Month: April 2011 (Page 3 of 6)

Probably the riskiest deserving first round pick possible

Posted by Kip Earlywine

Can you believe the draft begins this Thursday?  There isn’t much time left, so I figured now would be a good time to talk about which positions are the safest bets in the first round.  Here is a chart, though a couple years old, that tracks the success rate by position both by being a long term starter and also by becoming a star player.  It covers data from 1997 to 2008.

Excluding kickers (heh), the safest positions for finding a long term starter are center (100%), guard (100%), safety (91%), linebacker (83%), defensive tackle (83%), defensive end (79%) and tackle (73%).

The worst positions for finding at least a long term starter are quarterback (44%), wide receiver (49%), tight end (50%), cornerback (56%), and running back (57%).

Finding a franchise quarterback is the single most difficult and important task for an NFL front office.  Even though a 44% rate is the worst among every position, that 44% rate far exceeds the rate of any round thereafter.

Considering this, you would expect quarterback to finish very low in terms of finding stars, but just the opposite:  25% of this group go on to become franchise quarterbacks.  Or to look at it another way, for every 8 first round quarterbacks that start long term, 5 are star players.  That’s the highest rate among successful starters at any position.

So what are the best positions when considering both starter potential and the odds of becoming a star?  Guard, safety, linebacker top the list, with defensive end being an honorable mention.

The worst?  Tight end and cornerback stand out quite a bit.  Corner is tied for 3rd worst for percentage of star players and is 4th worst for overall ability to produce a starter.  What’s even more alarming about the corner statistic is how many successful corners come out of the top half of the first round.  As Mel Kiper recently cited, 21 of the last 24 corners taken in the top half of the first round have been at least somewhat successful.  That’s amazing, and it really paints a grim picture for corners who are taken later in the first.

I think that jives with this year’s draft as well.  Patrick Peterson is a top 10 lock and about as close to can’t miss as it gets.  He’s this year’s Joe Haden or Darrelle Revis.  Prince Amukamara?  He’s pretty much bombed drills at the combine and sorely lacks some of the most basic athletic qualities to play the position at the NFL level.  Maybe he’s still drafted as a corner, but if he is, it will be later in the first and it would be a very risky proposition to keep him at corner.  Then you have Jimmy Smith, who has all the physical talent to be a top 10 pick but has a rap-sheet and work-ethic reminiscent of infamous flame-out Maurice Clarett.  Considering the innate risk of the cornerback position coupled with that, I would nominate Smith as the riskiest first round prospect- that is unless you consider Andy Dalton or Christian Ponder worthy 1st round guys.  (I don’t).

So its with this in consideration that I have very mixed feelings about Seattle drafting Jimmy Smith.  If Seattle selects Smith 25th overall, though I wouldn’t pull the trigger myself, I would support their decision and I wouldn’t hate the pick.  Finding good starting corners is almost as hard as finding good starting quarterbacks, and in later rounds it gets even harder.  Seattle badly needs quality at the corner position and putting off addressing the issue will have consequences.  Smith has the base of talent to be just like those highly successful corners taken earlier, its just an issue of being motivated and staying on the straight and narrow.  If anyone can do that, Pete Carroll can.

On the other hand, if Smith busts especially for off the field reasons, its going to look very obvious in retrospect won’t it?  Smith has two felonies in his past, displayed (to my eye) a regular habit of cruising by in games, and didn’t work out for at least two weeks before the combine, presumably because he didn’t care about being his best.  I don’t care too much about him lying in interviews, the other stuff is what concerns me more because of the behavior patterns it indicates.  I don’t mind rooting for degenerates like Randy Moss or Brandon Marshall, because at least they bring it on Sundays and compete Monday through Friday like champions.  With Smith, I’m not so much worried about him getting arrested with enough guns for a Mexican standoff in his pickup truck or getting stabbed by his wife, as much as I am worried about him just not caring enough to reach his potential.

If Mike Pouncey is there at #25, (I highly doubt it), then he would be the best pick in my view.  Not just because we desperately need help at guard, and not just because he’s the twin brother of a highly successful NFL interior lineman, but because guard (usually a position addressed where we are picking) is the safest pick in the first round and also one of the best for finding a star player.

Similarly evaluating risk/reward for Locker/Kaepernick is probably another post in itself.  For now I’d say that I’d endorse either at #25, though with Kaepernick admittedly I’d cringe a little bit after thinking of him as a late 2nd rounder for so long.

