Trent Williams, OT, OU

Name: Trent Williams
Position: OT
School: Oklahoma
Height: 6045 V
Weight: 315 V

Athletic Ability: Williams doesn’t meet all the athletic criteria I use for offensive tackles, primarily his late jump off the snap (related to more than just athleticism, obviously) and his tendency to bend his waist when blocking. However, it’s clear from his other skills (leverage, strength, short area and long quickness, slide) that Williams is an elite athlete still trying to put it all together. That 4.86 40 time may not be very useful, but there is similar athleticism in the games. 7.0

Run Blocking: As this is a comprehensive category, it’s not as high as it could be. When it comes to blowing his man off the football, Williams is very good. He has the leverage and lower body strength to create holes in the running game. However, even against inferior competition, he often struggled to maintain proper balance and would overextend, allowing his man to make the tackle even after getting blown off the LOS. Athletic enough to reach LBs, but doesn’t consistently do so. Weapon on traps/pulls. Nastiness as a blocker can get him into penalty trouble, but it’s nice to see a blocker who consistently looks for guys to block. 7.0

Pass Blocking: Williams is a very good athlete who plays with tremendous knee bend. He can defend the outside very well and has an athletic, explosive frame. However, Williams has some bad habits that will need to be fixed before he can be trusted as a pass protector. He is more of a catch blocker than someone who uses his hands aggressively, he will dip his head before contact (causing him to miss or lose some blocks he should have), he doesn’t always “sit” with hit butt low during pass protection (will bend waist inexplicably, despite flexible knees) and he often gets a late jump. If he fixes this, he should be a very good protector, but I think good DEs will abuse him right now. 6.0

Motor: 7.0 His off-field motor is questionable (more on that later), but his on-field motor is almost too good. Nasty and looks to block people, but will get dumb flags.

Play Strength: 7.0 Not quite as strong as a guy like Andre Smith, but still possessing very good strength, particularly lower body.

Cut Blocking: 5.5 Rarely see him on the ground because he can block guys upright, but the few times he has tried to cut block it has not been pretty. Could also grade incomplete.

Feet Slide: 6.5 Williams moves his feet very well, but he is prone to getting off-balance and is susceptible to the outside-inside counter move.

Initial Quicks: 5.5 Seems to vary from game to game. Miami and Nebraska were not good games for Williams, but BYU and Tulane were. This shouldn’t be related to competition, but the poor games were on the road and the good games were either home games or close to home (BYU played OU in Arlington, Texas).

Blitz Pickup/On-Field-Smarts: 6.0 The entire OU line struggled to pick up the blitz at times, and Williams was no exception. However, because of this I’m not sure if Williams is really to blame, or if it is the center. Penalties and overly-aggressive play (at expense of fundamentals) do not help Williams here.

Pulling/Trapping: 7.0 This is one of my favorite areas to watch Williams, because he can flatten defenders and create large running lanes for his RB. Very athletic moving in space, but does struggle to land his blocks on moving targets occasionally.

Combo Blocking: 6.5 Has some zone experience at Oklahoma. Looks to be in sync with help, whether it is leaving for the second level or keeping the block and letting someone else go upfield. Needs to improve the consistency in landing blocks and sustaining blocks, though, as discussed earlier.

Hand Use: 6.0 Williams really needs work here, as he only flashes a punch and is more likely to shoot his hands outside the frame of the DL. However, when he keeps his balance he avoids overextending and can recover quickly.

Character: 6.0 I have no reason to suspect that Trent Williams is a bad person. He comes across pretty well in interviews and hasn’t been in the police blotter. However, I have heard from reliable source that Williams has struggled with his weight (does carry a gut, but OL aren’t usually sleek guys) and will need monitoring in the NFL. That is worrisome to me, and I wonder how hard he will work to overcome his flaws.

Summary: Williams is a frustrating prospect to grade because he does some things very well, but is capable of so much more. At this point, I do not think Williams deserves to go in the top-20 based on what I saw on the field, but his vast potential is undeniable. He combines excellent athleticism with excellent strength and a nasty demeanor. However, he struggles with some basic fundamentals that should not be a problem for an experienced player, and that combined with concerns about his ability to control his weight make me question whether or not he will ever fix his weaknesses. In the interest of full disclosure, I did not see Williams as often or against the level of competition I would like to, and sitting down with Williams and interviewing the OU staff myself would ease concerns about his work ethic/weight/football intelligence. Also played C for OU in their bowl game, due to injuries, showing versatility. I tend to be picky about which “projects” I like and which ones I do not, and Williams seems more likely to fail than many other 1st-round projects, so despite his immense potential I would not take him in the top-10, but some team will and there is a decent chance Williams becomes a pro-bowler.

