Saturday, May 12, 2018

Underrated: Nick Chubb, Howard Wilson, Desmond Harrison

I was wrong about both Nick Chubb and Carlos Hyde as receivers.  That's what I get for trusting amatuer pundits and not doing my own homework.

While PFF does cite a high drop-rate for Hyde, he was a productive receiver for Kyle Shanahan out of the backfield.

I discovered that as a freshman, Nick Chubb caught 18 passes (and averaged 11.8 yards per catch). For a guy that young, that's impressive.

I told you that Chubb would "learn to" be a good receiver, which was really stupid.

After Chubb's gruesome season-ending injury in his sophomore year, Sony Michel emerged as a terrific receiver.  When Chubb returned, he found his role "downsized" as Michel remained the main pass-catcher.

Amatuers (and dumbasses like me who trusted some of them) looked at his latest stats and decided Chubb "needed work" as a receiver.

In finally doing my diligence on Chubb, I'm more impressed than I was with him.  This guy averaged around 6.7 yards per carry as a freshman and sophomore, up until his injury.

He wasn't the same as a junior (that's to be expected: full recovery can take 18 months or longer).

He was also dinged up and played hurt as a Senior, but came on very strong at the end (ask Baker Mayfield!)

Laquon Barkley overshadowed some really good running backs in this draft, but Nick Chubb might be the best of the rest.

A small minority of real experts weren't big Barkley fans, either.  Bucky Brooks felt he bounced outside too often, and was "too greedy", so to speak.

Rather than lower his pads and hammer out a tough yard or two, he fooled around looking for a big splash play, and sometimes left yardage on the field.

Barkley's (running) stats vs Chubb's aren't much different overall, but as Brooks pointed out, Barkley had a few clunker games, while Nick Chubb set a record for consecutive 100 yard games.

Every scouting report says that Chubb has great vision, and sometimes pauses to allow blocks to develop (like Laveon Bell; he's patient). At he same time, he's very quick to the hole, and always falls forward at the end.

Bucky said that this sort of hard-nosed attitude is what's required in the NFL, and he felt that Chubb, among others, projected better to the NFL than Barkley.

I didn't agree, because Barkley is a very smart guy, and adopting a "harder nose" shouldn't be a problem for him.  Barkley will tear up the NFL, and put the Giants right back in contention.

But Nick Chubb matched him with 29 bench press reps, was 3 inches under him in the high jump, and pretty close in the broad jump.

In Pat Kiwan's "explosive" ratings, Barkley was over 80, but Nick Chubb was over 78.  (70 is the threshold.  Over 80 is rare.  78 is exceptional.)

Kirwan was a track coach as well as an NFL Personnel guy, and uses these three combine tests to measure "quick-twitch" traits.

Yeah, Barkley also clocked a 4.36(?) 40 and a faster 3-cone drill, but Chubb was no slouch there either.  Barkley is an inch taller and six pounds heavier.

You can't call a high second round running back a "steal", but I do think that Dorsey might have nabbed the second-best running back in this draft class.

Nick Chubb draws comparisons to Marshawn Lynch and Laveon Bell.  Think about that.

While you're thinking, think about Howard Wilson.  Wilson was injured, not killed, in his rookie season, and Sashi Brown draft pick or no, he will be in the mix to start as a perimeter cornerback in 2018.

Howard will remain 6'1", and be the tallest defensive back (besides Montrel Meander and skyscraper Simeon Thomas) on the roster.

He clocked a pedestrian 4.57 at the combine, and only weighed 186 lbs.  These were the main reasons why he wasn't a first or second round pick.

Well, ok-his vertical jump was downright putrid too--he must have sucked on Kirwan's explosive ratings. However his short shuttle and 3-cone drills were exceptional (and these are especially important for man cornerbacks).

If you read the scouting reportS on him, his 40 time and vertical jump didn't bother the scouts.

They felt that Wilson just needed to get bigger and stronger.  Count on that Hanz and Franz mission having been accomplished.

For you whippersnappers, let me tell you, clock-times can be deceptive in re man corners.  They don't start out of blocks on the football field.

Hanford Dixon had a slow 40 time too.  He wasn't a great jumper either.

Now, Howard Wilson may not start over the two veterans and fourth overall pick in front of him in 2018, but he's 6'1", and Gregg Williams will probably find uses for him.

A lot of you still don't understand press/man coverage.  There's a lot of technique involved.  The corner sets up slightly inside the wide receiver "inside leverage", depriving him of any immediate in-cut, and forcing him outside.  He extends his hands to try to knock the receiver off-balance, even as he turns to run with him.

