Before I start this post, it is very hard to judge WR's and DB's from broadcast film, does OBJ win at the line? Sometimes, does he block well? No but we are not drafting a WR for blocking, the problem is on tape you can see he was CLEARLY not the first look on a passing play, that truly worries me, it makes me question why you can't win often enough that you are not priority 1 on the game plan, now LSU wasn't the heaviest passing team in the world, I understand that. My whole point is against him being a first round pick, he doesn't deserve that type of ranking, he was literally NEVER "the guy".
Scout.com in January - http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&yr=2014&nid=83&lnid=124&rc=4 Beckham is 28. Kiper draft in January - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...mock-draft-2014-analyzing-espn-gurus-1st-mock Beckham is 30. ESPN.com Scouts Inc in January - https://web.archive.org/web/20140129194910/http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft No Beckham in the top 32. CBS Prospect Rankings in January - https://web.archive.org/web/20140126114058/http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectrankings No Beckham in the top 25. If you don't understand that Beckham is the definition of combine riser you haven't been paying close attention until very recently. He's up half a round since the combine. No film has changed since then. No stats have changed since then. The only thing that has changed is that he had a very good combine. He's a bowling ball with knives. Decent prospect but not somebody you really want to spend a 1st round pick on.
Im fairly certain I am one of the select few on this site that has actually paid attention to the draft each and every month of the last 3-4 years rather than february through may. You can go back and look at my post history from way before the combine, and it will say that I thought Beckham was a top 3-4 WR and deserving of a top 20 pick. In my mind, a combine riser is someone who displays something at the combine that is not on film which in turn boosts them up some people's draft board. For anyone that watched Beckham throughout the year, the combine provided no real news. You can tell he's a 4.4 guy with great athleticism by whats on the field. Stephen Hill was a combine riser because he looked more fluid with better hands in the underwear olypmics. During games, that wasnt the case. IMO he's a very good prospect and I would love to spend a first round pick on him. I think many teams feel the same way, we'll just see next thursday.
You could ask WW85 yourself, Im not E and have never met him and truly have no clue what happened back in 2011 or whenever it was. Clearly you are convinced otherwise though. And talk about condescending, you are one of the most aggressive posters on this board who actually knows football but prefers to attack posters instead of share any bit of knowledge.
I dont know LSU's playbook or what Cam Cameron was thinking while running his offense, but Beckham was the primary intermediate and deep threat. He ran almost 70% of his routes past 10 yards, which includes screen. Intuitively, its understandable that you may have a quicker developing route as your first look. This is why Landry ended up catching more balls then Beckham. Granted, Landry is a very good player himself, but in LSU's offense he was used primarily as a slot receiver and on quicker developing routes. I havent studied the Eagles offense at all, but I'd imagine that a player like DeSean Jackson ran routes that take longer to develop and therefore might not be the QBs first look even if its a deep drop. I will go back and more closely look at Mett's first and second looks though when I get a chance.
Sure this is all understandable. What's not understandable is why LSU would allow their best receiver to get less looks than a guy with half his talent. You're either arguing incompetence on the part of LSU's coaching staff, specifically in regards to their under-use of their best resource, or you're arguing that Beckham going deep to open up space underneath was more valuable than Beckham actually catching a lot of balls. My argument would be that Beckham just wasn't capable of running the number of routes 10+ yards down field and still being a high-impact player. It's not skill it's whatever else goes into the equation when you look at who catches a lot of balls. Some guys take their assignment and produce extraordinarily well with it. Other guys take their assignment and wind up with what the defense gives them. Beckham is in the latter group.
This is definitely not true. Beckham runs great routes, they are on his game tape. Landry is another NFL quality receiver, who primarily ran underneath routes. Beckham played deeper because of his big play potential. For LSU, it was more productive to run the ball a lot and get balls out over the middle to Landry who is tough and has sure hands. Mettenberger isn't airing it out all over SEC defenses, so they opt for ball control. Starting caliber NFL QB's will be able to utilize Beckham far far better than Mettenberger was able to. I think people get all worked up over QB's, and Mettenberger probably won't go before the 3rd round. He definitely won't be starting anywhere as a rookie.
When you have an NFL caliber possession receiver, and a raw QB in a ball control offense, taking on SEC defenders, who do you use? Take Beckham and drop him ingot the receiving corp at Stanford during Luck's senior year... Beckham would have been the #1 on that team and would have been more productive than Cooks was this past year, I'll bet you that. College play books are generally very simplistic compared to an NFL playbook, so if you have a guy who's very good at executing the simple plays and a QB who is not really prepared for more complicated plays, it's common sense. Putting Beckham in the possession role would have been moronic, because you'd then be either taking Landry off the field or putting him in a deep role which he is not suited to. It just so happens Beckham played a role underutilized in LSU's offense, but has all the skills to be a great NFL WR. Being underutilized and being inconsistent are two totally different things, and Beckham was was one but not the other.
