I can't believe the NFL has a combine and pro-day's, and that all 32-teams have reps that go to the former, or that any reps even bother with the latter. What a bunch of hocus-pocus...
Incidentally, what's it like to be stuck back there in the 50's? What are you gonna tell me next...that burning witches at the stake should be brought back?
Really?
If all it took was ideal measurable's then we wouldn't be looking for a #1 WR, because we have drafted plenty with quote un-quote ideal measurable's over the years who couldn't cut the mustard. He has good size for the position and it's not like the CB's who will be covering him are bigger in most cases.
It's a silly argument based on that bias. And that's all this is ... Is your bias over his height.
He's a natural receiver. You don't have to agree, but you don't have to insult my intelligence either with your 50's rhetoric mr. know it all who has much to learn
Quote: If all it took was ideal measurable's then we wouldn't be looking for a #1 WR
I didn't say anything about his measurables making or breaking him as a receiver.
I was asked what elite mesurables were and I provided the answer.
Quote: He has good size for the position and it's not like the CB's who will be covering him are bigger in most cases.
Did I say he didn't have good size for the position, or are you taking a note from Mac's school of debate and are arguing a point that nobody has made?
Quote: It's a silly argument based on that bias. And that's all this is ... Is your bias over his height.
Again, I was asked what elite measurables were and provided an answer. I wasn't asked if I thought he was or wasn't a good receiver. HOWEVER, I'm more than certain I made it very-well known that I would be perfectly fine if we selected him.
Maybe you missed that part...multiple times.
Quote: He's a natural receiver. You don't have to agree
If you can point out where I didn't agree I'd love to see it.
Quote: but you don't have to insult my intelligence either with your 50's rhetoric mr. know it all who has much to learn
Ooohhhhh....you can dish it but taking it is a different story.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: If all it took was ideal measurable's then we wouldn't be looking for a #1 WR
I didn't say anything about his measurables making or breaking him as a receiver.
I was asked what elite mesurables were and I provided the answer.
Quote: He has good size for the position and it's not like the CB's who will be covering him are bigger in most cases.
Did I say he didn't have good size for the position, or are you taking a note from Mac's school of debate and are arguing a point that nobody has made?
Quote: It's a silly argument based on that bias. And that's all this is ... Is your bias over his height.
Again, I was asked what elite measurables were and provided an answer. I wasn't asked if I thought he was or wasn't a good receiver. HOWEVER, I'm more than certain I made it very-well known that I would be perfectly fine if we selected him.
Maybe you missed that part...multiple times.
Quote: He's a natural receiver. You don't have to agree
If you can point out where I didn't agree I'd love to see it.
Quote: but you don't have to insult my intelligence either with your 50's rhetoric mr. know it all who has much to learn
Ooohhhhh....you can dish it but taking it is a different story.
Quote:
To that end, I'd say Blackmon is over-valued at #4 because of his not-so elite size and measurables.
LOL,..... Okay we know that you can play dead, but does doggy have any more tricks?
Just out of morbid curiosity, what do believe my quote proved?
I said I believe he's over-valued for the 4th pick in the draft based on measurables that aren't elite. I referenced how top-10 WR's over the last decade are typically larger and/or faster than he is, which means he doesn't have elite measurables. In terms of top-5 WR's, he has below average measurables.
What's the hook?
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: Just out of morbid curiosity, what do believe my quote proved?
I said I believe he's over-valued for the 4th pick in the draft based on measurables that aren't elite. I referenced how top-10 WR's over the last decade are typically larger and/or faster than he is, which means he doesn't have elite measurables. In terms of top-5 WR's, he has below average measurables.
What's the hook?
The hook?
I guess that would be that I don't judge one on any others merits/reference, based on their size, but that's just my opinion.
There are plenty of examples in this years class who have more height, but that doesn't mean they should or will be drafted higher then Blackmon, because of that fact.
He has never been and will never be 6'4", but that doesn't change my opinion of him as a player.
I knew that this would be an issue with some and I am not trying to single you out here, but I think that could be overlooking his talents and what he brings to a team who drafts him.
I don't believe he'll fall that far. He's just too good of a prospect for that. The only nick in his armor is that he doesn't have elite top-end speed. Beyond that? He's perfect.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: He has never been and will never be 6'4", but that doesn't change my opinion of him as a player.
I knew that this would be an issue with some and I am not trying to single you out here, but I think that could be overlooking his talents and what he brings to a team who drafts him.
