My only problem with this whole thread is I don't see any analysis or "film study" of any other CB prospect or any other prospect period.
When you evaluate the film of just one college player there is no reference as to what is "good" and what is not "good". How do I know from this article that Burns isn't the best goddamn college CB in all of football? I don't. Because the author never compares his film to any other cornerback. He just points out warts and problems on Burns without the context of what equitable college cornerbacks would do in the same situations.
It's great film study, don't get me wrong. He looks at every play, just like PFF does. He grades each play +/- just like PFF does. All he fails to do is put a number grade to each play like PFF does.
But just like we criticize PFF's grading system, it's not all about play success when evaluating college talent. We know measureables come into it. We know we are talking about 20-21 year olds that have not reached their full potential. We know psychological profile matters and how they handle being a full-time football player away from the some of the "protection" and special treatment these athletes have had their whole lives.
I love watching tape. But watching college tape is not so much about consistency as evaluating whether they can or can't do certain things and whether those things can be forecast to change. You try and forecast success based on years of experience in watching players and knowing what can change in an athlete between year 1 and year 4.
Burns has a lot decent potential on tape. He can play man-2-man outside the hash marks as I see no physical or technical limitations on that. He can play zone and show okay ability to anticipate throws and read plays in front of him. He struggles with underneath crossing routes and following men "across the field" but that could be scheme or what he has been taught. He certainly has the physical characteristics to learn it. He can catch and his hands are adequate for a CB. He is not currently a great tackler, but that can be taught. He shows an okay affinity to be physical and get his nose dirty.
And when I evaluate these things I am evaluating them AS COMPARABLE to other CB's I've watched in this draft class (and all my previous experience watching CB's). I'm not watching play-by-play success rate. That's pointless. That's not what "evaluating tape" even means. You are looking at his "feel" for the game. His smoothness in motion. His physicality and willingness to stick his nose into it. His on-field demeanor. His footwork and fundamentals and whether those things can be improved. His size/length/speed on tape vs. measured.
That's what tape evaluation is. It's almost never what actually happens on a play. Never.
I did a film evaluation on Jackson III prior to the draft, and he's much better in coverage and making plays in general. Boy, I wish he was on the board for us in round one. If someone can find a targeted snap count video thread on another CB drafted in round one, or two I can do a similar review to add depth. Fair enough?
Compared to the other CB's drafted in the first 60 picks, Bruns is perhaps the least NFL-ready of the bunch, which magnifies the risk.
I call them as I see them, the good, and the bad on each play, and think the description of what happened is accurate.
Burns has much to work on. Mentally he's a bit of a hot head. He's, rather poor on route recongition, and where the first down marker is. He's a bit contract prone, and could draw more flags in the NFL.
Physically, I agree he's good outside the hash marks, and good when he's facing the QB and the ball is on its way but loses some ground on routes that are not run in a straight lines inside the hash marks. Is his pre-snap read and zone coverage was better, you could argue he'd make a fine FS type, Seattle Style.
I'm still unsure of how good Burns long speed is, and the Steelers play a lot of cover 3, meaning CB's can be on their own deep at times. He could end up being a Chad Scott type, which to me would be a disapointment.
