|
QUARTERBACKS I'm going to tell you right off the bat that this is a funny year for the scouts. 15 of the top 18 players are linemen. Some positions can do no wrong and others (the skill positions on offense in particular) can't do anything right. The quarterbacks are in the latter category. On the bright side, I don't think the cupboard is as bare as the scouts make it out to be. |
|
|
Desmond Banks
Brigham Young Passing: 92.1 rating, 459-722, 63.6%, 4,993 yds, 80 lg 29 TDs, 9 ints, 77 sacks-574 yds Rushing: 30 carries, -113 yards, 15 longest Fumbles: 11 Fumble recoveries: 4 Pros: Banks finished up as the NPLCAA's career passing efficiency leader. 29 TDs to 9 INTs is an admirable ratio, and 63.6% completion is very sound. Has as big an arm and as good a mental game as any QB in the 2016 draft. Superb conditioning. Cons: Banks wasn't throwing bombs. His 6.9 yard average isn't terrible, but it could be quite a bit better. He's a bit slow on the draw and didn't have as many attempts as some of the other top passers. Conclusion: Strictly crunching the numbers, Banks is a late fourth rounder. I say he will be gone no later than the middle second and possibly the first. |
|
|
Eric Davis Michigan State Passing: 78.5 rating, 1,111-1,926, 57.7%, 12,400 yds, 74 lg 44 TDs, 28 ints, 231 sacks-1,371 yds Rushing: 267 carries, 231 yards, 33 longest, 18 TD Fumbles: 40 Fumble recoveries: 10 Tackles: 7 Pros: Played a lot of downs and produced. Boasts one of the best mental games among QBs in this year's draft. Fast and fairly athletic. Cons: 40 fumbles. 28 picks isn't a small number but in the big picture his 44 TD passes help offset the turnovers. Paltry 6.4 yard average. Conclusion: Can you tell by the paltry list of Pros that I'm not overly impressed with Davis? He officially rates as an early fifth rounder, but should probably be off the board in the second--maybe the first if invites suggest some of his statistical struggles were due to the system. |
|
|
Dave Trout Texas Passing: 74.9 rating, 626-1,207, 51.9%, 8,399 yds, 80 lg 26 TDs, 19 ints, 208 sacks-1,312 yds Rushing: 116 carries, -24 yards, 21 longest Fumbles: 10 Fumble recoveries: 3 Tackles: 2 Pros: As quick as it gets this season. Hit the magic 7.0 yards per pass. Didn't fumble much. Cons: A relatively weak arm may have forced him into throwing more picks than Banks. Only about 52% completion rate in college, though that's comparable to what Fran Glenn and Tommy Bell did at Texas so scheme may trump skill in that respect. Conclusion: Trout lands in the middle of the 7th round on my spreadsheet, but when you're not comparing him to this year's guards he looks more like a second or third round prospect. |
|
|
Karlton McNair Syracuse Passing: 70.6 rating, 1,058-1,904, 55.6%, 12,194 yds, 63 lg 38 TDs, 51 ints, 268 sacks-1,628 yds Rushing: 188 carries, 274 yards, 27 longest, 10 TD Two point converts: 1 Fumbles: 41 Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 5 Pros: Other than his hands and conditioning, McNair seems like a very sound physical prospect. Above average student of the game who generally plays within the system. Productive rusher from the QB slot. Cons: Not to be outdone by Eric Davis, McNair managed to turn the ball over 92 times. Threw for a lot of yards, but only a little at a time as evidenced by his 6.4 yard average. Conclusion: On the spreadsheet McNair is barely hanging on to a slot in the seventh round. To some team willing to take a chance on a decent developmental prospect he looks to me like a middle round pick, say the fourth or fifth. |
|
|
Merv Johnson Southern Cal Passing: 59.5 rating, 822-1,669, 49.3%, 8,890 yds, 73 lg 11 TDs, 32 ints, 365 sacks-2,603 yds Rushing: 166 carries, -159 yards, 21 longest Fumbles: 58 Fumble recoveries: 5 Tackles: 5 Pros: Fast, athletic quarterback in good shape. Cons: Where are the touchdown passes? Johnson had plenty of tries. Not the guy for a running team with 58 fumbles. Could that have something to do with his horrible hands? Not so smart and has a much weaker arm than the other top guys, including dark horse Joe Ransom. Conclusion: In many ways Johnson looks like Bobby Ruff reincarnated. Johnson appears to have some physical skills, but he will likely be a late round pick in this year's draft. |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Joe Ransom Oklahoma |
