Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 27 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Mark Cook

      Keymaster
      Post count: 2414

      Who are the top players in the 2014 draft class? What players should you look out for at the Combine? What players are being slotted higher than they should be? PewterReport.com’s Eric Dellaratta shares hIs thoughts and answers those questions in this NFL Draft breakdown. https://www.pewterreport.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=9612:&Itemid=15

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 18

      Damn, I honestly wouldn’t mind Sammy Watkins becoming a Buc the more I think about it.Provide the offense with more explosive firepower?... Never a bad option IMO.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1324

      Though I certainly can assume these players are all good NFL prospects, some obviously better than others, the order in which they are picked is as much of a wild guessing games as played by those who “predict” season records in August.We should get a very good player at 6 with the biggest risk pick a QB. What Glennon shows Lovie and Licht between now and May, or how the Bucs approach FA will go a long way in determining that pick.That typed, with what we're hearing about Mike Williams, certainly what nonsense I read on his Twitter account (that of an immature braggart), Sammy Watkins could very well be a top choice for us IMO.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 795

      It would not upset me to see them trade down and then pick Aaron Donald.  Talk about a disruptive set of DTs!!!

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 310

      +1.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 55

      i agree with codmons, …i’m leaning toward watkins ..especially startied thinking that direction after the hiring of tedford….right now .it seems the lineman ( both o and d) can be molded and shaped through f.a. and later rounds …i’m sure insights will change further into combine and pro days..

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      “it seems the lineman ( both o and d) can be molded and shaped through f.a. and later rounds”Boy, I'd hate to bank on that.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 396

      This is the year of the FA DE.  Assuming we snag one of them, I’m all about picking Watkins or a stud OT. 

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      I’d be okay with an OT, but I hate the idea of using that high a pick on a WR.  I’ve always been impressed with Watkins but, then again, I was really impressed with Peter Warrick too.  I’d rather trade down and get a TE.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 357

      I am a HUGE Seminole fan and I thought Peter Warrick was a great college receiver but he wasn’t very fast.  Watkins IS very fast with some of the best acceleration I have seen in a long time.  IMO, the #7 pick is none to early to take him.  Indeed he may still go BEFORE the 7th pick.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 169

      agree bucjoe 100%…if Watkins is there, he’s hard to pass on.  Considering VJax’s age and, IMO, lack of “range of skills”, and uncertainty of MWill, who I still think is a great #2, we have NOTHING behind them, and I’m guessing Tedford’s gonna throw it around. At minimum, we need 3 quality WR’s, and need some speed as well.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      For all his flaws, I’m sympathetic to Dominik’s argument that because of the college spread game it’s incredibly difficult to consistently hit on OL in the draft. The last few years, here are the OL taken in the 1st round.  You can draw your own conclusions (either way its not clear).2012: Guard (DeCastro, Zeitler), Tackle (Matt Kalil, Riley Reiff)2011: Center (Mike Pouncey), Guard (Danny Watkins), Tackle (Tyron Smith, Nate Solder, Anthony Castonzo, James Carpenter, Gabe Carimi, Derek Sherrod)2010: Center (Maurkice Pouncey), Guard (Mike Iupati), Tackle (Trent Williams, Russell Okung, Anthony Davis, Bryan Bulaga)As for Watkins, perhaps I'm naiive but if I'm drafting a wideout 1st overall I'm expecting a true no. 1 wideout.  At 6'1", is Watkins big enough to be a no. 1? The only true no. 1 wideout in the NFL that I see listed at under 6'3" is Antonio Brown (you could argue Desean Jackson but I would disagree).  And with is height and the scouting reports of Watkins I've read, he's not a real leaper. Is Watkins another Mike Wallace? Curious to hear from others who think differently.Without reaching, I believe we need to draft a QB or DE very badly (even with a DE FA pickup). We lack a true pass rushing threat at DE - never mind having a stable we can rely on to get consistent pressure. I also, at this point, would take an equally rated tackle over Watkins based on need.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      I would opt for a DE or OT over Watkins as well, although drafting DEs has also been far from an exact science.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      Tog – Reggie Wayne? Marvin Harrison? Those guys were 6′-0″. I think Watkins is more versatile than Wallace.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I think if Glennon is the guy – or if the Bucs are going to try and make Glennon the guy, they need someone like Watkins. Glennon may develop into it but right now he's not a guy who trusts his WRs to win. He needs them open in those short and intermediate areas where he's accurate and they can run after the catch.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      I think if Glennon is the guy - or if the Bucs are going to try and make Glennon the guy, they need someone like Watkins. Glennon may develop into it but right now he's not a guy who trusts his WRs to win. He needs them open in those short and intermediate areas where he's accurate and they can run after the catch.

