X-Era
04-15-2008, 09:57 AM
Heres the article:
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story;jsessionid=CFCDD824DE1AB93A7DFA3E24E7A7B2E1?id=09000d5d807bae68&template=with-video&confirm=true
I am a fan of getting a WR at 11. Im not against drafting other positions at 11 or trading down, but my choice would be a WR.
This article goes for and against the notion of a WR at 11.
For: The one point that stuck out to me is the comment about how speed in college does not mean much in the NFL. The reason they give is valid, CB's in the NFL all have speed. You cant just go out on the field and rely on speed, they will stay with you most of the time. You need good technique and height is also and advantage. They go on to say that you cant out-athlete CB's in the NFL. Plax Burress wasnt very fast, but he had decent hands, and technique, his height was his greatest advantage. That same year, Andre Davis was drafted and ran a sub 4.4 40. I think it makes the point well.
This part of the arguement would lend itself to those who favor drafting a WR like Sweed, Kelly, or Thomas.
Against: The article goes and points out that only two WR's drafted in the 1st round in the past decade have gone over 1000 yards in a year. That would seem to agree with those that say the bust rate is high at WR. However, the article goes on to talk about the slower development rate at that position due to more reads, etc...
I would argue that we are not looking for a year one #1 at WR, we dont need a 1000 yarder as a rookie. What we need is to spread the defense and keep double teams off of Evans. I would say that these facts dont hurt our arguement of taking a WR at 11.
As I said, I would have no issue if we went CB or traded down, I wouldnt even mind taking a DE. I just favor us taking a WR the most.
Its a good article, give it a read.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story;jsessionid=CFCDD824DE1AB93A7DFA3E24E7A7B2E1?id=09000d5d807bae68&template=with-video&confirm=true
I am a fan of getting a WR at 11. Im not against drafting other positions at 11 or trading down, but my choice would be a WR.
This article goes for and against the notion of a WR at 11.
For: The one point that stuck out to me is the comment about how speed in college does not mean much in the NFL. The reason they give is valid, CB's in the NFL all have speed. You cant just go out on the field and rely on speed, they will stay with you most of the time. You need good technique and height is also and advantage. They go on to say that you cant out-athlete CB's in the NFL. Plax Burress wasnt very fast, but he had decent hands, and technique, his height was his greatest advantage. That same year, Andre Davis was drafted and ran a sub 4.4 40. I think it makes the point well.
This part of the arguement would lend itself to those who favor drafting a WR like Sweed, Kelly, or Thomas.
Against: The article goes and points out that only two WR's drafted in the 1st round in the past decade have gone over 1000 yards in a year. That would seem to agree with those that say the bust rate is high at WR. However, the article goes on to talk about the slower development rate at that position due to more reads, etc...
I would argue that we are not looking for a year one #1 at WR, we dont need a 1000 yarder as a rookie. What we need is to spread the defense and keep double teams off of Evans. I would say that these facts dont hurt our arguement of taking a WR at 11.
As I said, I would have no issue if we went CB or traded down, I wouldnt even mind taking a DE. I just favor us taking a WR the most.
Its a good article, give it a read.