I really want an explanation

[DrastiK]

I thought for sure that we were going to go with Rogers-Cromartie then i seen that we chose McKelvin and i was completely stunned. I've came to the conclusion that McKelvin was definitely one of the best CBs in the draft but i still don't understand why we didn't chose DRC. I mean he's taller, faster, and has a higher vertical. The FO said that they chose McKelvin instead because of his kick/punt retunrning abilities. We already have Parrish and McGee!!! Are you kidding? And even the fact that in the interview he sounds like a full blown ****** pisses me off even more. Hopefully once the season starts McKelvin will prove that he was the right choice. I'm just lost.

[venis2k1]

I mean he's taller, faster, and has a higher vertical. The FO said that they chose McKelvin instead because of his kick/punt retunrning abilities.

Taller and faster does not mean better. I just checked, it turns out we arent playing any of our games on paper next year. All of them will be decided on the football feild. Could it be perhaps that the bills(and a lot of people) think McKelvin is the better corner.

[DrastiK]

I'm just trying to convince myself the McKelvin is better, but i just don't see it.

[Captain gameboy]

Using McGee as a return guy is playing roulette.

Beyond that, we got the best corner.

How could you "see it?"

Do you follow these college teams that closely?

Did you work them out or talk to them?

[RingofFire]

Well Einstein... The reason McKelvin is better is because he is a better overall CB in regards to playing vs the run and coverage. Also the fact he came from a better division.

[PECKERWOOD]

I heard that Magic Johnson can still run a sub 4.3, we should bring him in to replace Lee Evans.

[Confused]

Although the game isnt played on paper, mushmouth had almost 4000 allpourpose yards and returned over 100 kicks. I personally think that McGee has lost a step. Mckelvin will not take Roscoe's job, but i believe we may not be using our no.1 cb for return fodder much longer.

[feelthepain]

I think you need to be real careful with guy's that suddenly make a name for themsleves at Senior Bowls and Combines. I think McKelvin was by far the better choice.

[The Spaz]

I think you need to be real careful with guy's that suddenly make a name for themsleves at Senior Bowls and Combines. I think McKelvin was by far the better choice.

See if FTP can see then so should the Bills fans...lol :snicker:

[realdealryan]

...i seen that we chose McKelvin...I've came to the conclusion...


in the interview he sounds like a full blown ******

Pot/kettle?

I'll take tape over combine numbers.

[X-Era]

I thought for sure that we were going to go with Rogers-Cromartie then i seen that we chose McKelvin and i was completely stunned. I've came to the conclusion that McKelvin was definitely one of the best CBs in the draft but i still don't understand why we didn't chose DRC. I mean he's taller, faster, and has a higher vertical. The FO said that they chose McKelvin instead because of his kick/punt retunrning abilities. We already have Parrish and McGee!!! Are you kidding? And even the fact that in the interview he sounds like a full blown ****** pisses me off even more. Hopefully once the season starts McKelvin will prove that he was the right choice. I'm just lost.

I wouldnt have minded DRC either but I cant argue with the Bills.

No, I could, but I have about 1/100th of the information on both these guys that they do. Many people feel he was the best CB.

They did their homework and tons of it, I cant use my inferior knowledge on these guys to fault them.

Name your top 10 CB's in this league.

[Nighthawk]

I think you need to be real careful with guy's that suddenly make a name for themsleves at Senior Bowls and Combines. I think McKelvin was by far the better choice.

It hurts me to say this, but I agree with FTP.

[W1DER1GHT]

I was happy as heck that we DIDN'T take the "One Kidney Man". I know ZO and Sean Elliot played in the NBA with one, but I think it's pretty safe to say that football is just a little bit more rough. I think we'll be more than happy with McKelvin when it's all said and done.:nod:

[mysticsoto]

I thought for sure that we were going to go with Rogers-Cromartie then i seen that we chose McKelvin and i was completely stunned. I've came to the conclusion that McKelvin was definitely one of the best CBs in the draft but i still don't understand why we didn't chose DRC. I mean he's taller, faster, and has a higher vertical. The FO said that they chose McKelvin instead because of his kick/punt retunrning abilities. We already have Parrish and McGee!!! Are you kidding? And even the fact that in the interview he sounds like a full blown ****** pisses me off even more. Hopefully once the season starts McKelvin will prove that he was the right choice. I'm just lost.
The explanation is simple - DRC has a higher potential that he may achieve, but right now he is currently less polished. McKelvin also offers ST (kick/punt returns) supposedly at Devin Hester's level. That frees up McGee from always having to do it and McKelvin may even be better than Parrish (???). The only knock on McKelvin is that he doesn't have good hands to intercept balls - but then DRC wasn't an intercepting machine either...