There are several other WR's in this draft who do have greater size and/or speed than he does, but I don't view any of them as being as good as Blackmon. That should tell you that your fears of singling me out are unfounded.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: There are several other WR's in this draft who do have greater size and/or speed than he does, but I don't view any of them as being as good as Blackmon. That should tell you that your fears of singling me out are unfounded.
I think that Stephen Hill is every bit as good as Blackmon. I'm not sure that I would say that Floyd or Jeffery or Kendall Wright are as good as Blackmon though.
Quote: He has never been and will never be 6'4", but that doesn't change my opinion of him as a player.
I knew that this would be an issue with some and I am not trying to single you out here, but I think that could be overlooking his talents and what he brings to a team who drafts him.
There are several other WR's in this draft who do have greater size and/or speed than he does, but I don't view any of them as being as good as Blackmon. That should tell you that your fears of singling me out are unfounded.
But just not good enough for the 4th selection and yet you would take a RB there.
I wish this was 1980 something and we could agree here, but it's not.
Toad, I'm just asking you, and Deep, please feel free to add here...
Not to hijack the thread any further, but what exactly makes Richardson so perfect? I was never impressed in the limited action I did see him in, and I understand the fascination with SEC RBs because of the defenses they play against. My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in today's NFL the RB position has been watered down to the point that unless you are AP , a pre-holdout Chris Johnson or Arian Foster (CJ being a non top ten pick and Foster a UDFA) drafting one in the top 10 is folly. I don't see that in Richardson. I don't see the AP type player that will tear the league up to the tune of 200 yd games, I don't see the track runner speed of CJ, and I don't see Richardson fitting in this offense the way Foster does in Houston. I am not trying to goad anyone into a response, because I'm smart enough to know what I don't know, so I'm honestly asking. What makes Richardson the can't miss kid that some think he is?
"If you need two yards, I'll get you two yards. If you need four yards, I'll get you two yards!" Ron Wolfley, Special Teams Madman
But just not good enough for the 4th selection and yet you would take a RB there.
I wish this was 1980 something and we could agree here, but it's not.
Just because you are the best at your position doesn't mean you should be taken in the top 5. See Mark Ingram...decent RB prospect certainly not top 5 but also was the best RB prospect in his class.
Just because the browns are desparate for a WR doesn't mean they should take 1 in the top 5 just because he is the best player at his position. I'd rather have a player that is the best player in the last 5-7 drafts (Richardson) then a player that simply the best player in this draft. Besides there is a strong argument that Floyd or Hill maybe better than Blackmon in a few years...you cannot say that about Richardson as he simply the best since Adrian Peterson to come out.
1) Fast but not elite speed. He can routinely get to the corner when he wants. 2) Always falls forward 3) Good Hands 4) Good Vision 5) Good Power 6) Pretty good at avoiding the big hits
Basically he has the power to run over LBs but the speed to run away from DBs. Because he has good hands he also becomes very valuable in the WCO.
Edit: Stats: Trent played against the #1 defense in NCAA LSU twice and he had 175 yards rushing on 43 carries (over 4 ypc) 1 TD and 91 receiving yards on 7 catches and everybody in the stadium knew Trent was going to get the ball.
But just not good enough for the 4th selection and yet you would take a RB there.
I wish this was 1980 something and we could agree here, but it's not.
Just because you are the best at your position doesn't mean you should be taken in the top 5. See Mark Ingram...decent RB prospect certainly not top 5 but also was the best RB prospect in his class.
Just because the browns are desparate for a WR doesn't mean they should take 1 in the top 5 just because he is the best player at his position. I'd rather have a player that is the best player in the last 5-7 drafts (Richardson) then a player that simply the best player in this draft. Besides there is a strong argument that Floyd or Hill maybe better than Blackmon in a few years...you cannot say that about Richardson as he simply the best since Adrian Peterson to come out.
Strong argument..... Rubbish, Hill is so raw he has diaper rash.
He is this years combine darling ... It's too bad they don't actually play football there though. It's a T&F meet.
Okay, that describes a lot of RBs that have come out in the past few years, IMO. Your description meets the requirements for pretty much any back, let alone the most elite talent to come out in years. Your previous post you stated he was the best prospect to come out in 5-7 years. I watched the games against LSU and came away extremely unimpressed given the hype behind this kid.