Final Grade: 6.5

Eric Berry, CB, Tennessee

Name: Eric Berry
Position: Cornerback
School: Tennessee
Height: 5115 V
Weight: 211 V

Athleticism: Despite being one of the more high-cut players in this draft, Berry is an elite athlete. He has very good if not great pure speed for the cornerback position, changes directions well, and is very fluid with his hips. He also has great strength for a cornerback and has that explosive trait in his burst and his hitting. 7.0

Man Coverage: Although Berry was nominally listed at S for Tennessee, he played a lot of cornerback in man coverage and looked very good there, a result of playing cornerback in high school. His backpedal is excellent and he possesses the closing burst needed to recover when he is beat. He generally avoids giving too much cushion and has the ball skills to make quarterbacks pay. He will need to adjust to playing outside, so his potential is higher than the grade indicates. 6.0

Ball Skills: Berry has fantastic ball skills, making a few interceptions that most cornerbacks wouldn’t have even touched. While not the constant presence on the ball that Haden is, Berry still has the hands to grab a lot of interceptions in the NFL. 7.0

Zone Coverage: 6.0 Another area that Berry will need adjustment. As a safety, Berry was very proficient in zone coverage, especially shorter zones. He reads them pretty well and reads the quarterback very well. With his hitting ability, burst, intelligence, and ball skills I think Berry could become a very good zone cornerback. 6.0

Coverage Instincts: 7.0 Berry has very good coverage instincts, diagnosing the play fairly quickly and reading the QB very well. Smartly plays double moves and pump fakes.

Tackling: 7.0 Berry has major issues tackling as a safety. While he is capable of making strong tackles and even powerful hits, too often he is out of position and has to lunge to compensate. Berry tends to take better routes (and this use better form) when close to the LOS, and compared to other cornerbacks Berry will be an explosive and largely reliable tackler.

Run/Pass Recognition: 6.5 Berry is an intelligent player who reads run/pass well. While occasionally prone to bit on misdirection runs, his generally quick reads will be an asset.

Avoid/Shed Blockers: 6.5 Berry surprised me with his ability to shed the blocks of much bigger players. While he lacks the size to be playing in trash a whole lot, he will have little to no problem beating WR blocks.

Blitzing: 6.5 Berry is an explosive blitzer out of the nickel package, and an explosive hitter when he gets a straight line to the quarterback.

Press/Tight Coverage: 6.0 Don’t let the grade fool you, it is only “average” because I didn’t see Berry consistently play tight on WRs. Given his combination of fluid hips, athleticism, instincts, and strength, this could be a major strength. I just can’t assign a higher grade without actually seeing it on the field.

Fluid Hips: 7.5 Players at high cut as Berry should not be this fluid. He looks like he is 75%  leg, but changes direction very well and can flip his hips without wasted motion.

Footwork/Technique: 6.0 Berry has not had to consistently play as a cornerback since high school, and while his backpedal could be faster it does not have wasted motion and I think Berry can improve on the speed of his drop. His hips are loose and he can turn with WRs easily. Another area where Berry is restricted (to a solid grade) because of experience, not capability.
Summary: There are not too many others projecting Berry as a cornerback, and truthfully I didn’t want to because changing positions is always a risky affair. However, it became clear that Berry plays much better when near the line of scrimmage – when he lines up deep, he struggles to make an impact. Tennessee used him all over the field, and many of Berry’s big plays came when lined up at cornerback or SS. Because of his ball skills and athleticism, I think Berry should become a very good cornerback at the next level. He compares similarly to Haden, with a little less upside but Berry far more capable of playing at least as a nickel corner in his first season.

Final Grade: 6.6

Joe Haden, CB, Florida

Name: Joe Haden
Position: Cornerback
School: Florida
Height: 5106 V
Weight: 193 V

Athleticism: While he may have tested poorly at the combine, it is clear from game footage that Haden is an excellent athlete. It can be a little difficult to evaluate Haden’s athleticism because of his poor footwork, but Haden clearly possesses an elite closing burst, excellent deep speed, and (with better technique) excellent change of direction skills. The downside is that this isn’t evident on every play as Haden really needs technique work, which will be addressed later. The natural athleticism is definitely there. 7.0

Man Coverage: While Haden was very productive in man coverage, he definitely needs to work on his coverage skills. Haden doesn’t truly backpedal like an NFL corner should, there is a ton of wasted motion and this combined with his tendency to give a large cushion means that teams can often hit shorter routes on him. However, Haden’s elite closing burst allows him to close the gap on shorter routes (and his recovery speed means that even though he wastes steps transitioning on deep routes, he doesn’t actually get beaten deep). On almost all of the completions charted, Haden was all over his man contesting the pass, so while he needs a lot of work here, there is a lot of potential. 6.0

Ball Skills: Haden is spectactular at locating the ball, breaking on it, and getting at least a hand on the pass. He reads the QB very well and has the coordination to make plays on every conceivable pass. He also has soft hands for the interception, making both easy and difficult catches. 8.0

Zone Coverage: 5.5 Haden was not used much in zone coverage at Florida, and while he does lack ideal size, he has everything else necessary to become a very good zone corner. Again, it comes down to the mental part of the game (often a little slow to pick up guys in his zone, and his technique hurts his ability to react quickly), but this is an area where Haden could and should improve.

