The NFL Network checks in on the continued combine preparations for Matt Stafford (QB, Georgia), Michael Crabtree (WR, Texas Tech) and Brian Cushing (LB, USC).
D. Orlando Ledbetter reports on rumours Stafford won't workout at the scouting combine. Ledbetter pleads with the potential first overall pick to take the field, citing the effort Calvin Johnson put in to perform ahead of the 2007 draft.
Matt McGuire talks about Everette Brown's potential to play as a 4-3 defensive end. McGuire thinks he need to bulk up ahead of the combine to prove to teams he won't be restricted to featuring as a 3-4 DE/LB hybrid.
Charles Davis gives some names to keep an eye on at next week's combine. He likes Connecticut's running back Donald Brown and doesn't believe Michael Crabtree has anything to prove by running a fast 40 yard dash.
4 comments:
Hey, Rob. Came across this article while reading the TNT Seahawks blog: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/123681-seattle-seahawks-shouldwill-not-take-michael-crabtree-in-2009
Obviously I disagree with the writer making his case for not taking Crabtree. Primarily, because he uses the classic draft myths: "WR being picked that high are too risky, and overvalued," and "OL (which the hawks need) are less risky." Of course, I would offer my theory of just because other teams improperly evaluated guys in the past, doesn't mean any WR taken high is risky. If you scout a guy and think he's the best player in the draft (which crabtree appears to be) you have to take him. If you feel someone is going to be as good as Larry Fitzgerald you have to take him. Just because guys like Steve Smith, TJ Houshmanzadah (sp), Steve Largent etc. slip in drafts and become great, doesn't mean WR is something you shouldn't draft high. If a team had taken any of those WR with a top 5 pick, everyone would've praised them. Making any arguemnts involving a certain position being "more risky" or "easier to find in later rounds" are absurd. Higher picks are riskier no matter the position simply because of the expectation of the players. If they don't turn out to be borderline hall of famers, they are considered bad picks. However, if you look at most draft histories, the vast majority of drafts only have roughly 25 players that turn out to be great enough to retrospectively considered "worthy" of a top 10 pick.
On to his second argument, the hawks need OL help (which I agree with). However, the help they need is in the interior (G and C), and there are no prospects in this class worthy of a top 15 pick. The tackles are amazing, and if we didn't have so much money invested in Locklear, I'd love to take one and let them learn under Walter JOnes. But, with Jones, Willis, and Locklear all locked in, I don't see the value in taking someone with the 4th overall pick to sit the bench, or to take the spot of our 2nd highest paid lineman. Andre Smith is the only one big enough to play guard, and is the only one I'd like for them to take if Crabtree isn't available. People would say it's too high for a guard, but if Hutch were in this draft, we'd take him at 4. I normally support making the "less sexy" pick of lineman over skill positions, because I believe the O and D lines are imperative to success (more so the O line), but when someone like Crabtree is there, someone universally regarded as great (with the tape to back it up, not just a weight room/combine phenom), you have to take him (especially when he fills both of your two greatest needs of WR and offensive playmaker).
So, there's my argument. I know some of it was repeated from before, but it still applied here. I'm still honestly terrified that given Ruskell's enhanced level of responsibility of the team's success now given Holmgren's departure that he won't have the grapes to select Crabtree and go for a stereotypical "safe pick." I'll be praying until that faithful day in late April.
Hi Chris,
I did read the article earlier. The thing is, I read five pages about why the Seahawks shouldn't take Michael Crabtree, and none of the analysis seemed to be about the man himself
You can look at what happened in this year to that franchise all day. The fact is, the prospects in this year's draft have no guarantee to be a success or failure based on what happened to other people in other drafts.
Preaching to the choir sir. Couldn't agree more. We need to find a job writing for some of these sites so we can set them straight.
Bleacher Report is a bunch of shenanigans anyways.
Post a Comment