BUT... and it is a big but... those are the only games I saw him play. I don't get NFL Net, so I didn't see his combine workout, and I know the SEC and LSU in particular is full of tough d's, so I want to be as informed about this guy as possible if he is our pick. The talking heads don't talk about him in the same breath as AP, they just say he is a safe pick and NFL ready. Let me be perfectly clear and forthcoming, I do support Blackmon because I have watched far more games of his. The hole at WR is so dire on the Browns and the talent drop off at WR is so drastic, I fear taking one later just to fill a spot. RB on the other hand has a handful of prospects that I feel may be better suited for us in the long run given the version of the WCO we run. All that said, I just don't see any RB worth a top 10 pick anymore, regardless of talent level. The game has become too pass happy, and the days of a dominant workhorse back may be numbered forever.
"If you need two yards, I'll get you two yards. If you need four yards, I'll get you two yards!" Ron Wolfley, Special Teams Madman
Just a couple more comments - good between the tackles but has the ability to get outside (kind of already mentioned), and is excellent after first contact.
Quote: He has never been and will never be 6'4", but that doesn't change my opinion of him as a player.
I knew that this would be an issue with some and I am not trying to single you out here, but I think that could be overlooking his talents and what he brings to a team who drafts him.
There are several other WR's in this draft who do have greater size and/or speed than he does, but I don't view any of them as being as good as Blackmon. That should tell you that your fears of singling me out are unfounded.
But just not good enough for the 4th selection and yet you would take a RB there.
I wish this was 1980 something and we could agree here, but it's not.
I don't know how I can further explain it, other than to say I am weighing the value of each player's abilities at their respective position against not only each other, but also against the 4th selection in the draft.
Keep in mind that I've said repeatedly if we took Blackmon at 4 I wouldn't be upset. I've repeated that over and over again. I simply favor Richardson over Blackmon, and have explained why.
Now if you want an example of when I honestly don't want a guy at a position, just look over all my posts about Tannehill. I most assuredly don't want any part of him at 4.
Essentially, I see Blackmon as being a great prospect but lacking in size and speed against the prototype of the perfect player at his position. I chose to use the last decade's worth of sample size to illustrate my thinking.
Conversely, I see Richardson as being the best back to come out of the draft in years. I feel as though he can do more for this team than Blackmon can, and also feel as though he represents a better risk.
None of that should be taken as though I view Blackmon as a waste. It's simply my opinion, and one which I am not stating as purely 100% right versus everyone else who doesn't agree as being wrong. To illustrate that point I would refer you or anyone else to the "what's the next move" thread (I think) where I listed a dozen or so draft sites who all have us taking different people, hehe.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
LSU was the 3rd rated rushing defense in college ball - both games, he alone beat the LSU team rushing defense average of 85 yards/game. LSU's average ws 2.61 yards per rush.
He ran for 89 yards (on 23 carries) and 96 yards (on 20 carries) against LSU's defense. One other rusher had 80+ yards, and he did it on 28 carries. For comparison, LaMichael James - 18 carries for 54 yards.
Quote: LSU was the 3rd rated rushing defense in college ball - both games, he alone beat the LSU team rushing defense average of 85 yards/game. LSU's average ws 2.61 yards per rush.
He ran for 89 yards (on 23 carries) and 96 yards (on 20 carries) against LSU's defense. One other rusher had 80+ yards, and he did it on 28 carries. For comparison, LaMichael James - 18 carries for 54 yards.
Tough games to be judging a guy.
No they were excellent games to judge a guy on. LSU is the closest thing he came to playing an NFL defense all year. His QB is average at best, no-name WRs and TEs and still had 168 yards of 295 total for Bama the first game even though everybody in state of Bama knew Richardson was going to get the ball he still averaged around 4 yards per carry running about 10 yards per reception.
I meant relating to his post - only 2 games were watched and both against LSU. While I agree with you, if you only see those two games it is hard to compare against anything. Had another game been watched - either someone else against LSU's defense or Richardson against another team, then he'd have something to compare against.
But your point is very valid, and Richardson performed well against LSU. Maybe even excellently considering what you called out, and what other teams did against LSU.
Toad, I'm just asking you, and Deep, please feel free to add here...
Not to hijack the thread any further, but what exactly makes Richardson so perfect?
I don't believe the OP would view that has hi-jacking at all. In fact, if it were my thread having asked the question, I'd want one of the resident blowhards to explain himself further as well.