Coverage Instincts: 6.5 When in coverage, Haden has very good instincts. He can be beaten with double moves, but quickly recovers. Is aware of the quarterback and does not bite on pump fakes, and locates the ball quickly after it is thrown.

Tackling: 6.5 Haden is a very good tackler for a cornerback. While he can and does miss tackles, he shows a willingness to take on ball carriers much larger than himself and usually gets the job done.

Run/Pass Recognition: 5.5 Haden does need a lot of work here. He often takes too long recognizing a run and this makes it difficult for him to avoid blocks.

Avoid/Shed Blockers: 6.0 While Haden is quite strong and willing, too often he gets tied up by WRs, especially if he is late diagnosing the play. Another area where he can improve, and when he does recognize the play quickly he is fairly tough to block.

Blitzing: 6.5 Haden blitzed a ton for Florida, and looked very good doing so. Impressed me with his ability to avoid blocks while keeping his balance and his smarts in picking up backs out of the backfield while blitzing. Natural athleticism and snap anticipation make him a tough weakside blitzer.

Press/Tight Coverage: 6.5 Haden was not used in press coverage much, and sparingly in tight coverage, but shows the ability to excel in both. When lined up in front of the WR, his problems with technique are minimized and his athletic gifts shine through. With his long and strong arms, he should develop into a good press corner with more experience.

Fluid Hips: 7.0 While this is somewhat masked due to his technique, Haden does flash the ability to flip his hips efficiently. The problem is that Haden’s sidepedal hinders him in this area, if he can fix his technique he has the natural fluidity to excel.

Footwork/Technique: 5.5 A major problem area that will need to be fixed. Backpedal, rarely used, is off-balanced and choppy. Haden uses a sidepedal which often leaves him susceptible to timing routes, but recovers due to his athleticism. Too often has wasted steps.

Summary: Haden is a young player who, 3 years ago, was just beginning to learn the cornerback position (QB and S in high school, recruited as a WR). Despite that, he still started as a true freshman. While Haden has a TON of work to do, I believe he has the necessary tools to develop into a special cornerback at the NFL level. Haden has a reputation for being a very hard worker, which will be necessary for him to capitalize on his immense potential. Haden will need a good defensive backs coach who stresses fundamentals and a situation where he is not required to start as a rookie (he’ll give up a ton of completions if he does start immediately). With his combination of athleticism, strength, intelligence, ball skills, and work ethic I believe Haden will be a pro-bowl player at the next level.

Final Grade: 6.6

Brian Price, DT, UCLA

Name: Brian Price
School: UCLA
Position: DT
Height: 6011 V
Weight: 303 V

Athletic Ability: Price is a very good athlete for a defensive tackle who looks and plays even bigger than his listed 295lbs (post-combine edit: 303lbs). He shoots off the line of scrimmage very well, can run around guards when the opportunity presents itself, and even looked adequate as a defensive end when UCLA moved him outside. The only thing he cannot do, and the only reason he isn’t a 7.0 here, is that Price is not a pretty looking runner after a few yards and lacks the pure speed to pursue downfield – of course, that’s a minor flaw when most defensive tackles run less than 10 yards on any given snap. 6.5

Play vs Run: Price is a very solid run defender. Price, unlike many smaller tackles, does not get blown backwards on single blocks – though he will give up a lot of ground when double teamed. Even if he did give up position on some runs and is prone to overpursuit, Price would still get a solid grade because his athleticism and strength allow him to blow up plays in the backfield on a surprisingly consistent basis. Price may struggle a bit against the strongest OL, but overall I expect Price to be asset against the run, whether he is blowing a play up or just maintaining his gap. 6.5

Pass Rush: Price can provide big plays in the passing game due to his athleticism. His burst off the line of scrimmage is, as discussed, very good. He also shows very good feet for a bigger player and can turn the corner on even athletic OGs if they do not get their hands into him. He constantly made big plays in the games I watched, forcing bad throws or notching sacks. However, Price would be an even more fearsome pass rusher if he developed some more moves – there is a halfway decent spin that he doesn’t use much, and a rip move that worked occasionally, but too often Price tries to rely on his athletic gifts and forgets his hands and feet, or tries to outmuscle opponents, which won’t work in the NFL. If Price has the work ethic to work on his technique, he could turn this into a 7.0, but for now it will sit at “good”, not great. 6.0