      I think you are way off on that.  I don't want my QB just "trusting guys to win".  That's what Freeman did.  Chuck Jumpers all day.  That is not a recipe for consistent success.  There needs to be some trust, but I want a guy who can see and hit open receivers.  I think that Glennon can do that.  We just need some WRs that actually get open.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I think if Glennon is the guy - or if the Bucs are going to try and make Glennon the guy, they need someone like Watkins. Glennon may develop into it but right now he's not a guy who trusts his WRs to win. He needs them open in those short and intermediate areas where he's accurate and they can run after the catch.

      I think you are way off on that.  I don't want my QB just "trusting guys to win".  That's what Freeman did.  Chuck Jumpers all day.  That is not a recipe for consistent success.  There needs to be some trust, but I want a guy who can see and hit open receivers.  I think that Glennon can do that.  We just need some WRs that actually get open.

      I think that is what he means  ...he said  "he needs them open"  I think he means win separation, right? not jump balls  Could be wrong, but that is how I take it

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      I don’t know that Glennon needs to chuck jumpers all day but he tends to wait too long to throw the ball. Now it can be argued that this is a product of the WRs to a degree but Glennon won’t get very far waiting to see the separation.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      Tog - Reggie Wayne? Marvin Harrison? Those guys were 6'-0". I think Watkins is more versatile than Wallace.

      Wayne and Harrison are great examples of guys 6'1" or under. But if you look at the "list" (and I was just looking at no. 1 wideouts during the 2013 season, Wayne was missed b/c of injury), you're looking at roughly 15 no. 1 wideouts in the NFL. Maybe two of those guys are under 6'3".  I haven't scouted Watkins much (and am not a scout obviously),  is that given that he's smaller he needs to be a great leaper and/or route runner to compliment his speed. My concern is that Watkins looks a lot better than he is because of his speed difference - which disappears in the NFL. Just looking at one report (Walterfootball): "he plays in a weak conference that is mismatched against his speed." Now, some analysts (eg. Bucky Brooks) are saying that he's a "more polished route runner than Mike Evans" and attacks the football. So I'm not banging a drum here - I'm just skeptical at this point, given the atrocious play of both our lines and questionable QB play, if Watkins is really a guy to go after.All things being equal, I'd be concerend we were taking the Detroit Lions approach and drafting WRs without anyone to throw them the ball (or protect the thrower).

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 310

      I feel we should play it safe at this spot and go for either the top OL, DL,  if one of them is still there.  We obviously need some more high round draft picks, but I don’t know if many teams are going to want to trade up?

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I think if Glennon is the guy - or if the Bucs are going to try and make Glennon the guy, they need someone like Watkins. Glennon may develop into it but right now he's not a guy who trusts his WRs to win. He needs them open in those short and intermediate areas where he's accurate and they can run after the catch.

      I think you are way off on that.  I don't want my QB just "trusting guys to win".  That's what Freeman did.  Chuck Jumpers all day.  That is not a recipe for consistent success.  There needs to be some trust, but I want a guy who can see and hit open receivers.  I think that Glennon can do that.  We just need some WRs that actually get open.

      Well, 'doc, that's really the point of why I think someone like Watkins is a good pick. But look - I wasn't really talking about chucking jumpers - he already does that it seems on designed shots.  I'm talking about anticipating throws, and taking advantage of mismatches.  When you have a player like V-Jax (or even sometimes Tim Wright or Mike Williams), there are going to be match-ups where he's open even when he's "covered" as long as Glennon makes the right throw (ball placement).  I believe the phrase is, "throwing them open."  What I'm saying is that Glennon isn't quite there yet, so a guy like Watkins who can separate right off the line would be a useful player for him.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      Oh, I completely agree that he needs different receivers.  Our WR corps was perfect for Josh, but not a great match for Glennon.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 357

      Quite a few posters are saying things like, “we need to take an OL or DL in the first round”.  I wouldn’t mind it if the guy available is WORTH the 7th pick but not all are.  IMO, (for whatever it is worth) Clowney is the only DL worth that pick and Greg Robinson or Jake Matthews is the only OL worth that pick, and I’m not completely sure that Matthews is.  Again, IMO, only Clowney, Robinson and MAYBE Matthews are worth that pick.  If one of them aren’t there we need to go in another direction.Some are saying the same thing about drafting a QB. Only a few QBs are worth that pick and to ME that only includes Bridgewater and PERHAPS Bortles.  I wouldn't take any other QB in the draft at 7.  But that's just me.....