If nothing else, I'd like Seattle's next quarterback to make skipping fist pumps and invisible championship belts

Posted by Kip Earlywine

We don’t spend a lot of time talking about other NFL franchises here, but today I’d like to talk a little about John Schneider’s roots as a GM.  Seemingly every time Mr. Schneider talks draft, he makes a reference to his time in Green Bay and the roster creation system he learned there under Ted Thompson.  Even off the camera, our source has told us that Seattle won’t be trading up to draft a quarterback “unless Aaron Rodgers re-enters the draft.”  Its not hard to figure out the original source of that quote.

When the Packers selected Aaron Rodgers, they were in a very similar situation.  Brett Favre was the exact same age (within a month) that Matthew Hasselbeck is right now, and the Packers were fresh off a playoff appearance.  They picked 24th. Hasselbeck is a free agent who may have played his final snap here, and Favre is a future HoF who still had gas in the tank, but simply in terms of being “in the zone” for a new quarterback, both teams compared well.

Rob Staton and Brandon Adams from 17power have long expressed a belief that none of the “big four” quarterbacks will escape the top 16 picks.  Then again, Aaron Rodgers was considered a top 10 lock, and he became one of the more surprising prospects to fall in recent memory.  If one of those “big four” quarterbacks reaches the 25th pick somehow, we could see history repeat itself.

Here is a video from NFL.com about the Packer’s draft strategy.

In my opinion, John Schneider was hired by Seattle for two primary reasons: his chemistry in interviews with Pete Carroll and his background with a proven and highly successful NFL front office.  I suspect reason #1 was the bigger part of the decision, but its reason #2 that will reap the rewards for this franchise in the long haul.  Since John Schneider frequently talks about bringing the Packers philosophy here to Seattle, I found the video linked above to be pretty interesting.

“19 of 22 Superbowl starters were either drafted by the Packers or undrafted free agents signed by the Packers.”

Building through the draft is a cliche uttered by just about every fan and front office alike, but Green Bay is one of the very best in the business at living by this mantra.  In fairness, that statistic is somewhat inflated by a high number of injuries forcing depth players into starting roles, since this wasn’t opening day after all.  It was the final game of the season when teams tend to be the least healthy.  However you look at it, the bottom line is that Green Bay found success by using a highly disciplined and organized approach to the draft.  A lot of the things we hear about the Packers in the video are things you could say about every front office, which to me points out the value of going the extra mile.

“They have an all-inclusive process… they want people with strong opinions… they want scouts who are evaluators, not just information gatherers… evaluators comes first, and one man makes the decision at the end of the day.”

For all I know, these same seemingly bland features could be true of every NFL front office.  However, there was one part of this quote that really caught my ear; the part about wanting evaluators not just information gatherers.  Quite often I read scouting reports that rattle off a list of components for a player while missing the point completely- what specific team and what system would this player be best served playing for?  What do Steve Young, Brett Favre, Jake Plummer, and Michael Vick all have in common?  They were talented quarterbacks who didn’t reach their potential until they landed on a second team that was a better fit for their skills.

A good scouting report should include these kind of details.  Its not enough to ask yourself if a player has a bright future or not.  Does he have a bright future for you?  We can already confirm that John Schneider uses this method when scouting.  In the latest example, our source mentioned to us that the front office loves Stephen Paea, but isn’t going to draft him.  It seems silly to not draft a player you really like right?  Well not if he’s an awkward fit for the defense and wouldn’t reach that potential you like so much.  Paea is in my view a pure 4-3 one tech, very similar to Brandon Mebane.  Unfortunately, that just isn’t a position that exists in the LEO defense, so like Mebane, Paea’s immense talent would go to waste if we drafted him at #25.

This seems like a contrast with Tim Ruskell’s regime, where he had a bit more of a grab-bag approach.  He simply took players he liked, without considering chemistry or scheme.  That’s how we ended up with guys like Brian Russell undermining our secondary, and picks like Deon Butler that were very hard to make sense of.  Butler was a very good college player, and in some ways was a 2nd rounder on paper (outstanding character, hands, production, route running and sub- 4.4 speed).  That’s why Tim Ruskell paid quite a bit to move up to get him, in Ruskell’s eyes Butler was probably a worthy 2nd rounder pick who fell into the 3rd.  But what Ruskell didn’t consider was that Butler’s very small size would undermine his game as both a slot receiver and a deep threat, especially for a team that lacked a #1 wide-receiver.   That’s why Butler lasted as long as he did, he was a great college receiver who sadly just didn’t have a niche in the NFL.

