guy that needs to find a way to get on the field.

Yes, Josh Jackson was a complete miss but if you compare him and DeJean athletically they really donโ€™t compare.

Another TE?!? Make a position of strength even stronger ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿผ๐Ÿ˜‰

Last edited by Boris
@Herschel posted:

The issue is he doesn't have slot corner skills in man. In the highlights above, it's all zone and bail, which yeah, he's really good at, but they should have kept Barry if that's the kind of guy they're going after.

Well, Gutey provided Barry with nothing but corners with man cover skills. Makes sense that he provide Hadley with nothing but zone corners.

Iowa did play quite a bit of man towards the end of last season. Dejean was fine playing that way, but he was also playing B1G Western Conference teams.

Last edited by Goalline

That's some "forest through the trees" on the OT criteria.

Firstly: 6'4" 300# as a minimum, for example, makes some sense. However, max of 6'5.6" and 322# max doesn't, it's just that those guys were within the range, not "They found a guy at the exact mamimum".  Shorter than 6'6" and sub 335#, for example, is much more sensible.

For example, Kingsley Suamataia weighed in at 324# and 326# in the postseason, but random 322# is the cutoff?

Secondly: The college football season is 12 games, plus a bowl (or possibly two in the championship series). So wanting a guy who has been a starter for at least two years makes sense, but 28 is weirdly random. That would limit you to two-year starters only from multiple BCS Championship Game teams. "Oh, you didn't play for Georgia or TCU, then transfer to Michigan or Washington? Well, you'd better have part of a third year as a starter, then." 35 would be a three-year starter who may have missed a game due to injury.

IIRC, Blake Fisher won the starting LT job his freshman year (The Jack Coan year, Joe Alt split time as a TE early), but injured his knee in the first game. Fisher was able to come back for the bowl game when RT Josh Lugg got hurt. He started the last two years, so he's started 27 games. "Bummer you didn't come back from the injury one game earlier three years ago, but we can't draft you until at least the fifth round now."

Troy Fautanu came in a hair under 6'4", but has 34 1/2" arms, so he has the length/reach of most 6'4" guys (and better than Barton, for example).

Last edited by Herschel
@Herschel posted:

In other words: They want Athletic tackles big enough to handle the job, but  aren't slobs or struggle with pad level due to their height.

I don't think it's an intended hard & fast cutoff. Just showing Packer types from previous drafts.

They definitely have a type. Some of the exceptions you showed will be interesting to see if the Pack is put in a position to draft one.

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×