- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
After sleeping on everything here are some of my thoughts and opinions on the first three rounds of the 2016 draft.
First, I'm not against Artie Burns. My analysis on him was fairly positive as were notes:
Looks the part of a successful NFL player. Needs some refinement to his game but exhibits a lot of traits you like in a cornerback. Size is good, length is very good and shows adequate speed and movement skills. Can play man, bump and off-man and shows some zone ability as well so he's versatile for many schemes. Tackling could be better and needs to show more urgency in run support. Has nice burst off edge as a blitzer. He likely has limited ceiling but could be a very good professional.
Burns fluctuated on my "big board". At one point I had him almost identical to McKensie Alexander in the 2A category, but then I saw both Mayock and NFL Draft Scout push him down their boards a bit (Mayock original had him as his #4 CB then lowered him into a tie for 5th, NFL Draft Scout originally had a round 2 grade and lowered it to round 2-3 grade). Burns ended up in the 2B grouping ahead but similar in talent to Xavier Howard and Sean Davis in the #40-#50 overall range.
Obviously what frustrates me and many other fans is how close we came to getting William Jackson III. While the Steelers front office is obviously promoting the idea both players were "close" talent wise, I disagree. That's an opinion, not a fact, but for now I'm sticking to it (even after watching tape on both players again). As stated above, I think Burns upside is limited to good, while I think Jackson has the potential to be very good to great in the best circumstances. For a round 1 selection, you'd like the upside to be a bit greater than what I see for Burns.
The frustration of Cincinnati picking Jackson (a division rival) is compounded with the following. First, Cincinnati doesn't really "need" a CB. They have two first rounders on their roster in their rookie contracts (Dre Kirkpatrick and Darqueze Dennard) so this was likely a BPA pick as well as a way to potential weaken a division opponent with a glaring need. That glaring need is another frustration I have. Our failure to address the cornerback position until the last moment combined with our release of Cortez Allen before the draft combined with the report by Dulac that we were locked in on the cornerback position all limited our ability to be flexible at pick #25. And I think Cincinnati knew that. To me that's slightly bad general manager work as well as a bad philosophical way to draft. But all those complaints happened way before Thursday night.
As for options, when the **** finally hit the fan and it was our turn to pick, there weren't a lot. To me, players like Hunter Henry, Noah Spence or Vernon Butler were all better talents on the board but when combined with need (which in this case was so greatly CB) you get into a very cloudy "Steelers specific Big Board".
I probably would have done something like Hunter Henry or maybe Billings/Butler (which becomes Butler because of Billings medical report). So it's Henry or Butler but I would have been conflicted maybe hoping either Henry or someone like Austin Johnson might be there in round 2.
The other option is to trade back, which I do think was available and I think that's what I would have done. Taken the deal offered by Denver and move down to #32 and get pick #94 in the process.
Second Round
As for our second round pick, I like Sean Davis quite a bit. I thought his tape was excellent but was always sketchy about how high to put him on my board because Draft Scout had him originally as a 4-5 round prospect. That changed right before the draft when they bumped him up to a round 2 grade. So I had no issues pushing him quickly into my round 2b category in the same class as Burns and Davis. My scouting report on Davis:
Really liked his tape vs. Michigan. Big, tall and lean and shows exceptional athleticism. Supposedly gave up tons of production against but I see a lot of traits to like for an NFL player both outside and as a potential free safety. Exceptional tackler that wraps up and is aggressive and his intangibles are very good. Smart kid that bounces back from adversity.
So I really like the player even if it's a bit of a reach on spot (which I think really wasn't as the draft got closer and teams really took a hard look at him). In a lot of ways his rise is similar to Le'Veon Bell and I think the potential is there for the same type of production at the next level. Now I will fully admit I like him, in our system, as a zone cornerback so I'm immediately skeptical of the team announcing he's a strong safety project. I worry about that. But as far as the pick, I'm on board for the talent/need.