Quote: My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in today's NFL the RB position has been watered down to the point that unless you are AP , a pre-holdout Chris Johnson or Arian Foster (CJ being a non top ten pick and Foster a UDFA) drafting one in the top 10 is folly. I don't see that in Richardson.
That's fair, though I obviously don't agree, hehe. It is ironic that the common phrase being parroted around the net and the networks is that Richardson is the best RB to come out since AP, which is probably why you mentioned him.
So, to answer your question...Should I copy/paste scouting reports? Should I link Youtube videos? I'm not sure how to best approach this. Ok...
It's foolish to attempt to use highlight video's as proof of what a player does or doesn't do well. While we can find edited video's of all the QB's in this draft which show every throw a player makes in a game, we cannot find video's showing every run of Richardson in a game (or if there are, I simply haven't been able to find them). However, what you CAN take away from those highlight video's are verification of the things I positively mention. I would refer you to Youtube for those, as linking them here just takes up space.
So, I'll skip over that and go to the elite things which have made me take the unexpected approach of pimping a RB so highly in the draft. Yes, this does go out of character for me.
Size: Richardson has elite size and strength for a workhorse RB. He measured in at 5'9-1/4, 228 pounds. I won't post pics of him, but since you've asked how I came to my opinion, I've seen him working out and he's not carrying any fat on him at all. All you have to do is envision a shorter Hillis, as he's nearly a perfect copy.
So that begs the next question...Hillis had a huge fumbling problem because he's a bruising back who carries a ton of mass on his body, leading to the ball being exposed. Right? Well, this is one of the reason's I'm so pro-Richardson...
Ball security: Richardson has 540 career carries. He's only fumbled 6 times. That ranks right there with the best in the entire NFL. However, he only fumbled ONCE in 311 touches in 2011. That would rank #1 in the NFL. If you'll remember how Tiki Barber solved his fumbling woes, he learned to carry the ball up high against his chest. Richardson does that naturally. He also has the instinctual ability to know which hand to carry the ball in. That's something that players like Willy Green never had and could never learn.
Running ability: That's a vague term, but only because I'm going to lump a bunch of things into one field to save space. He isn't a upright runner, but instead runs behind his pads and has good pad level, meaning the ball and his body aren't exposed. For a guy his size, he has great acceleration and change-of-direction ability. He also has great vision to see a hole and cutback if need be. Richardson is the kind of back that rarely goes down on first contact and always falls forward, which indicates he's a tough, physical runner. Again, he's just like Hillis in those regards. RB's who are that big typically do not have great vision or change-of-direction ability. Richardson does. He knows how to patiently follow a fullback, which is indicative of his ability to stay patient waiting for holes. And since your name is Wolfley, you'll no doubt remember how Eric Metcalf used to run on the balls of his feet. Amazingly, Richardson does as well, which doesn't happen very often for a guy his size. That speaks to his agility.
Receiving ability: He stats don't show that he was a huge receiving threat in college, but he does have 68 in his 3-year career. Video shows that he does extend his hands to catch the ball, which means he's a natural receiver. I'm not saying he's as gifted as, say, Ricky Waters, because I haven't seen him raising his arms well-above pad level very often. However, his has shown soft hands, so he is a weapon out of the backfield, much like Ray Rice.
Blocking: Richardson blocks like a fullback, as he's very adept at picking up the blitz. Combined with his receiving skills, he's a true 3-down RB, which is rather rare in today's NFL.
Mileage: Yeah, that seems like a strange one, but with only 540 carries in his career, he has very little wear-and-tear on his body. He also is only 21, meaning he should have 8 solid years in the NFL.
Now, no player is absolutely 100% perfect. There are two things which are not ideal with him.
In spite of the fact he can take a pounding and deliver punishment, he will probably wear down and have to be spelled from time to time. I would call it nitpicking that he would occasionally ask for a breather during games. Backs in the NFL do it all the time. Hillis did it quite frequently.
His top-end speed isn't elite. While he is at top speed within a couple of steps and has amazing initial burst and quickness, he doesn't have 4.4 speed. If he does run, he's probably going to be right at that 4.5-4.55 mark. That's a tick slower than Adrian Peterson, but in college, once he got to the second level, nobody caught him. Again, this is nitpicky to me, as those are those are the numbers Ray Rice ran at the combine, and nobody catches him once he's into the second level.
The wildcard which can be debated is how being a father to two little girls affects him. The reports are that it's settled him down, but who really knows. I won't pretend to say he's a saint.