Tim Ruskell took a guy like Aaron Curry 4th overall because of outstanding athleticism, character, and work-ethic, but didn’t consider the needs of the roster or how a player like Curry wouldn’t come even close to filling the pass rushing shadow left by a departed Julian Peterson.  Lawrence Jackson and Kelly Jennings were the same thing, players who passed the criteria but would never be vital components of a defense or fit into a grand scheme of things.

Not every pick John Schneider made last year followed his own rules.  Golden Tate, much like Deon Butler, is a talented guy that probably doesn’t have a role in an NFL offense, unless the team gets very creative.  Last year they didn’t use Tate to his strengths (his running back type qualities) and instead had him run post and fade routes deep, with predictably bad results.  With the exception of Tate though, just about every pick Seattle made last year was a good fit, even a player like EJ Wilson who failed to stick but was a fit for the 5 technique.  I completely expect this trend to continue in this years draft, and its why I’ve long suspected privately that Seattle probably wouldn’t pursue Ryan Mallett but would be seriously interested in Jake Locker or Colin Kaepernick (or Christian Ponder if the arm had checked out, which apparently it didn’t).

“…seventeen days there together, all the scouts are in the room, and they look at about three games on every single player (emphasis his) that any scout in that room has rated draft-able and some of their top free agents… it gives each scout a chance to look at his grades and compare it to what prospects from other sections of the country look like, and that helps them adjust their grades when they go to their final evaluation in the Spring.  I think they are one of the few teams that does it for that amount of time.”

Again, this is probably something that I’m guessing many other front offices do as well.  The only real difference here is the impressive amount of due diligence and time spent with this process.  Charley Casserly states his belief that this is an unusually high amount of time and resources spent reviewing prospects.  Scouting is well known to be a flawed and subjective “science,” so spending that extra time could pay dividends by ironing out some creases in the evaluation process.  We don’t know for a fact that Seattle uses this method, but the talk about Kaepernick gaining “unanimous approval” would hint at such a process.  And for what its worth, Schneider’s regime probably has one of the highest work ethics in the NFL, if judged from the number of roster moves they’ve made and how many trade avenues they sought over the last year.

“…remain [humble] with leadership, Ted Thompson does a great job with that.  He operates under the radar because he doesn’t have a big ego, but the rest of the league respects him because of his ability to evaluate players.”

Without watching John Schneider work the war room, there really isn’t anyway of knowing if he’s an ego-maniac or a humble listener who values the opinions of others.  John Schneider brought Ted Thompson’s system to Seattle, and we can only hope that he shares Thompson’s traits as well.  The key to making a great decision is by considering as many opinions and as much information as possible.  Its what made Thompson one of the best GMs in the NFL, and hopefully John Schneider will follow that example, if he isn’t already.

David Fucillo at Niners Nation has a piece quoting official NFL Biographer Dave-Te Thomas with some very positive comments about Colin Kaepernick: “To me, he’s another Aaron Rodgers on the field. With his mobility & off-field character, I see a lot of Roger Staubach in him. He’s what I call a blue moon QB- only comes along once in a blue moon. Folks tortured me when I had Rodgers as my #1 prospect years ago & got on my hynie over Josh Freeman a few years back, but I’m not a draft analyst & judge guys on production & where I feel they will be three years down the road.”

Brandon Adams has the second part of his piece on Ryan Mallett: “In typical fashion, much of the sports community is only now taking a fair look at the Arkansas signal-caller and judging him in the light of actual NFL attributes. He’s a polarizing figure, to be sure. All it takes in this reactionary pre-draft environment is one notable writer or reporter to laud a guy, and suddenly everyone starts jumping on board.”

Chris Kouffman at Universaldraft.com appears on the NFL Network to argue the case against negative reports on Mallett.

Dan Kelly at Field Gulls has an interview with ex-NFL scout Dave Razzano, who has some interesting things to say about this draft class: “Kaepernick is another QB I feel will be very successful. Everyone is targeting for round two. He will go either late one or early two. Again, Jake Locker, to me, is a Brett Favre clone and the same things people say about Locker they said about Favre.”

For more information on the Locker/Favre comparison, don’t forget to check out Kip’s article from earlier today.

Mel Kiper and Todd McShay run through a few draft related topics for ESPN:

And seeing as we’re talking a lot about Colin Kaepernick…

Little kid Brett Favre wore #10 and played for the Hawks. I rest my case.

