Mel's Top players Report

This is not the most star-studded quarterback class, but it promises solid depth for teams willing to develop talent.

QB Charles Ruegamer

This looks like a rock solid group of backs, featuring one of the top-rated players in the draft in Dale Houzah. After him there are at least two more legitimate first round prospects and a couple more players who could go in the second.

Rushing: 393 carries, 1,334 yards, 40 longest, 7 TD
Receiving: 11 catches, 89 yards, 17 longest, 1 TD
Two point converts: 1
KO Returns: 3 returns, 72 yards, 46 longest
Fumbles: 4
Tackles: 14

Pros
Top speed and endurance, though the 40 yard long doesn't really reflect that speed. Allows the play to develop before picking his running lane. Productive in both the running and passing games.

Cons
Not really a college workhorse back. 3.4 yard average isn't going to turn many heads, but it's second-best in this group. Could be a bit more athletic. Stats don't back up high praise from scouts, but over the years it's been safer to side with the scouts than with the stats in the NPL draft.

Conclusion
On scouting evaluations alone Houzah is a top five pick, maybe a top two pick.
 

Passing: 77.1 rating, 3-4, 75.0%, 11 yds, 8 lg

Rushing: 616 carries, 1,717 yards, 44 longest, 7 TD
Receiving: 79 catches, 532 yards, 23 longest, 2 TD
KO Returns: 4 returns, 67 yards, 17 longest
Fumbles: 5
Fumble recoveries: 11
Tackles: 17

Pros
Exceptionally quick back with great conditioning and intelligence. Productive in both the running and passing game. Better passer rating than some of this season's top-ranked quarterbacks.

Cons
2.8 yard average and 44 yard long won't make too many converts. Not the fastest or the best at finding his spot to run through. Not much of a nose for the end zone.

Conclusion
Low first to high second round pick. Given the value typically placed on halfbacks, middle first isn't out of the question.
 

Passing: 69.9 rating, 4-7, 57.1%, 34 yds, 11 lg

Rushing: 802 carries, 2,401 yards, 98 longest, 12 TD
Receiving: 66 catches, 530 yards, 42 longest
Fumbles: 11
Fumble recoveries: 12
Tackles: 18

Pros
A true feature back who carried the load in college. 98 yard long (no doubt tackled from behind at the one) is promising. Not the fastest, quickest, most athletic back, but the whole package looks very solid. Productive in both the running and passing game.

Cons
Averaging just a shade under 3 yards a carry isn't going to knock anyone's socks off. Considering the number of attempts he racked up, he didn't score all that often.

Conclusion
Same as Johnson. Middle first to high second round.
 

Rushing: 565 carries, 2,468 yards, 44 longest, 12 TD
Receiving: 68 catches, 653 yards, 37 longest, 6 TD
KO Returns: 2 returns, 34 yards, 18 longest
Fumbles: 10
Tackles: 27
Sacks: 2

Pros
4.4 yard average per carry is best among this season's top prospects. TD every 47 carries is best among this season's top prospects. Productive in both the running and passing game.

Cons
Not as fast and quick as the top backs. Could improve his conditioning.

Conclusion
Not quite up to the standards of Houzah or even Johnson and Kraft, Ingram still appears to have a chance to be a productive runner. Draft inflation could place him in the low first or high second, but he'd probably represent better value in the middle second.
 

Passing: 42.4 rating, 1-3, 33.3%, 6 yds, 6 lg

Rushing: 390 carries, 963 yards, 35 longest, 5 TD
Receiving: 72 catches, 575 yards, 31 longest
KO Returns: 6 returns, 92 yards, 32 longest
Fumbles: 10
Fumble recoveries: 9
Tackles: 35

Pros
Great quickness and hands. A smart back who nonetheless may have his own ideas about how plays should be run. Great hands and effective as a receiver.

Cons
Not much of a nose for the end zone. You don't want him playing quarterback. Ordinary speed and a 2.46 average make him just a guy.

Conclusion
Mid to late second round pick.
 