I would have gone with DRC based on long term potential. But McKelvin is a fine CB on his own and will likely not disappoint.

[OpIv37]

I knock the Bills FO all the time, so I have to give credit where credit is due.

McKelvin is by far the better choice over DRC. DRC came from a small school and no one was even talking about him until after the Senior Bowl and the combine. He had one good game against top talent and a good workout. That's not to say he won't be a good CB someday or even be better than McKelvin, but he's a project and carries a lot more risk. We shouldn't have to deal with that at the #11 pick, especially since our team has so many more immediate needs.

Given the situation we're in and where the pick was, the FO made the wiser choice.

[mysticsoto]

I knock the Bills FO all the time, so I have to give credit where credit is due.

McKelvin is by far the better choice over DRC. DRC came from a small school and no one was even talking about him until after the Senior Bowl and the combine. He had one good game against top talent and a good workout. That's not to say he won't be a good CB someday or even be better than McKelvin, but he's a project and carries a lot more risk. We shouldn't have to deal with that at the #11 pick, especially since our team has so many more immediate needs.

Given the situation we're in and where the pick was, the FO made the wiser choice.

This is a matter of style of person I think. For me, I thought our CB corps was"okay" especially now that we had gotten a veteran in the mix in Will James to compete. With Greer stepping it up last year, and an improved Dline to rush QBs, I myself would have taken DRC and allowed him to develop fully - by maybe given him time and then inserting him in half way through the season or so. For me, that risk is worth taking b'cse I think DRC can develop into a perennial pro-bowler.

But I do understand that this is riskier. It's just a risk I would have likely taken if I were the GM. And DB seems to agree with this line of thinking also since he's been adamant about wanting DRC.

But for someone who rather the sure thing, McKelvin is probably the pick they'll prefer.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

I'm just trying to convince myself the McKelvin is better, but i just don't see it.

Ok, maybe I can help you with this, Drastik:



First of all, everything that you pointed out about Rogers-Cromartie being somewhat superior in those areas where the NFL is able to measure certain physical and athletic attributes is true. But, those numbers--and even some statistics that are compiled during games--do not necessarily indicate whether a player who is superior in these areas is similarly superior in other physical areas that cannot be adequately measured, let alone the mental and psychological areas or in terms of experience.

In fact, just looking at the numbers does not give any indication of whether there is a reason why one player may be superior to another in one of those "measurables" (something that may well have been the case here): for example, while both Rogers-Cromartie and McKelvin both went to small schools, because Rogers-Cromartie has a cousin who just went through the draft a couple of years ago, Rogers-Cromartie had a distinct advantage over McKelvin in preparing for the draft--because his cousin could tell him, from his own recent experiences, what things he needed to do, what he could avoid doing, which pre-draft camp would be best able to help him post good measurables, etc.

So, right off the top, you have to look at the numbers that you cited--except for the size of the two men--as being skewed in Roger-Cromartie's favor to begin with. But, for the moment, just file that for later reference.

OK, so let's look what the two guys actually did on the field in college:

Here again, the "measurables" may appear to favor Rogers-Cromartie on first glance. But, let's look a little closer.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, both went to small schools, but McKelvin went to a school that played in a higher division than the school that Rogers-Cromartie played for. Still, there have been guys who have played in a lower division who turned out to be considerably better than guys who played for big schools. But, let's look at this anyway to see if there might be something in this area that might indicate why the Bills--and a lot of people in the NFL--liked McKelvin better than Rogers-Cromartie....

Well, if you look at the schedules of the teams that the two guys played for, you will see that, while Rogers-Cromartie and his team played against a typical schedule for teams in their division (and, I do not believe they won enoough to make the playoffs this year), McKelvin and Troy played a number of games against top level programs like Georgia, Florida St., Nebraska (which had a pretty good passing attack), and twice in the last two seasons against Arkansas. This year alone, McKelvin played against six teams to BCS bowls--something that one commentator pointed out that some of the teams that went to those bowls didn't do!