Round 3
I am fine with the talent level of Javon Hargrave for this round. He's a very good small-school talent. I do have a problem with a fit into our defense. I do not quite see a 2-gap, nose tackle on tape and think forcing him to play that way is really a waste of his natural gap-attacking and quickness ability. That said, if the team uses his talents correctly I think he could be a sub player on passing downs to be a penetrator and I wonder if the defense under Butler will have more sub packages than Lebeau (especially in the front-7). Traditionally under Lebeau this team played only 4 LB's and the DE's could log as much as 95%+ defensive snaps (both Aaron Smith and Brett Keisel hit those marks at times and both Heyward and Tuitt his 85%+ last season). The only front-7 change Lebeau like to make was NT out, DB in. That's it. So if the team wanted more of a rotation, match up or down-and-distance options, Hargrave provides an interesting and talented addition to the defensive line group.
But there is no doubt I worry about fit right now with this pick. Sometimes it's clear Tomlin can't prevent his old Tampa-2 roots from coming out when evaluating talent (we've seen that with his love for runner-hitter linebackers). Hargrave is a penetrator and is better suited for a 4-3. I hope Tomlin's love for him didn't screw him and force him to be a player he isn't.
Here is my analysis/notes:
Small school prospect with legit NFL 3-technique traits. Is noticeably quick off ball and can attack gaps and swim through trash and can disrupt play. Good motor and effort and sticks with it. Was very dominant vs. his level of competition and often unblockable. Is not the most effective player once locked onto and if his gap penetration is stopped he's somewhat less effective, but that burst is pretty unique that some coaches covet.
Again, I probably wouldn't have gone this way because of scheme fit. And everyone's favorite target for this round, Justin Simmons, was in fact available for us (in fact he was also available with the pick we would have gotten from Denver had we traded down). So had we done something different in round 1, there were in fact realistic options to improve the secondary with a round 2 pick of Sean Davis and round 3 pick of Justin Simmons.
Just my thoughts. On to the rest of the draft.
First, I'm not against Artie Burns. My analysis on him was fairly positive as were notes:
Looks the part of a successful NFL player. Needs some refinement to his game but exhibits a lot of traits you like in a cornerback. Size is good, length is very good and shows adequate speed and movement skills. Can play man, bump and off-man and shows some zone ability as well so he's versatile for many schemes. Tackling could be better and needs to show more urgency in run support. Has nice burst off edge as a blitzer. He likely has limited ceiling but could be a very good professional.
Burns fluctuated on my "big board". At one point I had him almost identical to McKensie Alexander in the 2A category, but then I saw both Mayock and NFL Draft Scout push him down their boards a bit (Mayock original had him as his #4 CB then lowered him into a tie for 5th, NFL Draft Scout originally had a round 2 grade and lowered it to round 2-3 grade). Burns ended up in the 2B grouping ahead but similar in talent to Xavier Howard and Sean Davis in the #40-#50 overall range.
Obviously what frustrates me and many other fans is how close we came to getting William Jackson III. While the Steelers front office is obviously promoting the idea both players were "close" talent wise, I disagree. That's an opinion, not a fact, but for now I'm sticking to it (even after watching tape on both players again). As stated above, I think Burns upside is limited to good, while I think Jackson has the potential to be very good to great in the best circumstances. For a round 1 selection, you'd like the upside to be a bit greater than what I see for Burns.
The frustration of Cincinnati picking Jackson (a division rival) is compounded with the following. First, Cincinnati doesn't really "need" a CB. They have two first rounders on their roster in their rookie contracts (Dre Kirkpatrick and Darqueze Dennard) so this was likely a BPA pick as well as a way to potential weaken a division opponent with a glaring need. That glaring need is another frustration I have. Our failure to address the cornerback position until the last moment combined with our release of Cortez Allen before the draft combined with the report by Dulac that we were locked in on the cornerback position all limited our ability to be flexible at pick #25. And I think Cincinnati knew that. To me that's slightly bad general manager work as well as a bad philosophical way to draft. But all those complaints happened way before Thursday night.