HB Charles Jones

The fullbacks coming into NPL this season won't remind anyone of the glory days of Darryll Brandon and Shawn Tinsley, but there are a few servicable players if you're patient enough to wait until the third round to start looking for value.

Rushing: 266 carries, 926 yards, 23 longest, 5 TD
Receiving: 162 catches, 968 yards, 42 longest, 4 TD
KO Returns: 1 return, 3 yards, 3 longest
Fumbles: 7
Fumble recoveries: 2
Tackles: 28

Pros
Solid production. Good power and speed for the position. Can play all day.

Cons
Not the smartest player and lacks athleticism. Could get stuffed at the line quite a bit.

Conclusion
If you're in the market for a fullback, Gaskins is the cream of this year's crop. Don't take him before the third unless an invite has given you a compelling reason to do so.
 

Rushing: 261 carries, 910 yards, 24 longest, 8 TD
Receiving: 195 catches, 1,041 yards, 32 longest, 3 TD
Fumbles: 6
Fumble recoveries: 3
Tackles: 26

Pros
Similar production to Gaskins. Hamiter's athleticism may make him a better interior runner, as evidenced by his rushing touchdown totals. Top power for the position.

Cons
Conditioning is a bit of a question mark, and mental game (if the scouts are to be believed--they were brutal on all the FB's mentals) isn't particularly good.

Conclusion
Another third round prospect. There may be an argument for Hamiter being superior to Gaskins. It's a close call.
 

Rushing: 228 carries, 930 yards, 16 longest, 7 TD
Receiving: 158 catches, 1,025 yards, 37 longest, 7 TD
Fumbles: 6
Fumble recoveries: 1
Tackles: 28

Pros
Decent speed and quickness. Top power and athleticism. Adequate conditioning. As good at scoring as the top FB prospects.

Cons
Is he smart enough to play? Is he smart enough to get on the right plane to make it to his team?

Conclusion
Decent physical ability undercut by subpar hands and mentals. He might be an excellent late round value. Don't take him any sooner than the fifth round.
 

Rushing: 20 carries, 43 yards, 11 longest, 1 TD
Receiving: 5 catches, 90 yards, 27 longest, 1 TD
Tackles: 10

Pros
Good speed, power and hands. Excellent conditioning.

Cons
Little used, even in college. Not athletic or sudden. How did he manage not to fail out of college?

Conclusion
If he's lucky he'll be a late round pick. More likely an undrafted free agent.
 

Rushing: 19 carries, 45 yards, 9 longest
Receiving: 11 catches, 80 yards, 17 longest
Two point converts: 1
Fumbles: 1
Fumble recoveries: 1
Tackles: 6
Pros
Reasonably fast with good hands.

Cons
Not much NPLCAA action. Pretty poor in most respects.

Conclusion
Let's face it. He'll be lucky if he's in a camp at all.
 

FB Tellis Bazile

Wide Receiver features two first round prospects and a group of also-rans who are not without promise.

Rushing: 1 carry, 0 yards, 0 longest
Receiving: 245 catches, 3,887 yards, 55 longest, 8 TD
KO Returns: 3 returns, 63 yards, 27 longest
Tackles: 3

Pros
15.9 yard average shows he got downfield plenty. Looks exceptionally skilled in nearly every respect from scout evaluations.

Cons
His hands could be better. At the rate of one score every 30 receptions he wasn't exactly a touchdown machine. Longs for receiving and returns aren't outstanding.

Conclusion
It would be surprising if Conaty fell out of the top five. If you want him, you might have to move up as high as first or second.
 

Rushing: 2 carries, -3 yards, 0 longest
Receiving: 273 catches, 3,629 yards, 74 longest, 21 TD
Punt Returns: 2 returns, 6 yards, 4 longest
KO Returns: 3 returns, 62 yards, 23 longest
Fumbles: 2
Tackles: 11

Pros
With a score every 13 receptions, King looks like the real deal. Solid 13.3 yard average and 74 yard long. King is highly skilled in just about every way you want from a WR.

Cons
Quickness may not be elite, a real minus for a receiver, but it's far from bad. Unlike Conaty he put the ball on the ground a couple times.