While Rogers-Cromartie was playing against mostly Division1-AA competition, McKelvin was going up against top level competition a lot of the time. And, it wasn't just that his team was going up against top teams and he was going along for the ride, as Troy's # 1 CB, he was going up against the opponent's best WR. So, how well did he do? Well, this year, against Florida State, the man he was covering caught one pass for 8 yards...and, the previous season, when Calvin Johnson brutalized just about every DB that he went up against while at Ga.Tech, McKelvin limited him to two catches for nine yards and no TDs.

So, McKelvin has not only gone up against better competition than Rogers-Cromartie so far, but he has also played well against that higher level of competition, doing perhaps better the better the competition that he has gone against. And, there is definitely something to be said for that....

But, what about Rogers-Cromartie? He has superior size and the measurables indicate that he should have more athleticism. And, if you look at his college stats I'd be willing to bet (although I don't know this for sure) that he has more interceptions and better all-around numbers than McKelvin as well. Surely DRC must have been dominant as a player against the weaker competition that he played against.

Well, he was and he wasn't. Because there are things that are important to playing the game that can't be measured or don't show up in the stats and "measurables". Things that can only be seen to be understood--sometimes only in person and not even on film or TV.

And, here is where I saw something that was done on the NFL Network during the week prior to the draft: one of the NFL Network's analysts showed a series of clips from film of some of DRC's games to explain that there were some serious problems with Rogers-Cromartie's game and he was not the best CB in this year's draft.

One of the things that he showed--that really stood out--was that, despite Rogers-Cromartie's size and measurable strength, he struggled a lot when going up against bigger WR on the Div 1-AA level, especially in press coverage. The analyst showed several examples of DRC being badly beaten at the line of scrimmage for big completions by bigger WRs that he faced. He showed one sequence of three plays from a game where DRC was beaten in press coverage: on the first two plays DRC ended up off-balance and losing his footing as the WR was past him and making the catch. On the third play of the sequence, which all came in the same drive, DRC "bailed out" of the press coverage too early, but ended up getting an interception when the opposing QB threw up a "wounded duck" to the wrong place on the field and DRC, because he had "bailed out" on his assignment, was able to go and pick it off. As the analyst pointed out, the INT looks good in the stat book and makes up for his three bad plays in a fashion sufficient to make the HC happy, but those aren't the kinds of things that DRC will be able to count on being able to get away with or compensate for going up against the quality of the WRs and QBs in the NFL (think Moss and Brady, here).

According to this analyst (God, I wish I could remember his name!), Rogers-Cromartie still has a lot to learn, in terms of technique, and must get a lot stronger--not in terms of how many times he can bench press 225 lbs, but in terms of "game strength"--before he will be ready to be an elite CB in the NFL.

Now, of course, with time and hard work Rogers-Cromartie may very well be able to learn and develop to where he is able to overcome those kinds of weaknesses in his game. And, there are weaknesses in McKelvin's game that he is going to have to overcome, too, before he can become an elite CB at the NFL level.

But, it is here, in terms of these kinds of things, where McKelvin, having played at a higher level and gone against top level competition already, has a significant headstart and advantage over Rogers-Cromartie that not just the Bills, but a lot of people around the NFL felt more than made up for the advantages that DRC had over McKelvin in size and "measurable" athleticism.

And, that is why the Bills took McKelvin when they had a choice between the two and why most boards had him rated higher than DRC.

Of course, as people in the NFL are fond of saying, the one thing that makes the biggest difference between which players will be busts, which will be around average, and which ones will be All-Pros is something that not only cannot be measured, but cannot be predicted or readily perceived...heart.

I'm a trained psychologist (was the youngest person certified in my area of expertise) and I can tell you from my own experience that it would take far more than the simple battery of tests and the time that the teams have been able to spend with these players for them to be able to know which one has more heart and determination--and, even then, a psychologist would make some mistakes, let alone a football coach or a personnel man.

So, there is no fool-proof way to tell whether the Bills made the better choice or not. But, at least from what this analyst on the NFL Network pointed out, there were some solid reasons why they ended up deciding that McKelvin has a better chance to make it at this point.