|
|
|
|
|
Halfbacks The halfbacks are among this year's crop of unimpressive positions. Can these guys really be as dumb and undisciplined as the scouts suggest? If the scouts are to be believed, it's a one-back group. After Chuck Foreman comes off the board the pickings get slim pretty quickly. |
|
|
Chuck Foreman Oklahoma Passing: 0.0 rating, 0-2, 0.0%, 0 yds, 0 lg Rushing: 662 carries, 1,953 yards, 55 longest, 4 TD Receiving: 92 catches, 685 yards, 29 longest, 2 TD Fumbles: 6 Fumble recoveries: 24 Tackles: 19 Pros: An elite physical specimen and workhorse back. Simply put, the fastest, most athletic runner in this draft. Power back. Not a fumbler. Cons: Stats don't point to anything special in terms of average, long carry or touchdown total. Could be more of a student of the game and play within the scheme. Conclusion: The merciless spreadsheet says middle fourth rounder. I say middle first rounder. Stats tend not to tell the whole story with backs. |
|
|
Franco Harris Notre Dame Rushing: 831 carries, 2,834 yards, 33 longest, 18 TD Receiving: 41 catches, 388 yards, 51 longest, 3 TD Two point converts: 1 Fumbles: 8 Fumble recoveries: 9 Tackles: 17 Pros: Productive college workhorse type pounded out plenty of touchdowns. Power back. Not a fumbler. As smart and disciplined a back as you'll get in this draft. Cons: Not a receiving threat. A bit slow off the blocks. Unimpressive long run of 33 yards. Conclusion: Harris projects as a post-draft free agent, but I think that's grossly underrating a player who will be off the board in the second round. |
|
|
Ellis Schreiber Arizona State Passing: 118.8 rating, 2-2, 100.0%, 27 yds, 19 lg Rushing: 842 carries, 2,545 yards, 48 longest, 7 TD Receiving: 103 catches, 818 yards, 55 longest, 1 TD Two point converts: 1 Fumbles: 11 Fumble recoveries: 9 Tackles: 12 Pros: A superior athlete compared to Harris, though a finesse runner rather than a bull. Compiled a lot of college carries. Cons: Not an especially productive scorer. Modest 3.0 yard career average. Conclusion: The spreadsheet says undrafted FA. I say second or third round. |
|
|
R McCants Boston College Rushing: 681 carries, 2,792 yards, 62 longest, 22 TD Receiving: 82 catches, 798 yards, 60 longest, 2 TD Two point converts: 1 KO Returns: 3 returns, 56 yards, 34 longest Fumbles: 10 Fumble recoveries: 8 Tackles: 47 Sacks: 2 Pros: Fine athlete and receiver. Workhorse back with a nice long run and plenty of scores. Productive receiver. Cons: Poor conditioning holds him back. Not the finest student of the game. Somewhat more prone to fumbles than the top two backs. Conclusion: In some ways I like McCants best of all the backs in this season's draft. The spreadsheet says undrafted FA. I say second or third round. |
|
|
Calvin Stoudt Oregon Passing: 72.9 rating, 2-4, 50.0%, 28 yds, 20 lg Rushing: 824 carries, 2,070 yards, 76 longest, 8 TD Receiving: 90 catches, 731 yards, 29 longest Two point converts: 3 Fumbles: 10 Fumble recoveries: 12 Tackles: 21 Pros: Fast enough and is able to find running lanes. Cons: Doesn't get up to speed all that quickly and has a mental game that's nothing short of disastrous. Conclusion: The spreadsheet says undrafted FA. I say fifth round. |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Tie: Chuck Miller Florida Ron Moore Ohio State Who are #5 and #10, respectively, in career rushing yards. Both have averages above 4 yards per carry and more than 20 TDs. |
|
|
Fullbacks This is a dumb, dumb group if you trust the scouts. These players have a great deal of physical prowess on the whole but get tripped up by their lack of smarts. No one here looks like an elite prospect based on the scouts. I don't see any likely first round picks. |
|
|
Mark Robinson Va Tech Rushing: 280 carries, 820 yards, 25 longest, 9 TD Receiving: 101 catches, 953 yards, 47 longest, 6 TD KO Returns: 2 returns, 17 yards, 11 longest Fumbles: 9 Fumble recoveries: 7 Tackles: 28 Pros: Robinson has some elite traits and some that are simply above average. He's fast for a FB and should be sound in the passing game--even beyond screens. He scored plenty of times in college. Cons: Fumble-prone. Lacks discipline. Could be in better shape for game day. Conclusion: Robinson grades out to the middle of the third round. He could easily go in the second if a team has a need, but it's hard for me to imagine him rising into the first unless someone has an invite that blows them away. |