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 20

          out of all of these positions OT, DE, WR I would pick the highest rated player on the board when we pick.  Another option is to trade down a few and pick up another second round pick and then take TE Eric Ebron with our first round pick and then concentrate on defense and WR  with the two second rounders we would have.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I’m sort of where you on the players bucjoe, but maybe not as rigid with the philosophy.I'd take Clowney, Watkins, Bridgewater, or Robinson with that pick. I'd probably take Mack or Matthews as well, on the theory that they are top 10 guy and sometimes you just are stuck (I like him a lot, am worried a bit about him and this D). Mack for me is a "trust Lovie and Frazier" pick. In other words, if they take him, I'm going to assume they know what they are doing.I'd be looking to trade down for everything else. That said, chances are pretty strong that one of those 4 (6 if you include Mack and Matthews) are there.  The problem with the "not worth the 7th pick" stuff is that it assumes more certainty about draft picks than are really there. That's why I'm not so rigid with it.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      First, it seems I’m wrong about Watkins given everything that keeps coming out about him. Apparently some smart NFL people aren’t concerned about this size given all his other very positive traits. Considered how much game film I’ve watched on him (0) who am I to disagree.  ;D

      Quite a few posters are saying things like, "we need to take an OL or DL in the first round".  I wouldn't mind it if the guy available is WORTH the 7th pick but not all are.  IMO, (for whatever it is worth) Clowney is the only DL worth that pick and Greg Robinson or Jake Matthews is the only OL worth that pick, and I'm not completely sure that Matthews is.  Again, IMO, only Clowney, Robinson and MAYBE Matthews are worth that pick.  If one of them aren't there we need to go in another direction.Some are saying the same thing about drafting a QB. Only a few QBs are worth that pick and to ME that only includes Bridgewater and PERHAPS Bortles.  I wouldn't take any other QB in the draft at 7.  But that's just me.....

      I'm going to echo BR a little bit here - I agree 100% in principle, but I don't think that's reality most of the time. If we assume the 6 players off the board before us are Clowney, Jake Mathews, Bortles, Manziel, Bridgewater, and Watkins we're left with, say: Barr, Greg Robinson, Mike Evans, Derek Carr, Khalil Mack on our board. Now, a couple of those guys might be clearly lower rated (say Derek Carr and Mike Evans) but then you're still left Barr, Robinson, and Mack. Likely these players are rated very closely to each other (or insert other "X" players). How do you decide if you've rated Mack an 83 and Barr an 85?  Moreover - how do you compare a Barr (DE) at 85 and a Robinson (OT) at 87. DE's more of a need, do you stick to your board or do you "reach" for a need? This is where I think fan's idea of taking "BPA" is often pablum (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else). There are rarely clear distinctions between individual players on the draft board, rather you have clusters of players that are rated very close to each other. I think very rarely, unless you have an incompetent GM like Matt Millen running your draft, are GM's reaching and ignoring BPA.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      I wouldn’t be surprised if QBs don’t fly off the board the way some pundits are predicting, and I think like most drafts there will be certain sought-after slots and then a lot of teams looking to trade down, enough that if we were lucky enough to get a partner we wouldn’t get any kind of king’s ransom.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 357

      I think I’m being mis-read somewhat.  I NEVER indicated that Watkins wasn’t worth the 7th pick.  I was discussing the ol and the dl ONLY in one part, and the QB position in the other.  I also am somewhat happier with Mack than I had been but I only saw him play one game and I really don’t like to draw conclusions until I have seen at least 3 games.  I am somewhat in the same boat about Bortles as I only saw his bowl game against Baylor.  Both Mack and Bortles looked great in their bowl games.There is no doubt in my mind that Clowney, Watkins, Robinson, Bridgewater and perhaps Mack, Bortles and Matthews are worth the 7th pick. One of them will be there with our pick.  If the Bucs get any of those guys, especially one of the first 4, I will be very happy.  If they settle for Mike Evans if all the others are gone, I won't be unhappy either.  He would be quite a consolation prize, IMO.

Viewing 27 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.