Now, you don't have to believe this, but I hope that you will at least read it and take it into consideration: with all of the millions of dollars and prestige that is at stake, Ralph Wilson--and the people working for him who made the decision (and whose jobs are at stake here)--did not choose to go with the unknown guy from a small school over the guy who put up freakishly good numbers in the tests at The Combine and has a cousin who just made it to the Pro Bowl at the same position just to screw with you, personally, or Bills fans, in general, or because they want to lose, don't care about winning or are flat-out stupid. Whether you would agree with them or not or would have done something else if it had been your decision, there were reasons why they made the choices that they did, even if you (we, including me) don't know what they were or would give them the same weight if we did know them.

BTW: If you saw the Senior Bowl Game or the passing drills during the week before the game, you might have a somewhat better opinion of McKelvin. During some of the drills the QBs and WRs were getting upset because the QBs were simply unable to get the ball into the hands of the WRs that McKelvin was covering--he was knocking them all down. There was one stretch that I saw where he literally knocked down every pass that was thrown to whatever man he was covering--I have never seen a CB do something like that for such a long stretch like that.

Of course, he didn't intercept any--the guy does have hands of stone when it comes to intercepting the ball--but he was getting a hand in and knocking the ball away every time. DRC did well in those drills, but not that good. Of course, DRC got an INT in the game itself and a couple (at least one that I remember) during the drills. But, McKelvin didn't have much of a chance to knock down passes, let alone intercept one because the opposing team didn't throw the ball to the guy he was covering very much: I can only remember two passes being thrown to his man--one he knocked down and one Hardy went down and got just above his shoes for a nine yard gain. Sometimes there are guys, especially CBs, who don't have very good stats...not because they suck or can't play, but because they are so good that the opponent figures that they have a better chance trying to gain yardage elsewhere and won't challenge them.

(I forget who is was--maybe "Night-Train" Lane--but there was a CB in the NFL who was so good that opposing teams only threw two passes to the man he was covering over the course of an entire season. A couple of years ago it was reported by Denver that their opponents threw fewer than 10 or 12 passes to the receiver that Champ Bailey was assigned to during one season. Obviously, neither one had very good stats those years. And, if one were to just look at their stat lines, one might conclude that they had bad years or were hurt a lot or say that they sucked. But, that would be far from what was actually the case: it was actually because they were considered to be so good by their opponents that they dictated what the opposition could do in games. And, if McKelvin can become that good, I won't care if he doesn't have a single INT or pass defensed during an entire season and the playoffs...because he will be doing his job to the utmost and it will put the team in a better position to win. But, that's also why stats sometimes have to be taken with a big grain of salt when you are dealing with actual NFL football instead of Fantasy Football--which, as the name clearly states (not just implies), bears no resemblance to the real game that is played by the pros.)

[Ingtar33]

I think you need to be real careful with guy's that suddenly make a name for themsleves at Senior Bowls and Combines. I think McKelvin was by far the better choice.

I agree.

I had McK as the no.1 CB taken in my mock. i had DRC as no.2 and taken by the bills.

McK, if he had average hands would have been a top 5 pick worthy CB. as it was he fell WAY too far. he should have gone well before pick 11.

DRC was never in that class... he was a 10-20 value pick, unlike McK who was a 5-10 pick.

[yordad]

Using McGee as a return guy is playing roulette.
Wouldn't doing that with our shinny new first round pick, and opposite starting CB be doing the same thing?

[THE END OF ALL DAYS]

holy crap Lifetime! good job

[eyedog]

Excellent post Lifetime.

I do question the 10-12 passes thrown Baileys way for the season though.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

I actually question that number in Bailey's case, but that is what the team said and they offered to show the game film to prove it, so no one really challenged them.

I'm pretty sure that "Night-Train" Lane was the other guy and I do remember that it was only 2 passes...in a 12 or 14 game season, though. Lane was a bigger version of Deion before Deion...which is why "Night-Train" fit him so well. I only saw him a couple of times at the end of his career, but he was still good then and was ridiculously good in his prime.

[eyedog]

I could see the Night Train #. Different era, less games, running offenses, d-backs could hit receivers all over the field as long as ball wasn't in the air.
Today with the passing offense's 10-12 a year would be amazing if so.

[Michael82]

Ok, maybe I can help you with this, Drastik:



First of all, everything that you pointed out about Rogers-Cromartie being somewhat superior in those areas where the NFL is able to measure certain physical and athletic attributes is true. But, those numbers--and even some statistics that are compiled during games--do not necessarily indicate whether a player who is superior in these areas is similarly superior in other physical areas that cannot be adequately measured, let alone the mental and psychological areas or in terms of experience.