|
|
Lorenzo Marrone Arizona Passing: 0.0 rating, 0-1, 0.0%, 0 yd, 0 lg Rushing: 225 carries, 645 yards, 42 longest, 7 TD Receiving: 83 catches, 597 yards, 21 longest Fumbles: 5 Fumble recoveries: 3 Tackles: 13 Pros: Solid producer, especially in the ground game. Near-elite physical prospect. Cons: Could use some classroom work. Needs to play within the scheme. Conclusion: Marrone looks like a middle-fourth round pick, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him drafted in the third. |
|
|
Mark Gorney Oklahoma Rushing: 93 carries, 227 yards, 26 longest Receiving: 65 catches, 419 yards, 34 longest Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 12 Pros: Gorney shapes up as a sledgehammer blocker who also has the physical ability to be a solid ball-carrier. Cons: Lacks intellectual horsepower, a scout assessment backed by his failure to score any points at all in over 150 touches. Not quite elite in any respect, but nearly on Lorenzo Marrone's level of physical talent. Could be better conditioned. Conclusion: Early fifth round pick. If you can get him into top shape he could be a real steal. |
|
|
James Smith Stanford Rushing: 213 carries, 609 yards, 33 longest, 1 TD Receiving: 72 catches, 544 yards, 27 longest, 3 TD Fumbles: 2 Fumble recoveries: 6 Tackles: 21 Pros: The best athlete among the top fullbacks from a purely physical standpoint. Cons: Not a blocking back. Needs to work on his conditioning. Mentals are bad, but at least they're not the worst. Conclusion: Smith is a mix of obvious strengths and equally obvious holes. The scouts say late fifth round. He could go sooner if someone wanted him to play a non-blocking role. |
|
|
R Garza Penn State Rushing: 163 carries, 496 yards, 21 longest, 4 TD Receiving: 120 catches, 710 yards, 36 longest, 6 TD Fumbles: 2 Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 15 Pros: Productive in the rushing and passing games. Fine athlete with the power to be a sound blocker. Near-elite speed. Cons: Has trouble playing within the system. Could use some work on conditioning. Not the best student of the game, though he is not the worst either. Conclusion: Garza projects as a late sixth-rounder. If the scouts are correct, someone would be very happy to get him with that type of pick. |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Gavin Cox Arizona State |
|
|
Wide Receivers The scouts tell us we don't need to start thinking about this season's wide receivers until the latter part of the fourth round. I have a hard time believing that. I think two or three receivers will go in the first round. |
|
|
J Muszynski Oregon Rushing: 3 carries, 1 yard, 6 longest Receiving: 317 catches, 3,498 yards, 47 longest, 6 TD KO Returns: 3 returns, 46 yards, 22 longest Fumbles: 1 Tackles: 5 Pros: Productive college receiver, amassing nearly 3,500 yards for 45th in career yardage. Elite physical prospect. No receiver in this year's crop runs better routes. Cons: Poor average per catch, though it's in line with other top career receivers to come out of Oregon like Greg Holts and James Brock. Not a particularly football-smart player. His conditioning is just north of average. It could be better. Conclusion: Muszynski projects to the late fourth if I read dispassionately down my spreadsheet. Drafting, however, is not a dispassionate activity. This is a very productive receiver who appears to have the goods to be a sound starter. He will go in the first. How early will likely be the subject of many invites. |
|
|
Joseph Sword Va Tech Receiving: 363 catches, 4,807 yards, 69 longest, 15 TD Two point converts: 2 Punt Returns: 4 returns, 54 yards, 36 longest, 1 fair catch KO Returns: 39 returns, 739 yards, 50 longest Tackles: 5 Pros: How good is this guy? Sword is the career leader in receiving yardage, though he has the lowest average of the top 10 receivers. Sword is fast, smart, able to get open. He has fine conditioning. Cons: Slower than you'd like off the snap for an elite player. May not be the best route runner. Could have scored more touchdowns for all the passes he caught. Conclusion: Sword is projected in the early fifth, but he looks like the real deal to me. Someone will pass on a scout's-darling guard and grab Sword in the first. |