Conclusion
Middle first round pick who could go much earlier.
 

Receiving: 224 catches, 2,923 yards, 60 longest, 9 TD
Two point converts: 1
Punt Returns: 1 return, 4 yards, 4 longest, 1 fair catch
KO Returns: 1 return, 20 yards, 20 longest
Fumbles: 3
Tackles: 2

Pros
Fast, productive receiver who gets open and brings in the catch. Averaged about 13 yards per grab. Outscored and nearly outcaught Conaty in one fewer seasons of action.

Cons
A score every 25 catches still isn't all that scintillating. Real questions should be asked about his quickness and ability to stay on the field. Might have benefitted from another season of NPLCAA development.

Conclusion
Middle second round player who could move up to early in the second if his endurance is better than the scouts report.
 

Receiving: 168 catches, 2,231 yards, 50 longest, 6 TD
Two point converts: 2
Punt Returns: 1 return, 24 yards, 24 longest
KO Returns: 33 returns, 668 yards, 48 longest
Fumbles: 1
Tackles: 15

Pros
Another guy who can get open and bring in the catch. Solid 13.3 yards per grab. Scored a TD every 28 catches.

Cons
Is he fast enough and quick enough to make the step up from NPLCAA? Conditioning is better than Mcdonald's, but not top notch. Probably just a possession receiver. Long plays are not eye-catching.

Conclusion
Every team can find a use for one slower wideout like Fritsch. You just don't want to stockpile them. Mid to late second round.
 

Receiving: 172 catches, 2,214 yards, 92 longest, 6 TD
Punt Returns: 8.6 avg, 56 returns, 484 yards, 47 longest, 7 fair catches
KO Returns: 22.2 avg, 57 returns, 1,263 yards, 48 longest
Fumbles: 1
Fumble recoveries: 1
Tackles: 22

Pros
Fast and reliable receiver who runs crisp routes. Impressive long pass reception of 92 suggests that he has at least a few big plays in him.

Cons
With a TD every 29 catches, this is a possession guy. Questionable quickness and conditioning. Solid in many respects but not really outstanding.

Conclusion
Get him in the middle of the third.
 

WR Terrence Slowikowski

Tight end features one legitimate first round prospect and a handful of others who might be able to help a team.

Receiving: 65 catches, 775 yards, 29 longest, 1 TD
Fumble recoveries: 1
Tackles: 9

Pros
Fast and strong player. Has the power and conditioning to help a running team control the game with his blocking. Productive college reciever.

Cons
Not much for scoring. May have trouble getting open with only average athleticism.

Conclusion
Wilkerson projects to the middle of the first but could fall to the second due to the diminished value many teams assign to tight ends.
 

Receiving: 72 catches, 582 yards, 28 longest, 2 TD
Tackles: 19

Pros
Great conditioning. Seldom drops a pass. Fast enough and should be able to get open. Enough power to play in a run-first offense.

Cons
Good but not really outstanding physical skills.

Conclusion
Late second to early third round.

Receiving: 62 catches, 579 yards, 29 longest, 2 TD
Two point converts: 1
Fumble recoveries: 3
Tackles: 7

Pros
Very solid athlete. Should be able to contribute to both the passing and running game.

Cons
Poor conditioning may relegate him to a role coming off the bench. Not the smartest player, but generally plays within the scheme.

Conclusion
Take him in the middle of the fourth round.
 

Receiving: 32 catches, 270 yards, 23 longest
Fumble recoveries: 1
Tackles: 22
Pros
Speedy tight end who can play all day. Should be able to get open.

Cons
Not an asset in the ground game. Will drop some passes. Physical talents didn't translate to top productivity in college, though that could have been at least partly due to scheme.

Conclusion
Late fourth round to early fifth round.
 

Receiving: 30 catches, 240 yards, 45 longest, 1 TD
Fumble recoveries: 1
Tackles: 15

Pros
Top conditioning. Fast, quick, athletic. He gets open, and then...

Cons
Hands of stone. Poor route runner. Not especially productive in the passing game in NPLCAA, though he had a nice long catch. Not a blocker.