In fact, just looking at the numbers does not give any indication of whether there is a reason why one player may be superior to another in one of those "measurables" (something that may well have been the case here): for example, while both Rogers-Cromartie and McKelvin both went to small schools, because Rogers-Cromartie has a cousin who just went through the draft a couple of years ago, Rogers-Cromartie had a distinct advantage over McKelvin in preparing for the draft--because his cousin could tell him, from his own recent experiences, what things he needed to do, what he could avoid doing, which pre-draft camp would be best able to help him post good measurables, etc.

So, right off the top, you have to look at the numbers that you cited--except for the size of the two men--as being skewed in Roger-Cromartie's favor to begin with. But, for the moment, just file that for later reference.

OK, so let's look what the two guys actually did on the field in college:

Here again, the "measurables" may appear to favor Rogers-Cromartie on first glance. But, let's look a little closer.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, both went to small schools, but McKelvin went to a school that played in a higher division than the school that Rogers-Cromartie played for. Still, there have been guys who have played in a lower division who turned out to be considerably better than guys who played for big schools. But, let's look at this anyway to see if there might be something in this area that might indicate why the Bills--and a lot of people in the NFL--liked McKelvin better than Rogers-Cromartie....

Well, if you look at the schedules of the teams that the two guys played for, you will see that, while Rogers-Cromartie and his team played against a typical schedule for teams in their division (and, I do not believe they won enoough to make the playoffs this year), McKelvin and Troy played a number of games against top level programs like Georgia, Florida St., Nebraska (which had a pretty good passing attack), and twice in the last two seasons against Arkansas. This year alone, McKelvin played against six teams to BCS bowls--something that one commentator pointed out that some of the teams that went to those bowls didn't do!

While Rogers-Cromartie was playing against mostly Division1-AA competition, McKelvin was going up against top level competition a lot of the time. And, it wasn't just that his team was going up against top teams and he was going along for the ride, as Troy's # 1 CB, he was going up against the opponent's best WR. So, how well did he do? Well, this year, against Florida State, the man he was covering caught one pass for 8 yards...and, the previous season, when Calvin Johnson brutalized just about every DB that he went up against while at Ga.Tech, McKelvin limited him to two catches for nine yards and no TDs.

So, McKelvin has not only gone up against better competition than Rogers-Cromartie so far, but he has also played well against that higher level of competition, doing perhaps better the better the competition that he has gone against. And, there is definitely something to be said for that....

But, what about Rogers-Cromartie? He has superior size and the measurables indicate that he should have more athleticism. And, if you look at his college stats I'd be willing to bet (although I don't know this for sure) that he has more interceptions and better all-around numbers than McKelvin as well. Surely DRC must have been dominant as a player against the weaker competition that he played against.

Well, he was and he wasn't. Because there are things that are important to playing the game that can't be measured or don't show up in the stats and "measurables". Things that can only be seen to be understood--sometimes only in person and not even on film or TV.

And, here is where I saw something that was done on the NFL Network during the week prior to the draft: one of the NFL Network's analysts showed a series of clips from film of some of DRC's games to explain that there were some serious problems with Rogers-Cromartie's game and he was not the best CB in this year's draft.

One of the things that he showed--that really stood out--was that, despite Rogers-Cromartie's size and measurable strength, he struggled a lot when going up against bigger WR on the Div 1-AA level, especially in press coverage. The analyst showed several examples of DRC being badly beaten at the line of scrimmage for big completions by bigger WRs that he faced. He showed one sequence of three plays from a game where DRC was beaten in press coverage: on the first two plays DRC ended up off-balance and losing his footing as the WR was past him and making the catch. On the third play of the sequence, which all came in the same drive, DRC "bailed out" of the press coverage too early, but ended up getting an interception when the opposing QB threw up a "wounded duck" to the wrong place on the field and DRC, because he had "bailed out" on his assignment, was able to go and pick it off. As the analyst pointed out, the INT looks good in the stat book and makes up for his three bad plays in a fashion sufficient to make the HC happy, but those aren't the kinds of things that DRC will be able to count on being able to get away with or compensate for going up against the quality of the WRs and QBs in the NFL (think Moss and Brady, here).

According to this analyst (God, I wish I could remember his name!), Rogers-Cromartie still has a lot to learn, in terms of technique, and must get a lot stronger--not in terms of how many times he can bench press 225 lbs, but in terms of "game strength"--before he will be ready to be an elite CB in the NFL.