The receiver (certainly vs Wilson/Dixon) tries to blow by the cornerback, but to do this, he has to avoid him, ie angle towards the sideline.

While the rules say that "contact" is restricted to within five yards from scrimmage,  that doesn't mean that cornerbacks aren't allowed to run side-by-side with recievers, and kinda bump into them (without using their hands) as they race downfield.

The receiver is acutely aware of the sideline, and (no matter how fast he is), can't run at full speed due to the jostling and friction.

He can stop unexpectedly, and shake the cornerback for a cut inside, but this is the only way for him to get open.

If he doesn't do this, the man corner jostles him towards the sidelines, and remains between him and the quarterback.

Naturally, that stop/start in-cut can toast the man corner if the quarterback anticipates it, or if he does get a step or two ahead of him verticly, but the very deep free safety knows this too, and anyway---get real: if you expect perfection, there is something wrong with you.

Anyhoo, Hanford Dixon got toasted here and there, but generally didn't.  Howard Wilson can do what he did.

Dan Justik (Dawg Pound Daily) lists four undrafted free agents he thinks have a shot to make the final roster.

He might have read my Blog to find offensive tackle Desmond Harrison, and to project what might happen with him, but he's obviously correct.  Desmond has a puncher's chance at left tackle in 2018, but a good chance at sticking around somehow.  (Just read my earlier post.  Dan didn't copy everything verbatum and I got deeper).

Dan likes Devon Berry's chances, and he makes sense.  Eric's younger brother is being converted to WR from safety.  He was a lethal returner on special teams.  Whether or not the wide receiver thing works out, he has a good shot to make the team in 2018.

Dan's analysis is kinda shallow here, and he ignores Callaway too:  As a safety, Devon should excel in coverage on special teams as well.

DT Trenton Thompson really could be a diamond in the rough, and is indeed in Caleb Brantley's face.  But Dan, like everybody else except me, hallucinates a "need" at defensive tackle which does not exist.

However, Justik makes a good case for Thompson overall, including the fact that he's undersized now, but will of course get bigger and stronger, and has proven himself as a passrusher from DT (lots of upside here).

But Thompson is a "3-technique" penetrator, period.  Dan suggested that he could knock Jamie Meder off the roster.

I admit that this is possible, but it would signal a major departure from the norm for Gregg Williams.

As I've told you before, almost every 4-3 defense in the NFL features one "penetrating" defensive tackle, and one two-gap big stong defensive tackle.

As it stands, Meder is the obvious two-gap guy, although the other three guys can do that too.

John Dorsey has overloaded the Browns with defensive ends who can "play inside" as well.

I don't think Jamie Meder is going anywhere.  Jamie Meder is a "real football player" who is better than anybody else on this team in his little niche.  

Gregg Williams will want him for every obvious run or goal line situation, and as a rotational player on neutral downs as well.

Nice problems to have.  

Pokorney read an article in USA Today and agreed with it: the Browns have a shot as a Wild Card in 2018.  

DEAL with it.

This just in: Baker Mayfield himself seems okay with parking it for awhile behind Tyrod Taylor.

Baker refers to the time he had to sit (per NCAA rules) after walking on at Oklahoma.  He said that was good for him.

That's a relief.  Some fans will be lobbying to kick Taylor to the curb no matter how well he plays, but Mayfield himself won't join that chorus.

And just stop asking what if Taylor plays great.  He's leaving in 2019.  Mayfield started a ton of games in college and is mechanically perfect already, and the Browns can't afford to pay Taylor long-term starting money in order to keep him on the bench.  

Ross Tucker decries trading a valuable top third round pick to "rent" Tyrod for one season instead of paying AJ McCarron a lot less money, and signing him longer-term.

However, at the time, people were expecting McCarron to command even more money than Taylor (read: starter money).

Hue and Jimmy had already forced Sashi Brown to attempt to trade a third and fifth round pick for McCarron, in the last year of his contract, late in 2017.

That massively inflated McCarron's percieved value.

AJ's market collapsed because the Browns went with an experienced veteran in Taylor.  Until then, he wasn't going to accept less than starting money, long-term, from the Browns.

While yeah, that almost second-round pick stung a little, it was critical that Dorsey find a proven starter to stop the bleeding ASAP.

Marty Schottenheimer said that winning is a "habit".  Well, so is losing.

This is where we go beyond analytics. This team has to stop suiting up for every game expecting to lose, and that is urgent.  Tyrod Taylor can do this.

Besides, look at all the very young players on this team, the flood of veteran free agents Dorsey brought in.

In context, Dorsey could afford that draft pick, just as he could the 16 mil.  Stop the losing.  NOW.

Ralax, Ross.  It's no biggee.








No comments: