Man, I need to Orakpo's Cone and Shuttle times. I also want Sidbury's cone drill. Right now I'm wondering if I take Clay Mathews over Orakpo and then select Sidbury in the 2nd. I can't imagine a 2nd round OLB that can match Clay while Lawrence can perhaps be as good as Orakpo in terms of pass-rush.

Yeah, but they have to be able to block. I like what I see from Eric Wood, for example. Good times, but ALSO good play on the field.

Right now, I am really like Clay Matthews as our pick.

What's the over/under on James Laurinitis and a 4.81? He might last until the 3rd round. Ouch!

Wanna bet??? What did Demeco run I cant remember?

4.65, which would make him the 4th fastest LB in this draft.

I have like Sidbuby since I saw him at the Shrine game. And like you I had him farther down the list from the guys we where talking about, I can see him as a 2nd.

Another name to watch for me is David Veikune. He is still on the late round pick up watch list.

What would we do with a Laurinitis (or a Rey-Rey) if you take the Texans reported comments that DeMecos stays in the middle as legit, unless you think he could play SAM and I think he struggle covering TEs if he's over there ?
And having a resume as a muti-year standout in the Big 10 is just not as impressive anymore as the SEC resume guys like DeMeco & Willis have.

I'd let somebody else draft them. :)

There are only 2 LBs in this draft who are going to be low risk, high reward.

1. Aaron Curry
2. Clay Matthews

Now, others may turn out to have fine careers and be worth a 1st or 2nd round pick. Right now, I just can't think of one.

Yep. He really whipped up on Raji in the SB game.

McClain also said the franchise tag was not an option for D.R. Any information that McLain gets is because the Texans WANT the information public IMO....in other words a possible smoke screen of our true intentions in the draft.

I liked what I saw there too. Although at that time I thought he would be a much later round pick than a second. Someone we could use as a situational pass rusher early on. I'm not as confident in him as a second round pick becaue for some reason I see him as a guy that will take a little time to develop as an all around player.

I am starting to think about Malcolm Jenkins at safety after he dropped a 4.55, and he will probably be around after that performance.

I like Patrick Chung but i think he might be a 2nd rounder and not slip to the 3rd

He is a solid 2nd rounder, i have him as the #1 safety, yes above Dumas.

I've been thinking that about Vontae Davis. Then I saw what Chris Clemons, David Bruton, CJ Spillman, and Chip Vaughn did today. Maybe I don't have to spend a 1st round pick on an impact S afterall.

I know that's the usual response when a CB has good size and is a little slower than most people like. They really are two different skill sets though, especially if your talking about a CB who has played mostly man coverage. I wonder what the success rate is on guuys who try to make that switch when they get to the NFL? I would rather do it right away then wait a few years. Most CB's are going to resist it though, unless it's a way to extend there career (or their only chance to make a roster) for one simple reason...CB's make more money than Safeties.

Anyone want to talk about Stephen Hodge S TCU 5'11 5/8 234 lbs. Ran a 4.49 forty. A tweener, TCU used him at safety and will. He blitzed a lot & had 8 sacks. Was a qb in high school. Big hitter, would be good on special teams. 6th or 7th round, maybe?

But not at #15. We've got a bigger fish to fry with that pick than a FS.
And a CB is not worth a top 15 pick to us if he's not atleast a sub 4.5 guy as long as we continue to operate as much man-coverage with our corners
as we do now.

I really like him at the college level. At best, he's Sam Mills - a short LB. He played around the LOS in college, so I'm not sure about him in pass coverage. He's great against the run, so maybe they consider him as a WILL. He'd definitely be a project.

A bit of levity - Rich Eisen running the 40, stay tuned for the shadow cam thingy at the end:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80eea0dc

The Shadow cam with Raji is funny as hell.

Raji beats Eisen by what, 6 yards in the 40 ? Very entertaining. The NFLNetwork crew is fun and informative all at once.
Here's my question: Can Eisen do play-by-play ? Why can't we come up with a twosome of Eisen & Mayoc (or threesome with Mayocs buddy Charles) to staff ESPNs MNF ? Anything to get rid of Kornheiser !

I wish they did this with some of the players. I heard some one say the other day they were dissapointed that this guy ran a 4.64, but he was hoping he would run a mid to high 4.5. So if the guy runs a 4.57 he's OK but not if he's .07 seconds slower? So a better lean at the tape means he can play in the NFL?

Mainly because ESPN is not going to use NFL Network guys.:D

At some point you have to draw a line. For somebody it might be 4.8. Then somebody comes behind them and says, well this guy ran a 4.81 are you going to dismiss them for .01 seconds?