Now, of course, with time and hard work Rogers-Cromartie may very well be able to learn and develop to where he is able to overcome those kinds of weaknesses in his game. And, there are weaknesses in McKelvin's game that he is going to have to overcome, too, before he can become an elite CB at the NFL level.

But, it is here, in terms of these kinds of things, where McKelvin, having played at a higher level and gone against top level competition already, has a significant headstart and advantage over Rogers-Cromartie that not just the Bills, but a lot of people around the NFL felt more than made up for the advantages that DRC had over McKelvin in size and "measurable" athleticism.

And, that is why the Bills took McKelvin when they had a choice between the two and why most boards had him rated higher than DRC.

Of course, as people in the NFL are fond of saying, the one thing that makes the biggest difference between which players will be busts, which will be around average, and which ones will be All-Pros is something that not only cannot be measured, but cannot be predicted or readily perceived...heart.

I'm a trained psychologist (was the youngest person certified in my area of expertise) and I can tell you from my own experience that it would take far more than the simple battery of tests and the time that the teams have been able to spend with these players for them to be able to know which one has more heart and determination--and, even then, a psychologist would make some mistakes, let alone a football coach or a personnel man.

So, there is no fool-proof way to tell whether the Bills made the better choice or not. But, at least from what this analyst on the NFL Network pointed out, there were some solid reasons why they ended up deciding that McKelvin has a better chance to make it at this point.

Now, you don't have to believe this, but I hope that you will at least read it and take it into consideration: with all of the millions of dollars and prestige that is at stake, Ralph Wilson--and the people working for him who made the decision (and whose jobs are at stake here)--did not choose to go with the unknown guy from a small school over the guy who put up freakishly good numbers in the tests at The Combine and has a cousin who just made it to the Pro Bowl at the same position just to screw with you, personally, or Bills fans, in general, or because they want to lose, don't care about winning or are flat-out stupid. Whether you would agree with them or not or would have done something else if it had been your decision, there were reasons why they made the choices that they did, even if you (we, including me) don't know what they were or would give them the same weight if we did know them.

BTW: If you saw the Senior Bowl Game or the passing drills during the week before the game, you might have a somewhat better opinion of McKelvin. During some of the drills the QBs and WRs were getting upset because the QBs were simply unable to get the ball into the hands of the WRs that McKelvin was covering--he was knocking them all down. There was one stretch that I saw where he literally knocked down every pass that was thrown to whatever man he was covering--I have never seen a CB do something like that for such a long stretch like that.

Of course, he didn't intercept any--the guy does have hands of stone when it comes to intercepting the ball--but he was getting a hand in and knocking the ball away every time. DRC did well in those drills, but not that good. Of course, DRC got an INT in the game itself and a couple (at least one that I remember) during the drills. But, McKelvin didn't have much of a chance to knock down passes, let alone intercept one because the opposing team didn't throw the ball to the guy he was covering very much: I can only remember two passes being thrown to his man--one he knocked down and one Hardy went down and got just above his shoes for a nine yard gain. Sometimes there are guys, especially CBs, who don't have very good stats...not because they suck or can't play, but because they are so good that the opponent figures that they have a better chance trying to gain yardage elsewhere and won't challenge them.

(I forget who is was--maybe "Night-Train" Lane--but there was a CB in the NFL who was so good that opposing teams only threw two passes to the man he was covering over the course of an entire season. A couple of years ago it was reported by Denver that their opponents threw fewer than 10 or 12 passes to the receiver that Champ Bailey was assigned to during one season. Obviously, neither one had very good stats those years. And, if one were to just look at their stat lines, one might conclude that they had bad years or were hurt a lot or say that they sucked. But, that would be far from what was actually the case: it was actually because they were considered to be so good by their opponents that they dictated what the opposition could do in games. And, if McKelvin can become that good, I won't care if he doesn't have a single INT or pass defensed during an entire season and the playoffs...because he will be doing his job to the utmost and it will put the team in a better position to win. But, that's also why stats sometimes have to be taken with a big grain of salt when you are dealing with actual NFL football instead of Fantasy Football--which, as the name clearly states (not just implies), bears no resemblance to the real game that is played by the pros.)
Wow! As always, your posts take forever to read, but it's well worth it. Excellent post! :bf1:

[The Answer]

I thought for sure that we were going to go with Rogers-Cromartie then i seen that we chose McKelvin and i was completely stunned. I've came to the conclusion that McKelvin was definitely one of the best CBs in the draft but i still don't understand why we didn't chose DRC. I mean he's taller, faster, and has a higher vertical. The FO said that they chose McKelvin instead because of his kick/punt retunrning abilities. We already have Parrish and McGee!!! Are you kidding? And even the fact that in the interview he sounds like a full blown ****** pisses me off even more. Hopefully once the season starts McKelvin will prove that he was the right choice. I'm just lost.

