Why drafting DE and OT in round 1 worries me

[DaveThePanther2008]

Including Garrett and Thomas

The college game has evolved from an NFL breeding ground to a high octane, pass happy, quick hitting game.  Receiving records in the college game are getting re-written every year. Teams are scoring record amount of points.  QBs are lining less and less under center and more into the Pistol and Shotgun.

Look at the OTs and DE that bust when they reach the NFL.  The names on both sides of the ball are staggering.  #1 picks being average at best.  Hell we have two former first round talents OTs drafted by other teams on our roster.  Both had injury issues but some of it is talent. We just let a former 2nd round DE go because he was for the most part ineffective.   Yeah he played great in the Super Bowl but so did Timmy Smith.

Someone pointed out that Barnett broke Reggie White's sack record at Tennessee.  He wouldn't have done it in Reggie's era. Or I would love to see what Reggie would have done in this era of college football.

What my point is, is that there is less emphasis on being technically sound at OT because most offenses are quick hitting offenses.  You don't have to hold your blocks so long and therefore look better than you actually are.  DEs benefit from a weaker OT position and there numbers are inflated.  So while OTs and DEs MAY be as good as advertised they also have a very good chance of being a bust or just an average player.

This is why drafting DE and OT in round 1 worries me.

[The Lobo]

I don't think any OTs in this draft are worth it at 8. I do think Thomas is worth it though. He has all the tools to be great. The best part is his motor. Usually a high motor means he can be coached,that's a good thing. He is my favorite player in this draft but I do not think he will be our pick. Honestly, we could be draft Thomas, Fournette, Adams, Howard or Ross and I'd be happy.

[csx]

I think Barnette put in a time machine to White's day would result in him destroying a lot of qbs

 

There are several bowl de from top 10 the past 5 years.

[uscgamecocks]

2 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Including Garrett and Thomas

The college game has evolved from an NFL breeding ground to a high octane, pass happy, quick hitting game.  Receiving records in the college game are getting re-written every year. Teams are scoring record amount of points.  QBs are lining less and less under center and more into the Pistol and Shotgun.

Look at the OTs and DE that bust when they reach the NFL.  The names on both sides of the ball are staggering.  #1 picks being average at best.  Hell we have two former first round talents OTs drafted by other teams on our roster.  Both had injury issues but some of it is talent. We just let a former 2nd round DE go because he was for the most part ineffective.   Yeah he played great in the Super Bowl but so did Timmy Smith.

Someone pointed out that Barnett broke Reggie White's sack record at Tennessee.  He wouldn't have done it in Reggie's era. Or I would love to see what Reggie would have done in this era of college football.

What my point is, is that there is less emphasis on being technically sound at OT because most offenses are quick hitting offenses.  You don't have to hold your blocks so long and therefore look better than you actually are.  DEs benefit from a weaker OT position and there numbers are inflated.  So while OTs and DEs MAY be as good as advertised they also have a very good chance of being a bust or just an average player.

This is why drafting DE and OT in round 1 worries me.

Interesting thought.

Regression analysis has shown that the best predictor of NFL success as an edge rusher is burst generated in the first three steps and agility to plant and bend around the edge.  The correlation is much stronger between that specific type of athleticism and success than it is between college production and end results.

Interesting to think whether this is more of a leading or trailing indicator.  Has the game evolved (and technoque devolved) in a way that permits lesser athletes to succeed in college? Or have recent draft failures driven investment into analytics that is highlighting factors that have always existed?

[Nails]

1 hour ago, uscgamecocks said:

Interesting thought.

Regression analysis has shown that the best predictor of NFL success as an edge rusher is burst generated in the first three steps and agility to plant and bend around the edge.  The correlation is much stronger between that specific type of athleticism and success than it is between college production and end results.

Interesting to think whether this is more of a leading or trailing indicator.  Has the game evolved (and technoque devolved) in a way that permits lesser athletes to succeed in college? Or have recent draft failures driven investment into analytics that is highlighting factors that have always existed?

And ironically Barnett had one of the fastest 3 cone times even though sick.

[uscgamecocks]

Just now, Nails said:

And ironically Barnett had one of the fastest 3 cone times even though sick.

Admittedly, I'm not as high on Barnett as some.  But his agility was never the concern, that shows up in spades in his college film.  Barnett's got incredible bend - he just did not show explosive burst.  Athletically, his combine results are actually very comparable to Kony Ealy.  Ealy actually beat his 3-cone (6.83 for Ealy vs. 6.96 for Barnett, but the 3c is the only drill where Ealy was above the 50th percentile).  To his credit, Barnett has much better technique/hand usage and gives consistent, outstanding effort (which is quite unlike Ealy on both counts).

As you noted, the big caveat is that Barnett was obviously sick during the combine and that impacted his performance. Will be interesting to see what kind of numbers he puts up at his pro day.  A drastic improvement could see him rocket up (mock) draft boards.  His vertical jump is the drill to watch.

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/derek-barnett

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/kony-ealy

[DaveThePanther2008]

6 hours ago, uscgamecocks said:

Interesting thought.

Regression analysis has shown that the best predictor of NFL success as an edge rusher is burst generated in the first three steps and agility to plant and bend around the edge.  The correlation is much stronger between that specific type of athleticism and success than it is between college production and end results.

Interesting to think whether this is more of a leading or trailing indicator.  Has the game evolved (and technoque devolved) in a way that permits lesser athletes to succeed in college? Or have recent draft failures driven investment into analytics that is highlighting factors that have always existed?

I think technique is not being taught so much.  College players tend to thrive off of natural talent over learn talent.

[panthers55]

I think that in addition to understanding current  trends or patterns you have to determine how well the players skills will translate to the NFL.  If there are no players with the physical attributes and mental attitude to justify a first rounder at OT or DE you go elsewhere.  Doesn't matter who busted in the past, you are trying to avoid it in the present. If the guy is there then you go for it.  You never know if you are right until years later. Hopefully the experience of Ealy will inform us what not to pick going forward.