Conclusion
Late fourth round to early fifth round.
 

TE Frank Reveiz

This is a relatively weak year for centers, with one player who looks like a potential first rounder. But even he is no lock.

Pros
Powerful blocker who has the ability to block for the run or pass.

Cons
Questionable quickness may make him an easy target for speedy defensive tackles.

Conclusion
Early second round is often where the run starts on offensive linemen, and Quarles fits right into that scenario.
 

Pros
Decent in almost every respect. Could be a bit of a boom or bust player.

Cons
Nothing really stands out here.

Conclusion
Middle or more likely late second round pick. Shouldn't fall past the top of the third.
 

Pros
Outstanding discipline. Fast player who would rate higher as a pass blocker than a run blocker, except...

Cons
Lack of quickness could have DTs sprinting past him for the sack.

Conclusion
No sooner than the late third round.
 

Pros
Strong and athletic enough. Fine snapper.

Cons
Conditioning is lacking and quickness is questionable. May make bad decisions at times.

Conclusion
Middle of the fourth.
 

Pros
Nice power and hands. Could be an effective run blocker.


Cons
Not much other than power and hands.

Conclusion
Late round pick. Don't even think about him until the fifth.
 

C Brian Brightful

Guard is not a glamour position, but you had better be strong there if you want to win. This season's crop is fairly deep, starting with the outstanding David Dicken.

Pros
Fast, powerful lineman with the quickness to take on top defensive tackles. Very few holes in his game. Looks like he will be able to play anywhere on the line. Really an elite prospect.

Cons
Conditioning and decision making are good but not great.

Conclusion
Dicken rates as one of the draft's elite players. It would be surprising if a guard went in the 3-5 range of the first round, but there's no way he should slip past the middle of the first.
 

Pros
Great power, quickness and athleticism. A fine all-around lineman. May be able to play tackle or guard.

Cons
Hatfield needs to work on his conditioning, and he draws too many penalties.

Conclusion
Second round prospect, who should be off the board early in the round.
 

Pros
Fast and powerful lineman who should excel in the running game.

Cons
Needs to improve conditioning. Not as quick or athletic as you'd like for the passing game.

Conclusion
Early to mid third round.
 

Pros
Quick and fairly agile player. Plays with outstanding discipline and good knowledge of the game.

Cons
May not be an overpowering NPL lineman, but talented enough to get the job done.

Conclusion
Mid to late third round pick.
 

Pros
Combination of explosiveness and power may make him the best run blocker after Dicken and Hatfield.

Cons
Conditioning is just okay. Not as athletic as you'd like in the passing game, though quickness should help there.

Conclusion
Mid to late third round pick.
 

G Efrem Smith

Bruce Oliver heads a fairly ordinary group of tackles with only one potential first rounder among them.

Pros
Strong, speedy and athletic tackle who should be able to handle the pass or run game.

Cons
Could be quicker. Hands are questionable. Good but not outstanding conditioning.

Conclusion
Criticisms are mostly nitpicking. Oliver looks like a future starter. Late first round or early second round.
 

Pros
Quick and powerful tackle who has the explosiveness to excel at run blocking.

Cons
Probably adequate athleticism for pass blocking, but not ideal. Really poor hands--not the worst weakness for a lineman but a negative.

Conclusion
Take him in the middle of the second.
 

Pros
Finesse type player who has the quickness and athleticism to stand out with a team that needs pass blocking.

Cons
No power player. He'll have to rely on position blocking in the run game. Needs to work on conditioning. Penalty prone.

Conclusion
Middle to late second round prospect.
 

Pros
Another quick, athletic tackle who might look best in a pass-first offense. Not quite as fast as you'd like to deal with speed rushers.

Cons
Without serious endurance work he looks like a career backup. Marginal power for run blocking.

Conclusion
Early to middle third round pick.
 

Pros
Speed and smarts are Garrard's main assets. Should be able to get to the right position to make a block.

Cons
Doesn't have ideal power for the run game or the athleticism for the passing game. How, exactly, would plan to use him?

Conclusion
Hold off on him until the fourth.