There is no real black/white thing going on here. When players start getting so deep in the gray, you just have to cut bait.

For example, if I'm looking for a MLB my target 40 time would be around 4.63. Any time better is gravy and any time worse I start having to come up with reasons to keep him on the board. If a guy runs 4.67, he better be a thumper that can tackle very well. If he goes 4.77, then he has to be able to defeat OL blocks and be able to stack and shed. At 4.8, he better have the instincts of a pyschic and know the playbook better than the other teams' Offensive Coordinator. If he runs a 4.81 - then I can't draft him to play MLB because there isn't enough other things that he will be able to do to overcome the lack of speed that my defense would require. So, it wasn't the .01 second difference really - it was .17 seconds slower than the 4.63 that I desire. I think you can see the difference in .17 seconds on the Simulcam.

I understand that, but I don't think the average person really understands how little difference there is between some of the times and get way to fixated on what amounts to a half step. That can be the difference in being open in the NFL, but at the combine it's probably more indicative of who spent the most time working with a track coach. That is one thing about the combine though. The players know what drills will be there, and it's good to find out who were the ones willing to put in the work to get better at the things they will be tested on. If a guy got confused on how to run the three cone that would probably set off as many alarm bells for me as a 40 that was slightly below par.

I just wish they had some kind of graphic representation to compare two players. I would be more willing to discount a player for a slow ten or twenty yard split then I would for a 40. I'm a guy who loves having speed, but if a LB or RB is a tenth slower then a target time for the forty, but has a great 3 cone and looks good on film, and has a good initial burst...so what on the 40.


I'm not saying I want a CB who runs 4.8, and I don't think the 40 is worthless. It is definitely a tool that can be useful. I just think some people are way to fixated on it. I'm not talking about you Roy, or anyone else her for that matter. You are at least as accurate as the network guys with less information and resources.

This is why I dont pay much attention to the combine.

This is why I do pay attention to the combine.

If a guy cannot prepare for the combine and run and test at his best with his future on the line, then he lacks the profesionalism and work ethic to be a very good NFL football player.

Probably not the appropriate spot for this post, however; I was perusing the old draft pick value chart, considering some mock draft possibilities, when I realized that either Stafford, Sanchez, or (now a bit more likely) both, will be there at 15. After the 15th pick though, the Jets, Bucs, Bears, and Lions are in some need of a QB. Whether its both or just Sanchez, it would (wouldn't it?) suit the Lions to take the best tackle (J Smith) #1 and trade us their 3rd to move up . . .wouldn't it? Perhaps just dreaming . . .

No I find that a very plausible thing to happen.

I am personally on the draft Malcolm Jenkins at 15 to be a safety train now.

Check this thread out its already been talked about. I still think this is one of our best shots at trading down. No way Detroit drafts a QB first. I just dont believe it. The pick will be Curry or (more likely) Monroe. If one of the top QB's fall they will have to jump in front of a few other teams to assure they get one. Surrendering a 3rd to make sure they get their QB of the future isnt out of the question.

I would be extremely happy with that!

Shades of Cleveland in 2007. In bad need of a QB, selected Joe Thomas 3rd overall then traded back up to grab Brady Quinn.

Browns Got:
2007 1st Rd Pick (22nd Overall)

Dallas Got:
2007 2nd Rd Pick (36th Overall)
2008 1st Rd Pick (which turned out to be 22nd Overall thanks to Derek Anderson)


So the question is, would the Texans trade back from 15th overall for the Lions 2nd rounder (33rd overall) and their 1st next year? That's a long way to trade back, but remember a couple things:

1) Consensus is there's a lack of top-end talent in the 2009 draft, but good depth
2) The Lions just went 0-16 and are freaking terrible, that could be a top five pick. Hell, Cleveland was freaking terrible and they were willing to gamble (Phil Savage got fired, but whatever)

Excuse the digression, but can you just imagine the commercial potential of a Texas football franchise that has a Latino QB ?

VY would have brought commercial appeal, or even ReBu, the Texans don't care for appeal clearly, which is a good thing in my opinion. In regards to a third not being enough to drop 5 spots, the trusty value chart says we are +100 points in this deal, and; in my opinion are clearly getting the better of the deal considering the talent that will still be available there at 20 . . .just my 2 cents though.

Absolutely. That to me is one of the biggest aspects of the combine.

I'm intrigued by this idea. A guy who was considered a top corner at Safety sounds great on paper. The problem is playing safety is a whole other skill set than playing man coverage type corner. I don't know enough about Jenkins to know if he would make a good safety or not, but there's more to being a safety than just being a slow corner.

We just signed our starting FS to a 3-year contract.