Sorry you asked?
I have decided to link one Youtube Video. It's not some highlight reel, but rather one singular play that Richardson had against LSU. The reason I'm showing it is because it shows most of the attributes I've described. It's a receiving play where he shows his burst out of the backfield as he gets into the pattern. It shows him extending his hands to catch a pass. It shows his ability to stop on a dime and make the first guy miss, then he jukes the second guy right to the ground. It then shows his acceleration, his body lean, and how he carries the ball high against his chest. It's the perfect one single play to give you an example of what he can do:
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: I don't believe he'll fall that far. He's just too good of a prospect for that. The only nick in his armor is that he doesn't have elite top-end speed. Beyond that? He's perfect.
It is hard to accept, but outside of Cleveland, Washington, Indy, Tampa, cincy, nyj, and maybe Arizona, who could draft a RB in the top 20?
Obviously IND and WAS are out.
if Claiborne is there, he's probably TB's pick.
Could be AZ, but they could also go pass rush or corner. Or OL.
NYJ maybe. Or they could go WR (Floyd would make sense here), CB, DL...
Cincy is likely to target him even if they pick up a bush or a bjge I think... But I think we get a pass at 17 because of SD and CHI picking behind them and CIN needing OL help so bad. Even if they weren't going to take him at 21 I think they'd trade back to Denver or someone else to keep him off our team.
So, I do think it's possible we can get him at 20, maybe giving up atl's 4th and den's 6th.
You did list quite a few teams already, hehe. I think the Bengals would never let him get past their spot, especially when they are right there at 21. The other teams you mentioned have a need at RB.
The Jets have a big need at RB.
However, if you wanted a surprise team, I think it'd be the Cowboys. Murray broke his ankle, and Felix Jones is always breaking something. Jones' contract expires after 2012.
I suppose it could happen, but Richardson is viewed as special, and I can't imagine him falling down that far.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Thanks for the info! I remember that play specifically as being one of the few that impressed me when I watched.
I guess my viewpoint comes from the fact that I am so enamored with James. I followed him intently this year and I truly feel that he will be the next McCoy in a WCO. I see the same type of player with dynamic ball skills and the ability to fit into a fast paced, short route system. I also have heard rumblings of him killing it at the combine, driving up his value. The knocks on him seem to be the same said about McCoy. I know the results could end up being radically different, but the tea leaves are telling me with Heckert being a part of the FO that drafted McCoy, we just might be his next stop.
While I appreciate and value all of what you cited regarding Richardson, and have indeed read your posts regarding your feelings on if we draft Blackmon, I just can't shake the feeling that if we draft Blackmon at 4, go RT at 22 then take James at 37 (unsure if reach, as I said, I'm smart enough to know what I don't know) that allows us to better fix the positions of major need more immediately and more effectively in my opinion. Richardson, as you described, is certainly intriguing and seems like a safe pick, but I also can't get it through my thick skull that drafting a RB at 4 is ok in todays NFL.
Ultimately, I have been wrong many times regarding our picks and am fully prepared to be wrong again. It's just getting to a point now where I don't think this FO can justify trading back unless they get a king's ransom, and the need for immediate impact players at three positions on the offensive side of the ball is becoming glaringly obvious. After seeing the losses incurred in FA without any recourse, I think it's a no-brainer that if we don't fill those holes on days 1 and 2 of the draft, we will be going into the season with a water pistol against chain guns.
"If you need two yards, I'll get you two yards. If you need four yards, I'll get you two yards!" Ron Wolfley, Special Teams Madman
Quote: I just can't shake the feeling that if we draft Blackmon at 4, go RT at 22 then take James at 37 (unsure if reach, as I said, I'm smart enough to know what I don't know) that allows us to better fix the positions of major need more immediately and more effectively in my opinion. Richardson, as you described, is certainly intriguing and seems like a safe pick, but I also can't get it through my thick skull that drafting a RB at 4 is ok in todays NFL.
Hey, that plan looks great on paper. If it happened that way it sure would appear to be a smart way to fix the team.
Wolfy, what I'm about to say is most certainly NOT a criticism so don't take it as such. One thing I've learned over the years is that plans like that tend not to work out the way you want them to. I'd imagine if you got Heckert with a few beers in him, he'd absolutely freak out at how he didn't get the RB he wanted in 2010 and had to settle for Hardesty. Sometimes you take the sure thing if he's there and worry about the rest of the draft board as the draft unfolds.