|
|
JR McCants Boston College (Junior) Receiving: 214 catches, 3,342 yards, 60 longest, 13 TD Punt Returns: 1 return, 5 yards, 5 longest, 1 fair catch KO Returns: 2 returns, 42 yards, 25 longest Fumbles: 1 Tackles: 2 Pros: Above-average overall athlete despite some holes. A productive player who may have been a top-20 all-time receiver had he stayed for his senior season. Cons: Lacks burst. Could be in better shape. Conclusion: It's hard to take too much umbrage at his weaknesses when he has so many strengths as a junior. Late first to early second round prospect. Or, if you prefer the spreadsheet, late seventh. |
|
|
Herman Moore Arkansas Rushing: 1 carry, -1 yards, -1 longest Receiving: 229 catches, 2,639 yards, 60 longest, 4 TD Punt Returns: 4 returns, 37 yards, 21 longest, 1 fair catch KO Returns: 6 returns, 143 yards, 54 longest Tackles: 8 Pros: Another productive receiver. His hands and ability to get open are his best assets. His mental game is nothing to write home about, but with this season's crop of receivers he's right in the ballpark. Cons: His speed, explosiveness and conditioning are just a hair above average. He did not produce much in the way of scores. Conclusion: Moore seems to be a bit behind the top wide receivers. The scouts say undrafted FA. I say late second to early third round. |
|
|
Nathan Greene Brigham Young (Junior) Receiving: 334 catches, 4,299 yards, 66 longest, 21 TD KO Returns: 1 return, 21 yards, 21 longest Fumbles: 1 Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 9 Pros: Simply put, he would have been the best ever if he'd stayed at BYU for one more season. H needed less than 600 yards to pass the likes of Phil Blades, Mike Hall, Damon McNair and this year's best, Joseph Sword. He also already has more catches than eight of the top 10, resulting in an average that might have been lowest ever among the top players. He has few traits that are elite, per the scouts. He can sure get open, and he's above average in most respects. Cons: How do you produce that much at BYU without being elite? I wonder who else was playing WR with him. Greene could certainly be faster, more explosive and better conditioned. His mental game is unimpressive, but it's not way out of line with the other top receivers this year. Conclusion: Greene is a very hard player to peg. The scouts say undrafted FA, which is laughable. I say second or third round pick. |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Corey Sanders Brigham Young Hey, there's Greene's partner now! He packs a good deal more speed than Greene, but didn't improve on Greene's average. Sanders caught his share of TDs and had a nice long of 80 yards. |
|
|
Tight End This year's tight ends don't fare as badly as the running backs and receivers, but the dropoff in this list is significant. |
|
|
Brian Cribbs Washington Receiving: 219 catches, 2,065 yards, 35 longest, 3 TD Two point converts: 1 Fumbles: 2 Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 19 Pros: Caught plenty of passes. Looks like an elite athlete on the whole. Could be a little faster, but not much. Outstanding conditioning. Cons: Could have had a few more scores with that kind of productivity. Mental game is not especially strong. Could those things be related? He's going to draw some penalties. Conclusion: Cribbs projects to the second round, and I like him just fine there. |
|
|
Kevin Ferguson Brigham Young Receiving: 112 catches, 1,432 yards, 31 longest, 2 TD KO Returns: 1 return, 4 yards, 4 longest Fumbles: 1 Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 12 Pros: Elite speed and quickness and soft hands are major assets in the passing game. Powerful blocker in near-elite condition. Cons: May struggle to get open at times. Mental game is a weakness, though it's among the better scores for the tight ends. Conclusion: Ferguson looks like a middle- or late-third rounder. Again, this seems about right to me, even though I wouldn't be surprised to see him sneak into the second. |
|
|
Carl Burke Purdue Rushing: 1 carry, -8 yards, -8 longest Receiving: 59 catches, 549 yards, 32 longest, 1 TD Fumble recoveries: 7 Tackles: 17 Pros: Fine looking receiving tight end. Burk is an elite physical specimen who is at the head of his class for mentals. Cons: Fairly light production for a player with these kinds of scout scores. Not a blocker at all. Conclusion: Burke grades out to the top of the fourth round--still 10 picks ahead of top WR J Muszynski. I think for the right team he could go as early as the second. Early fourth seems like a worst-case scenario if the scouts are accurate. |
|
|
Michael Neal Oregon Receiving: 115 catches, 1,011 yards, 38 longest, 4 TD Tackles: 25 Pros: Neal may not be as elite as some of the players before him, but he's a balanced tight end who can contribute in the passing game or block for a rusher. Cons: Hands are a concern, and his mental game is all but non-existent. Conclusion: Neal projects to the middle of the sixth round. I could easily see him in the fourth or fifth, but |
|
|
Roger Arnauld Oklahoma Receiving: 161 catches, 1,437 yards, 32 longest, 1 TD Fumbles: 2 Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 23 Pros: Arnauld is a lot like TE Michael Neal. Arnauld is a bit better blocker and has softer hands, but he's not quite as fast and athletic. That didn't stop him from being a very productive in the passing game. Cons: Like Neal, his mental game is all but non-existent. Conclusion: Arnauld projects to the seventh round. He could go in about that round or be a high-priority post-draft FA. |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Brian Hartsock Va Tech |
|
|
Centers This year's centers are a mixed bag. No elite player
emerges, but several look like players, especially if the scouts are being
too harsh on their speed. |
|
|
George Graffis Colorado Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 4 Pros: Great power and smooth pass blocking. Near elite in most respects. Cons: A bit slow off the ball, which can be death for a center. Not much of a runner. Conclusion: Late second to early third round. |
|
|
Charles Covington Florida Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 1 Pros: Very quick with outstanding hands. Elite power and near-elite pass blocking. Cons: Very poor runner who could be in better shape. Conclusion: Late second to middle third round. |
|
|
Jimmy Galbreath Arkansas Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 1 Pros: Well above average conditioning and mental game. Plenty quick enough. Appears to have sufficient strength and pass blocking skill. Cons: The worst runner yet among the centers. Plenty of areas where he's decent, but there's nothing elite about Galbreath. Conclusion: The spreadsheet points to post-draft free agency as his future. I could see him get picked with a late round pick. |
|
|
Evan Boyea South Carolina Pros: Disciplined player with sound pass blocking and enough power. His conditioning is a bit above average. Cons: Slow and with terrible hands. Mistake prone. Conclusion: Post-draft free agency seems just right. |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Ed Marchbanks Oregon Of course, that's assuming Marchbanks can move fast enough to get to camp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guards These guards are not men, they are gods, perhaps second only to their nemeses, the defensive ends. How many guards can go in the first round? |
|
|
Carlos Ogletree Miami KO Returns: 1 return, 1 yard, 1 longest Fumble recoveries: 1 Tackles: 10 Pros: The scouts say that if the strength of Hercules, and Superman were added to the Hulk along with the brains of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Reed Richards, and he was encased in adamantium armor equipped with a force field and--oh, let's say some ICBMs--Carlos Ogletree would beat the crap out of Hulk in less than a minute while creating a unified field theory that works. Cons: Conditioning could be a hair better. Hands aren't quite elite. Conclusion: Ogletree is the top-rated prospect in the draft. Will this be enough to get him the first overall pick? History suggests that it will not. Still, if he's really a dominant lineman he deserves consideration. |
|
|
John Marsh Arizona State KO Returns: 1 return, 3 yards, 3 longest Fumble recoveries: 3 Tackles: 17 Pros: Elite pass and run blocker. Not penalty prone. Cons: Conditioning could be better. There are a few players in this draft who are better students of the game. Conclusion: Another guard who falls in the top five overall. Marsh deserves first round consideration, though an invite to look at that endurance could be in order. |
|
|
Alonzo Sirstins Ohio State KO Returns: 2 returns, 8 yards, 4 longest Tackles: 10 Pros: Super quick pass blocker with near-elite run blocking ability and conditioning. Probably less of a risk than Marsh, although there are more areas where he's not quite at the top of the list. Cons: I guess he could be better conditioned, but not much. He only gets an A in class instead of an A+. Conclusion: First round prospect who may be the second guard picked. |
|
|
Matt Dayne Arizona Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 4 Pros: Dayne has elite pass and run blocking skills. He's near elite in the classroom and conditioning room. Cons: While Dayne has no real weaknesses, he is merely above average in footspeed, quickness, hands and playing within a scheme. Conclusion: The scouts say middle second round, which seems right. |
|
|
Kenyatte Kenney Stanford Rushing: 1 carry, -8 yards, -8 longest KO Returns: 1 return, 6 yards, 6 longest Fumble recoveries: 3 Tackles: 3 Pros: If you miss on the top guys and still want a guard who can move, Kenney may be your guy. He has all the top athletic traits, and he's just shy of elite in the run game. Cons: Hand technique is relatively week. This is a penalty-prone player. Conclusion: Top o' the third to ye! |
|
|
Dark-Horse Pick: Joe Milons Florida State |
|
|
|
|
Tackles. The tackles are
a bit more human than the guards, but there's a fair amount of quality at
the position. |
|
|
Shamar Barnes South Carolina KO Returns: 2 returns, 8 yards, 4 longest Fumble recoveries: 3 Tackles: 9 Pros: A smooth blocker with no glaring holes. Elite movement and pass blocking skills. Near-elite mental game. Cons: Barnes lacks elite power, which hurts him less on the edge than it would in the interior line. Conditioning isn't outstanding, but it's still well above average. Conclusion: Barnes will likely be the first offensive tackle off the board. Get him in the first. |
|
|
Richmond Opfar Oklahoma Fumble recoveries: 6 Tackles: 12 Pros: Opfar offers a contrast to Barnes that gives owners a choice. Barnes is a bit slower but much more powerful. He appears to be a nice fit for a run-first team. Cons: Study habits are the only real question surrounding Opfar, and even those are above-average. Not elite in as many ways as Barnes. Conclusion: Projected first round pick who may fall into the second as skill players get their due. |
|
|
Brandon Cerchio Texas Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 7 Pros: Well-conditioned, fast, quick and careful, Cerchio has several elite traits. Cons: Unfortunately for Cerchio, the big questions are the key abilities for a tackle. He can move, but can he pass block? He's barely average in that respect, and that's among NPLCAA players. His run blocking is barely better. Conclusion: Late second rounder who may be lucky to go that soon. |
|
|
Tyrone Gales Oregon KO Returns: 2 returns, 8 yards, 4 longest Fumble recoveries: 2 Tackles: 19 Pros: Gales has a fine mix of athleticism, power and conditioning. Cons: Unfortunately he is a mistake-prone freelancer. Conclusion: If you think you can train up his mental game, Gales could be a steal at the bottom of the third round. If he lasts that long. |
|
|
Michael Whittaker Nebraska Fumble recoveries: 4 Tackles: 11 Pros: Good speed and quickness. Smooth pass blocker with sufficent power for the run game. Not penalty prone. Good, not great, conditioning. Cons: Really dumb. Can he handle his assignments? Conclusion: Whittaker projects at the bottom of the fourth round. He has enough positives to go sooner, but you may have to send him to the classroom for plenty of remedial work. Dark-Horse Pick: Damon Jones Southern Cal |
|
|
|
|