As for options, when the **** finally hit the fan and it was our turn to pick, there weren't a lot. To me, players like Hunter Henry, Noah Spence or Vernon Butler were all better talents on the board but when combined with need (which in this case was so greatly CB) you get into a very cloudy "Steelers specific Big Board".
I probably would have done something like Hunter Henry or maybe Billings/Butler (which becomes Butler because of Billings medical report). So it's Henry or Butler but I would have been conflicted maybe hoping either Henry or someone like Austin Johnson might be there in round 2.
The other option is to trade back, which I do think was available and I think that's what I would have done. Taken the deal offered by Denver and move down to #32 and get pick #94 in the process.
Second Round
As for our second round pick, I like Sean Davis quite a bit. I thought his tape was excellent but was always sketchy about how high to put him on my board because Draft Scout had him originally as a 4-5 round prospect. That changed right before the draft when they bumped him up to a round 2 grade. So I had no issues pushing him quickly into my round 2b category in the same class as Burns and Davis. My scouting report on Davis:
Really liked his tape vs. Michigan. Big, tall and lean and shows exceptional athleticism. Supposedly gave up tons of production against but I see a lot of traits to like for an NFL player both outside and as a potential free safety. Exceptional tackler that wraps up and is aggressive and his intangibles are very good. Smart kid that bounces back from adversity.
So I really like the player even if it's a bit of a reach on spot (which I think really wasn't as the draft got closer and teams really took a hard look at him). In a lot of ways his rise is similar to Le'Veon Bell and I think the potential is there for the same type of production at the next level. Now I will fully admit I like him, in our system, as a zone cornerback so I'm immediately skeptical of the team announcing he's a strong safety project. I worry about that. But as far as the pick, I'm on board for the talent/need.
Round 3
I am fine with the talent level of Javon Hargrave for this round. He's a very good small-school talent. I do have a problem with a fit into our defense. I do not quite see a 2-gap, nose tackle on tape and think forcing him to play that way is really a waste of his natural gap-attacking and quickness ability. That said, if the team uses his talents correctly I think he could be a sub player on passing downs to be a penetrator and I wonder if the defense under Butler will have more sub packages than Lebeau (especially in the front-7). Traditionally under Lebeau this team played only 4 LB's and the DE's could log as much as 95%+ defensive snaps (both Aaron Smith and Brett Keisel hit those marks at times and both Heyward and Tuitt his 85%+ last season). The only front-7 change Lebeau like to make was NT out, DB in. That's it. So if the team wanted more of a rotation, match up or down-and-distance options, Hargrave provides an interesting and talented addition to the defensive line group.
But there is no doubt I worry about fit right now with this pick. Sometimes it's clear Tomlin can't prevent his old Tampa-2 roots from coming out when evaluating talent (we've seen that with his love for runner-hitter linebackers). Hargrave is a penetrator and is better suited for a 4-3. I hope Tomlin's love for him didn't screw him and force him to be a player he isn't.
Here is my analysis/notes:
Small school prospect with legit NFL 3-technique traits. Is noticeably quick off ball and can attack gaps and swim through trash and can disrupt play. Good motor and effort and sticks with it. Was very dominant vs. his level of competition and often unblockable. Is not the most effective player once locked onto and if his gap penetration is stopped he's somewhat less effective, but that burst is pretty unique that some coaches covet.
Again, I probably wouldn't have gone this way because of scheme fit. And everyone's favorite target for this round, Justin Simmons, was in fact available for us (in fact he was also available with the pick we would have gotten from Denver had we traded down). So had we done something different in round 1, there were in fact realistic options to improve the secondary with a round 2 pick of Sean Davis and round 3 pick of Justin Simmons.
Just my thoughts. On to the rest of the draft.