Having said that, I can buy into the logic that says Blackmon at 4 and a RB at 22 is a better risk than Richardson at 4 and a WR at 22. To each their own in this case.
As I've said numerous times, with three picks in the first 37, we're in a helluva great spot. We just have to hope that H&H don't screw it up (and I"ve got a MUCH better word than "screw" if the admins would allow me to use it ) the way Mangini did.
If I had my druthers, I'd save RT for 37. There just aren't that many good ones in this draft.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Running Backs have always been over-valued on this board in particular and Cleveland in general. I think, frankly, it's because we're all still looking for the reincarnation of Jim Brown.
But Running Backs are not valued as highly in NFL Draft rooms as they are on here. That is why, as I've said before, I would be amazed if the Browns took Richardson at #4. No matter how much guys on here are in love with him.
Now if he's around at #22, then, yes, I believe they'd take him in a second. But he probably won't be. At this point, assuming they don't trade down, it would not surprise me if they took Tannehill, Blackmon or Claiborne (in that order) at #4. In other years Tannehill would probably be available at 22. But I think Miami will take him with their first pick so if Mourg is right, and I think he might be, then they'll have to take Tannehill at 4.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
Toad...I just want to get back to Blackmon for just a second...
Now I know you said you would be happy to get him...and I am ok with that ...I am not contending your like or dislike of him...
But you say over-valued at 4 because of his measureables...
Yet even the GOAT Jerry Rice was 6'2" 200# in his prime (lighter when drafted)....Larry Fitzgerald is borderline...at 6'3"... yet would anyone say they are undervalued at #4???
I wanted to point something out... These are the top 10 WR's last year (I believe in receptions) ... Wes Welker 5'9" 185# Roddy White 6'0" 211# Calvin Johnson 6'5" 236# Percy Harvin 5'11" 184# Victor Cruz 6'0" 204# Dwayne Bowe 6'2" 221# Brandon Marshall 6'4" 230# Marques Colston 6'4" 225# Larry Fitzgerald 6'3" 218# Steve Smith 5'9" 185#
Now Walker is a slot...but gets a TON of catches...outside of him everyone else is their teams #1 ( or am I mistaken with Harvin) and yet only 3 of those top ten receivers meet the measureables you talk of and one is borderline(Fitz)...
I guess what I am getting to is that while yes we can put some value on measurables....it still does come back to how things playout on the field... And Blackmon I feel plays much larger than his physical size. I know most people are surprised to hear that he is "only" 6'1" and only 207#....because he plays like he is 6'4" and 235#.
I don't believe his measurables devalue him...in some ways...they increase his value because you can't believe a guy his size is doing what he does...
Feel free to disagree...
Oh great write up on Richardson BTW
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
I think the main detriment people mention on Blackmon is that he can never be as good as Calvin. And, he can't. He doesn't have the measurables plus the instincts plus the work ethic. I believe he has 2/3 though.
Guys like Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson are in a higher class because their measurables + everything else allow them to be better weapons. Particularly in the red zone.
All that being said. I still like Blackmon alot and think he should be the pick. While he can't get to the level of those guys, I think he is going to be a very good WR in this league and as you demonstrated, there is alot of value in the next tier of WRs.
Do ever feel like our Browns are kinda like Politics these days .. You don't vote for someone ; instead you vote for the one you dislike less than the other guy
Quote: But you say over-valued at 4 because of his measureables...
Yet even the GOAT Jerry Rice was 6'2" 200# in his prime (lighter when drafted)....Larry Fitzgerald is borderline...at 6'3"... yet would anyone say they are undervalued at #4???
Gotta take Fitz right out of that sentence because he does have elite measurables. He had the great size/hands/speed combination.
With Rice, you're talking about a different era. People forget that thirty years ago Rice had prototypical size. He just didn't have the elite foot-speed and came from such a small college that scouting departments easily missed him. Even then, the Niners traded up in the draft to take him at 16 so they could get in front of the Cowboys who were poised to take him at 17. It's not like he fell to the 4th round. He was also the very first player taken in the USFL's draft.
Quote: I guess what I am getting to is that while yes we can put some value on measurables....it still does come back to how things playout on the field... And Blackmon I feel plays much larger than his physical size. I know most people are surprised to hear that he is "only" 6'1" and only 207#....because he plays like he is 6'4" and 235#.
