"Scary Interest" in USC S/LB Su'a Cravens

[Bartin]

28 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

That was what he and Rivera said after we drafted Shaq.  They said it would allow us to stay true to our base 4-3  D more often.  We still primarily ran nickel.  Maybe Shaq just wasnt quite ready, I don't know.  But it definitely didn't play out on the field like they talked after the draft.

The quote after Shaq was drafted was that we would be able to stay in base when the other team went with 12 personnel(1 RB, 2 TEs) which was accurate. When the opposing offense went with 12 personnel we kept Shaq on the field rather than the buffalo nickel we previously ran with Colin Jones which was the previous solution to having AJ Klein or Chase Blackburn hopelessly outmatched against an athletic TE. We just didn't see that much 12 personnel this year. The dominant personnel grouping in the NFL right now is 11 which necessitates a nickel CB. Shaq is a wonderful luxury but I think that was just mostly justifying a BPA pick that really didn't fill a need at all rather than admitting that we made Thomas Davis go announce his eventual replacement on national TV.

[Bartin]

13 minutes ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

We need to take this guy. We have a major need to boost the back end of our defense. Our line is awesome,  our linebackers are all world, just need some beef on the backside. In today's NFL versatility is huge. This guy is a play maker that be used in many ways. Today's NFLdefenses are turning to verstile hybrid players like him and Shaq. I don't see it being possible to get him in the second but if we did it would  be an absolute steal. Could see us taking him at the end of the 1st like we did with Shaq

Which of the versatile, hybrid LB/S actually play S and do well though? They all play LB. Thomas Davis, Shaq Thompson, Mark Barron and Deone Buchanon all play LB. Barron was a dud at SS, got moved to OLB and is doing much better(not $9M/year better though, wtf Rams). Landon Collins will likely eventually meet the same fate because he is awful in coverage as a safety, but he would be good in coverage at OLB. The trend is taking these tweeners and versatile players and moving them closer to the ball to increase overall team speed on defense to combat wide-open passing offenses. CB -> FS, FS -> SS, SS -> OLB, OLB -> MLB, DE -> DT(on passing downs mostly with this one). Taking Cravens and putting him at SS is the opposite of that trend. Kam Chancellor is really the only "exception" and that's because he plays SS in name only for the most part. Seattle's defense is closer to a 4-4 than a 4-3 a lot of the time because Earl Thomas is a generational FS close to the level of Ed Reed.

[LinvilleGorge]

41 minutes ago, Bartin said:

The quote after Shaq was drafted was that we would be able to stay in base when the other team went with 12 personnel(1 RB, 2 TEs) which was accurate. When the opposing offense went with 12 personnel we kept Shaq on the field rather than the buffalo nickel we previously ran with Colin Jones which was the previous solution to having AJ Klein or Chase Blackburn hopelessly outmatched against an athletic TE. We just didn't see that much 12 personnel this year. The dominant personnel grouping in the NFL right now is 11 which necessitates a nickel CB. Shaq is a wonderful luxury but I think that was just mostly justifying a BPA pick that really didn't fill a need at all rather than admitting that we made Thomas Davis go announce his eventual replacement on national TV.

Yep.  A lot of the jumbo college safeties are essentially safeties in name only.  If you watched TD at UGA, dude was playing LB the vast majority of the time.  He lived in the box.  He rarely dropped deep.

[The Lone Panther]

6 hours ago, SOJA said:

looks like he will be an in the box safety- hmmmmm sounds like we're not sold on Boston 

or alternatively we're planning for life without Coleman- Boston at FS and Cravens at SS

Yea, I'm hoping we move Boston back to FS.  Coleman the starter, Boston his #2.  Can't imagine Coleman going anywhere just yet.  Especially after having a Pro-Bowl kind of year. 

[ctrcat]

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/cfb/54309/Cravens-says-more-teams-view-him-as-a-S

more teams view him as a safety.  Safety has also been a late first early second sweet spot for studs in recent years.

[CatMan72]

Didn't we draft this guy in the first round last year? 

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, CatMan72 said:

Didn't we draft this guy in the first round last year? 

We drafted the other side of the coin.

2 hours ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

Tell ya one thing I like in this vid is what I don't see.

A lot of college safeties love going for that "blow up" hit when they should be wrapping guys up.  Didn't really see Cravens doing that.  Other than one or two plays I saw pretty solid tackling technique.  Makes him look like a guy who wants to make a tackle more than he wants to make a Sportscenter Top Ten.

Now granted, this is a highlight reel, and highlight reel scouting should always be taken with the largest grains of salt you can find.

It's something to think about, though.

 

[TheSpecialJuan]

Dumb

[Jackofalltrades]

14 hours ago, carolina-chuck2 said:

Thought of that scenario too. Would not mind. 

 

I'm not sold on Gman having Boston as the clear cut starting SS next season. 

 

31 will be down to a DE or DB.

Which does Denver need the most?

 

We pick 30th. 

[t96]

12 hours ago, Kevin Greene said:

We need someone who can post up against Gronkowski in Super Bowl 51.

TD would demolish Gronk.

[panthers55]

13 hours ago, Bartin said:

Not a fan of his at all. He's nearly athletic enough to play safety and would be a very undersized LB. He's basically Shaq Thompson but slightly worse in every way. We already have Shaq and he only plays 30% of the snaps. Why would we want a worse version to play even less? He's the complete opposite of a need and in my opinion wouldn't be BPA until like the 3rd round. I hope this is a smokescreen.

I bet we are scouting lots of guys who might fall for various reasons and become a real value at some point. Every year there are guys who rise or fall in the draft. Gettleman is pretty good at finding good value gems. Craven is the kind of guy we might like if he were still there at the end of the third. I couldn't see us drafting a guy like him before then but I was surprised we took Shaq in the first so what do I know..... 

[MHS831]

Cravens makes perfect sense to be the first-round pick.  Indulge me for a minute:

1.  He would start.  DE, DT, WR, CB--probably rotational at best.  Your first rounders should start in year 1. If DE, DT, CB, WR, etc are not needed to start, then we can draft them later and develop them for a season.

2.  More "bang for your buck."  Think upgrade here.  In my opinion, Boston would be a FS playing SS. Marlowe is depth and special teams.  Harper was the defense's weakest link.  I used to isolate on him-he was terrible. Take a passive, slow  bad player out and bringing a young quick good player takes the D to a new level like no other pick would..

3.  "The box"  Denver showed us what you can do with a front 7.  In Carolina, can you imagine the front 4 we have plus Davis, Luke, and Shaq with Cravens stepping into the box? 

4. Cravens can cover TEs.  Harper could not.  While Cravens might be (like Thompson last year) a high second rounder, he is more valuable to us than he is other teams. 

.

[CelticCat]

I thought this guy was a third round prospect? I could see him filling Harpers role at SS but if were looking at him as another WLB im scratching my head if we take him in round 1 or 2. You can find those guys in round 4 and we just drafted Shaq in round 1. Werent Telvin Smith and Kwan Alexander both 4th rounders?

[Untouchable]

Cravens was good against the run and strong in coverage as a LB at USC (52.3 passer rating). We like those ball hawking players in the secondary and he had 9 INTs over 3 years.  Looks at the college stats of the young safeties for us the last couple years.  Coleman (9 INTs), Boston (13 INTs), Marlowe (12 INTs), Lester (14 INTs), Mitchell (7 INTs) and just signed Robinson (9 INTs).  Great length for the secondary too and very young, so our interest as a SS makes perfect sense.

Media looks to have him rated low, I wonder what the scouts have him rated at.