Pretty well said, although I think the Luck - Stanford comparison isnt the best due to Stanford's underutilization of WRs (TE's were big part of the offense). If Beckham was at Clemson in recent years, Baylor with RGIII, ect Beckham would have put up massive numbers, but wouldnt be as experienced in a prostyle system. Id prefer Beckham put up his numbers and come into the league knowing how to run a wide range of routes rather than him putting up numbers similar to Sammy Watkins and running only screens and gos.
If Stanford had Beckham I don't doubt for a second they would have used him more. The point was simply that Beckham was not the leading receiver at LSU by circumstance, not because of football skills. His breaks are beautiful, he has excellent hands, and he is quite elusive, so he is a threat in both deep plays and YAC plays.
The strength and durability concerns are not "unfounded." It is a fact he dealt with a hip and a recurring back injury late last year. He got injured and had to leave the Arkansas game. http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/7674912-123/lsu-notebook-odell-beckham-jrs http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...ury-updates-on-lsu-wrs-hip-likely-return-date Odell had 7 reps on the bench press at the combine. Cooks (who as you point out is 2 inches shorter) had 16, more than twice as many as your boy Beckham. In terms of production, Beckham wasn't even the best receiver on his own team. Landry was.
Mike Evans also went for 11 rec, 287 yards, 4 TDs vs Auburn. (You really want to put him in the conversation with Beckham?) Your boy Beckham did most of his damage in 3 games, two of which were against Div I-AA Furman and a 2-10 UAB squad. Nearly 65% of his TD output came in those 2 games against inferior competition. In games against Auburn, Florida, and Texas A&M (which plays no defense whatsoever), he averaged 52 yards receiving (with a high of 59), and scored as many total receiving TDs (0) as a dead man.
What's more likely to happen? A guy who excelled in college will excel in the NFL or a guy who was just good in college will excel in the NFL? Check whatever factors you want, but the truth is if you take a guy who didn't prove to be an elite player in college in the first round, that's a much bigger gamble, even if you may think he has a higher ceiling. If we go WR, it should be Lee or Cooks without question. Hell even Robinson or Matthews fit the bill for me better than OBJ the more I think about it, but I'd gladly take them in the 2nd. If someone wants to project OBJ as a star based on measurables and tape that didn't produce great stats, I hope it's not us. Short sighted? Sure. But you can take the guy that looks great on tape, and I'd gladly walk away with the guy that looks great on tape and paper. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
He almost certainly will be taken before Cooks or any of the others you mentioned. If the Jets are on the clock and they intend to take a WR and he is there it will be the Jets who take him.
I don't agree. I think it's absolutely a reach to go for a player that hasn't proven he can handle being a star WR. I'm not saying he can't be one. I just hope our scouts have learned to start valuing production a little bit more than they have in the past.
I think Marqise Lee is the third best receiver in this draft but Jordan Matthews is right there as well.
Again, think about what you are saying here. LSU CHOSE not to use a great receiving option as often as they could have in order to run the ball more and pass the ball more to a lesser receiver. Do you really believe this? In what world does Les Miles not take a star caliber receiver and exploit the heck out of him to improve what wound up being a 10-3 record? The argument that Beckham is a great player just doesn't hold water. A great looking player? Sure. But if he was a great player he'd have caught 75 passes in that offense and led LSU in TD's caught. He'd have done the same in his sophomore year. Beckham's an interesting prospect but anybody drafting him and expecting a star is going to be sorely disappointed.
It's really hard to rank these guys, I mean Watkins, Evans, Beckham, Lee, Cooks, Matthews, and Benjamin could all go in the first round. With 7 guys who have that kind of grade, it's sort of pick your flavor.
Yeah especially off of broadcast angles, the main thing I like to see is guys who win against man coverage, mainly press man coverage but off man as well. If the defense is playing zone does the receiver recognize where the holes in the defenses are? Is he flattening his route to the sideline if its a cover 3 look? OBJ scared me in the Georgia game, he got disappeared in press man coverage, he made some plays against shoddy zone coverage but I question his ability to win against press man and if you're going to be a starter on the outside you have to defeat man coverage consistently.
Les Miles comes from an O-line/TE coaching background, so yes, I think his mind gravitates toward a power/ball control offense. Cam Cameron (his OC) ran a similar offense when he was OC at Baltimore. At LSU they had a good O-line, power RB, a raw QB with a big arm, and NFL caliber possession receiver. Landry's skill set dictates he is the type of receiver who will be a major part of such an offense. Beckham still produced 1,152 yards, 8 TD's at 19.5 yds/catch even as the #2 receiver. Jarvis Landry produced a grand total of 41 more yards, and 2 TD than Beckham, but at only 15.5 yds/catch. Those statistics show a successful possession receiver (15.5yds/catch) and a successful big play receiver (19.5 yes/catch). When you have good receivers of both types, and an offense that calls for a possession receiver, which one do you think is going to get more balls? Beckham made a bigger impact per catch, in both yards and TD's per catch. Your argument would be valid if there was a nobody across from him, but Jarvis Landry may start in the NFL at some point.