Since he's rated so highly by so many people, they would agree with you. I don't disagree with it for the most part. What I contend with the comment that he's over-valued at #4 because he doesn't have elite measurables is that he's going to have to be so much better in other areas than his contemporaries.
Before I continue, I want to make it perfectly clear that the premise of the question is which guy would I take and why, not whether or not I think either player is unworthy of the selection or whether or not they are any good. It becomes a much finer brush-stroke when talking about these two players because of how the question was phrased. It essentially makes each poster pick a "winner" and a "loser" and explain why, and in so explaining it can create a false impression that someone doesn't like a guy. So applying that to Blackmon, I feel he has more to overcome at #4 than Richardson does because of the volatile nature of the position.
I would bring this all the way back around to emphasize again that part of my own personal equation factors in risk, and I believe that because of his measurables he has more to overcome as the #4 player taken in the draft than Richardson. I personally feel he's more of an unknown than Richardson or a guy like Kalil.
Now, just to keep things going and interesting instead of beating dead horses like Mangini, Tebow, or Manning...
Quote: I wanted to point something out... These are the top 10 WR's last year (I believe in receptions) ... Wes Welker 5'9" 185# Roddy White 6'0" 211# Calvin Johnson 6'5" 236# Percy Harvin 5'11" 184# Victor Cruz 6'0" 204# Dwayne Bowe 6'2" 221# Brandon Marshall 6'4" 230# Marques Colston 6'4" 225# Larry Fitzgerald 6'3" 218# Steve Smith 5'9" 185#
Setting aside the slot-guy in Welker, how many of those guys are bigger than Blackmon, and where were they drafted? I can make the argument that you don't have to go up to #4 to get a big-time receiver, as they can be had later and are more reliant upon their QB's than RB's. I've no proof of it at the moment without checking, but I'd imagine that when you compare the top-10 receivers from last year to the top-10 rushers, you'll find that more RB's came from the first round than receivers. Talk about splitting the hair even more.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Toad, just because I'm following this thread pretty intently now, I took what you said and looked up the 2011 leaders in rushing and receiving. This is based on yardage, and in terms of receiving, I removed Gronkowski and Jimmy Graham, as they play a position that is not being discussed, therefore, should be irrelevant...
Top ten receivers and round drafted 1. CJ- Rd 1 2. Welker- UDFA 3. Cruz- UDFA 4. Fitz- Rd 1 5. S. Smith (CAR)- Rd 3 6. White- Rd 1 7. J. Nelson- Rd 2 8. Marshall- Rd 4 9. Wallace- Rd 3 10. Nicks- Rd 1
Counting the round one guys thats a 4 to 4 split, but that doesn't really mean anything. Do with these numbers what you will, just wanted to get the information out there.
"If you need two yards, I'll get you two yards. If you need four yards, I'll get you two yards!" Ron Wolfley, Special Teams Madman
I was gonna answer the Richardson question, but Toad pretty well covered it. I will add only that I think Trent is a more complete and arguably better prospect than AP was.
On Blackon. If you look at every elite wide receiver in the NFL, they have one of two things: Huge size or incredible speed. Most have some combination of both. Andre Johnson, 6'2", 230 4.4 speed. Calvin Johnson 6'5", 239 4.35 speed. Larry Fitzgerald 6'3", 225 4.5 speed. Vincent Jackson 6'5", 241 4.45 speed. Brandon Marshall 6'4", 229 4.5 speed. Steve Smith is only 5'9", but he's incredibly fast.
These guys are almost all as fast as Blackmon (many are faster), and all (except Smith) are much bigger.
Now, if Blackmon isn't going to be elite, do I want him at No. 4? Absolutely not.
I would probably favor Trent by a hair, as it is simply easier to get your RB the ball than it is a WR. I also think we can still get a pretty darn good WR at #22, while the drop off between Trent and the next back is much larger (unless we want something non-comparable like James). That being said, we also have to address RT somewhere early (we cannot gamble on a 5th rounder for that position) and I would not be disappointed if we took Claiborne at 4 either. I like Blackmon, but just think Richardson may have a bigger impact for us and sooner.
that's a hoot. 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
I can make the argument that you don't have to go up to #4 to get a big-time receiver, as they can be had later and are more reliant upon their QB's than RB's. I've no proof of it at the moment without checking, but I'd imagine that when you compare the top-10 receivers from last year to the top-10 rushers, you'll find that more RB's came from the first round than receivers. Talk about splitting the hair even more. 