The bottom line between the two - McKelvin was concerned a 'safe' pick because he is the more polished, nfl ready CB. Also he is better against the run and has Devin Hester return ability. The only real knock is that he doesn't intercept a lot of passes but that is not a fatal flaw that can't be worked on.

As for DRC - he really only had one good year and his workouts at the combine helped his cause. He is still raw and considered a 'boom or bust' player, if he does in fact boom he will be a great corner, possibily even better than McKelvin but only time will tell. He may be taller than Kelvin but that is not the determining factor in scouting a good CB.

~The Answer

[streetkings01]

DRC struggled against a lower level of competition.......McKelvin excelled agains top competition .....question answered!

[Mahdi]

Mckelvin is the better corner because....

He has better C.O.D than DRC which is the most important asset for a CB... the quicker you can adjust your movement while maintaining speed is the most important thing when facing top WRs.

He is better in run support and is a much better tackler than DRC.

He has better short-area quickness than DRC. If you look at the combine stats there is one stat that is IMO just as important for a CB as the 40 and maybe even more important. The 20 yard shuttle. If you think about it most of the throws a CB has to face occur within a 20 yard area, a corner might face 1-2 deep balls a game over 30-40 yards and maybe even less. For the 20 yards shuttle Mckelvin was the fourth best among CBs, DRC wasnt in the top 10 in that category.


Due to that superior short-area quickness McKelvin is able to close on WRs faster and ends up getting his hands on a lot of passes and knocking them down.

At the end of the day although DRC beat Mckelvin in the 40 Mckelvin still ran a 4.38 which means he also has elite speed but with all of the above to his advantage as well.

[justasportsfan]

I think you need to be real careful with guy's that suddenly make a name for themsleves at Senior Bowls and Combines. I think McKelvin was by far the better choice.
It really isn't that hard to say something objective about your rival team is it? :up:

[Tatonka]

lifetime.. that was sick. posts like that make this board the best. i actually learned something today.

[Mad Bomber]

LTBF, an EXCELLENT post (as always).
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/respect.gif

[Tatonka]

can i ask the experts a question.. is it possible to get "better hands"?

i mean is it possible for mckelvin to become a guy who can pick the ball better.. or not be referred to as "stone hands"? or do you guys feel that is a natural ability?

what i dont understand is how a guy can be such a good returner.. doesnt that require catching the ball? but all the sudden when a pass is thrown at him he sucks?

[Captain gameboy]

can i ask the experts a question.. is it possible to get "better hands"?

i mean is it possible for mckelvin to become a guy who can pick the ball better.. or not be referred to as "stone hands"? or do you guys feel that is a natural ability?

what i dont understand is how a guy can be such a good returner.. doesnt that require catching the ball? but all the sudden when a pass is thrown at him he sucks?

I'm no "expert," but I have a fair amount of coaching behind me on this and it is possible.

Soft hands and looking it in are starters, but at the cornerback position you don't get a chance to look it in, so it gets to quickness and soft hands.

I think he'll be fine.

Thomas Smith is the epitome of stone hands guys that we have drafted high.

I can't believe that LM will be like that.

[Pinkerton Security]

lifetime, i am amazed at you. bravo.

[The Spaz]

can i ask the experts a question.. is it possible to get "better hands"?

i mean is it possible for mckelvin to become a guy who can pick the ball better.. or not be referred to as "stone hands"? or do you guys feel that is a natural ability?

what i dont understand is how a guy can be such a good returner.. doesnt that require catching the ball? but all the sudden when a pass is thrown at him he sucks?

This question was asked on the video on BB.com. What Tom Modrak said was with a CB he is trying to get around the receiver to deflect the ball, dive for the ball and things of that nature so it it is difficult to really asses his hands. Although he did say he wouldn't see him dropping a "give me" int either. Hell Reggie Corner has 15 career int' and people don't see he is a top notch corner.