Posted by Kip Earlywine

The other day I was reading SB nation’s Seahawks blog Fieldgulls, and a certain article caught my eye, site-author Danny Kelly’s interview with veteran NFL scout Dave Razzano, who’s not currently active but has worked in the NFL as far back as the 1980s.  I’ll get this out of the way and mention that you might not agree with everything Mr. Razzano says, including his obvious man-crush on Nate Davis, his dismissive words for Ryan Mallett and his opinion that Russell Okung isn’t very athletic and is better served at right tackle.  But sometimes even a person you disagree with has the capability of providing unique and interesting insights from time to time.  Here is what Razzano had to say about how he looks at Jake Locker, known to be a high profile target for the Seahawks should he reach #25:

Jake Locker, to me, is a Brett Favre clone and the same things people say about Locker they said about Favre coming out of S Mississippi. Poor accuracy, can’t read defenses etc. Not shocked when I checked out favre’s total college stats vs Locker and they were identical Favre in college….55 td 35 int 53.2% completion. Locker…53 td 35 int 53.6 completion percentage. This is why you can’t put emphasis on the stat sheet. Most of the stats is the team you are on and the system. Joe Montana did not have overly impressive stats coming out of Notre Dame. When you studied him closely he made plays when team needed them most..Had “winner” written all over him, just like Locker does today.

I wasn’t even 10 years old when Favre played his final college snap, and I barely watched college football.  When I did, I sure as hell wasn’t watching Southern Mississippi games, and as such I can provide zero insight into how a young Jake Locker would compare to a young Brett Favre.  However, like anyone not living in a cave the last 20 years, I know plenty about Brett Favre, NFL quarterback.  And considering that, I’m surprised I didn’t make this connection on my own, since, you know, Brett Favre is one of the most famous and over-exposed NFL players in the history of Earth.

Brett Favre is 6’2″, 222 lbs.  Locker is 6’2.5″, 231 lbs.  Locker raised concerns among some for scoring only a 20 on the wonderlic test.  Brett Favre scored a 22.  Both were the star attractions of their college teams with very little supporting talent.  Both are exceptionally mobile quarterbacks at their best on the move (I’ve read Favre ran a 4.60 forty coming out of college), and both have strong right arms with similar mechanics.  And while Locker could very well be drafted 10th or 12th, if he gets past Minnesota, he’ll likely slip to the late 1st or early 2nd round, the place where most analysts believe he “should” be selected.  Brett Favre himself was picked near the very beginning of round 2 (#33 overall).  Though Favre was famous for not missing games, he took a beating and constantly played hurt.  So did Locker at Washington.  Favre sat his first season in the league and didn’t become a starter until his 2nd year.  Similarly, Locker is a guy you probably would wait a year before pressing into action.  And then of course you have the incredible statistical similarities Razzano mentions.  I don’t put a ton of stock into college stats, but that is a remarkably close comparison.

Already, we’ve got a pretty stunning list of similarities between the two, but the biggest similarity of them all is the mentality both players share.  Locker doesn’t slide.  He lowers the shoulder and powers through.  Though Sarkisian reigned in Locker somewhat in 2009 and especially in 2010 by specifically coaching him to throw the ball away more, you could always tell that Locker’s preference was to force passes into tight windows, completely trusting his incredible arm.  As it turns out, the “wilder” version of Jake Locker seen in 2009 was a lot better than the “safer” version we saw in 2010.  My initial diagnosis of Locker was that he’d go to a tightly controlled environment and continue his progress at being a safer quarterback, very similar to when Mike Shanahan salvaged Jake Plummer by beating those gunslinger habits out of him.  But I’m now beginning to wonder if playing it safe with Locker does his talent injustice.  Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, and he’s also the NFL’s all time interception leader.  Perhaps like Favre, Locker could loosen up his game somewhat at the expense of suffering more interceptions, with a tradeoff in yardage and touchdowns that makes up for it and then some.

I guess its worth wondering what type of approach Seattle would take to Locker.  The connection Carroll shares with Steve Sarkisian is impossible to ignore, and judging by the highly structured offense the team played Charlie Whitehurst in during week 17, it would suggest a similar “simplify and limit mistakes” approach could be in play for a young, learning quarterback.  Darrell Bevell’s resume reads to me like that of a mousy “yes-man” offensive coordinator, and though he answers to Pete Carroll, make no mistake, he’ll be the one drawing up the plays and building this offense.  Given Bevell’s experience and success with Brett Favre in Minnesota, its possible that Locker could be given the same leeway to make plays as Favre was afforded.

Obviously, Brett Favre represents an absolute best case scenario for Jake Locker, but if Locker becomes a Seahawk, the comparison is a lot of fun to think about.  And of course, if the Redskins or Vikings feel this way about Locker, then you can probably forget about him lasting to #25, even if they don’t select him 10th or 12th.  If Locker reaches #24, you better believe the Saints will be fielding some interesting calls, particularly Washington who would have no other choice but to offer future picks.  Why was it that Tampa Bay dealt a late round pick just to move up a mere two spots for Josh Freeman, knowing that the team in front of them wasn’t a serious threat?  Because they were wise enough to know how obvious of a landing spot they were, and it was very possible a team behind them could leap up and screw them out of a future franchise quarterback.  So for almost no cost at all, Tampa eliminated that possibility, in what was probably the single most intelligent trade of that entire draft.  If Locker is there at #23, Seattle should take a page from Tampa’s draft playbook and make a move.

The quarterback situation Seattle faces entering this draft is eerily similar to the one they faced in 1991, fresh off of parting ways with Seattle’s other great quarterback, Dave Krieg.  Seattle needed a new quarterback, and was willing to spend a 1st round pick on the position.  This isn’t a comparison I’d personally make, but a lot of people have compared Ryan Mallett to another 6’7″ quarterback who went in the mid-1st round that year:  Dan McGwire.  Then coach Chuck Knox, as well as the majority of the scouting department, furiously protested the selection of McGwire and had their hearts set on a different, more mobile quarterback.  But Ken Behring had his heart set on Mark McGwire’s little brother, and the rest is history.  That other quarterback Knox and company wanted so badly?  Brett Favre.

Edit 4/24:  Razzano is interviewed my Michael Silver, its worth a read.  Like the Seahawks, Razzano is a huge fan of Colin Kaepernick but likes Jake Locker even more.

The highlights haven't even started yet and I'm already entertained

Posted by Kip Earlywine

Highlights:

Strengths:

• Highly mobile with excellent acceleration and top speed
• Good running instincts
• Excellent pocket awareness
• Evasive both inside the pocket and outside it
• Gaudy career total statistics
• Accuracy took a big step forward in 2010 (65%)
• Low Interception totals
• Lightning fast arm speed (throws 95 mph and was drafted as a pitcher)
• Showed some capability of checking more than one read
• Mechanics improved as the season went on
• Very nice zip on passes short, middle and deep
• Great leadership, intangibles, coach-ability, character, hard-worker
• Ideal “wholesome” face of the franchise just like Jake Locker
• Some big time individual performances against quality competition
• Tons of college level experience
• Playmaker with speed that rivals or even exceeds Newton and Locker
• Remarkably durable in college (just one injury: ankle in ’08)
• Very high ceiling

Weaknesses:

• Worrisome “hitch” in his throwing motion, though in some games it wasn’t there (!)
• Sometimes struggles with touch on short throws
• Played in a “Pistol” offense, not much under-center experience
• Only checks 2nd read as a last resort, panics and takes off too much and too early
• Won’t get to run for 1000 yards a year in the pros
• Weak overall competition (WAC conference)
• Skinny Frame, needs to add some bulk… I worry about durability at the next level
• Comically bad ball security (holds the ball almost like “shake weights” when running)
• Runs with high center of gravity
• Needs to learn a lot; not likely to contribute immediately

Impressions:

Its not surprising to me our front office has a glimmer in the eye for quarterback Colin Kaepernick.  Kaepernick reminds me a lot of emerging phenom Josh Freeman, just in a skinnier body.  Both are guys who build their game off of running the ball to open up the pass, and throw well on the move.  The thing that makes Freeman a special talent is his sometimes ridiculous ability to sense and avoid pressure in the pocket, and though Kaepernick isn’t playing against the same caliber of opponents, that same trait is there, and it will serve him well in the NFL.  Pete Carroll saw Freeman work his magic against the Seahawks last season.  I wouldn’t doubt if he had called up John Schneider right after that game and said “I want a quarterback like that.”  Then again, who wouldn’t?

Colin Kaepernick can be a quarterback like that.  But it would probably take a least a couple years for him to reach that level.  He needs to learn the pro-style offense, and he needs to be more disciplined on making reads, running the ball less, staying calm under pressure and holding the ball properly when he does run.  You could say a lot of those same things about Jake Locker, except Locker doesn’t need to add weight and looks closer to being ready in my opinion. So in a way, you could say that Kaepernick is somewhat of a poor-man’s Jake Locker.  I’d be a little surprised if Kaepernick leaves the board before Locker does.

I recently read on Seahawks.net that “Seattle Seahawks” is an anagram for “Weak-ass athletes.”  I decided to take a look at “Colin Kaepernick” and see what anagrams it produced, and would you believe it, one of the results was “Inane Locker pick.”  Anagrams are such jerks.