POA: Price has the strength to hold his ground on most blocks, but can be overpowered consistently with double teams, as should be expected. 6.0

Quickness off Snap: Price is exceptionally quick off the snap and is constantly able to get position on his man, which combined with good overall strength helps Price make plays against the run and pass. 7.0

Pursuit: Price is not a pretty runner, and tends to stop pursuing a play after about 10 yards, but he will chase down screens and chase the QB on rollouts (actually does that very well). 6.0

Tackling: Price is not a great form tackler and doesn’t seem to explode into quarterbacks, but he usually gets the job done. 6.0

Play Strength: Price isn’t particularly big for his position, but he has very good playing strength that allows him to power through blocks. 6.0

Run/Pass Recognition: Very susceptible to biting on play action. This is one area where I’d really like to see him improve, because he does a good job locating the ball on runs but can really bite hard on trickery. 5.5

Hand Technique: Price is very raw with his hands usage, primarily because he hasn’t had to learn much technique to be the best player on a good UCLA defense. However, in the NFL it is very difficult to rely just on athletic gifts, so Price will need to improve this to make the jump from effective to great. 5.5

Hitting: Price is more of a drag-down tackler, though he will clobber a QB if given the chance. He has the size and athleticism to be more effective here, but, like much of his game, he hasn’t put it together yet. 5.5

Consistency/Motor: Every game I saw, Price made an impact. While down-to-down consistency is not great, Price came up with big plays multiple times each game. 6.0 (could improve with greater effort)

Leverage: Price generally plays with decent leverage, but will play upright occasionally. While I doubt it will ever be great, I expect Price will be alright here. 6.5

Errors/Flags: Price makes mental mistakes (discussed earlier) but he doesn’t make those incredibly dumb plays that fans hate, and caused some flags for the OL in the games scouted. 6.5

Summary: I really wanted to like Brian Price, he was a great player in college. To some extent, I do like Price. Usually a player who is both athletic and productive works out in the NFL, and I think Price will start in this league eventually. However, there are two big worries I have. The first has been discussed in this report already: Price is very, very raw for someone so productive. A classic case of a guy who relies on his athletic ability to make plays in college. Those guys exist in the NFL, but they’re pretty rare, usually it takes more, and Price will need to show that he has the work ethic and smarts to improve here. I also have major durability/stamina concerns with Price that just didn’t fit onto the report. Price left the game injured 3 of the 4 games I scouted (left USC twice) and while he gets points for having the toughness to come back and play well, I’m very concerned that he was hurt in practically every game I watched – that just doesn’t happen. He also is off the field regularly, possibly due to stamina issues: Price is pretty sloppily built (large middle allows OL to get their hands in) but he may need that extra weight to anchor and he IS a DT, so I’m not terribly worried. Between the stamina/health issues, the poor technique, and the limited strength I feel like Price is a prospect who should be chosen late in the first round.

Final Grade: 6.4

Edit: This report was written before the combine, and since the report was written Price has had a very poor offseason. I still believe he has the talent to be an NFL starter, but to here his build compared to Terrance Cody is quite worrisome. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources or connections to get truly accurate information on Price’s work ethic, but given the stamina/health/build issues raised, I would need to hear glowing reports from the UCLA staff to draft Price before the late second round.

Ryan Matthews, RB, Fresno State

Name: Ryan Matthews
School: Fresno State
Position: HB
Height: 5117
Weight: 218 V
40: 4.45 V

Athleticism: Matthews is a very good athlete. His acceleration/explosive burst is one of his best traits, he consistently uses a quick burst to get to and through the hole (6.5). Matthews also changes directions well, though he is not much of a cutback runner he show good athleticism when he bounces a run or makes a rare cutback. Decent, but not great (6.0) speed, he has enough speed that it will take a very fast play to catch him from behind, but there are NFL athletes capable of doing so. 6.5

Run Inside: Matthews is a very accomplished inside runner, and I briefly debated a higher grade before settling on this one. He runs very decisively, but does show patience when there is no hole in front of him. Knows how to get skinny, understands angles, and runs with very good forward lean. Tough to tackle unless you square up on him. 6.5

Run Outside: Matthews runs pretty well outside, another area where a higher grade is understandable. Matthews is pretty elusive for a back his size, but it is his great balance and lower-body strength that enable him to break so many tackles. The only reason (other than pure speed) this isn’t higher is that Matthews excels in using blockers and angles to cause missed tackles, but his 1v1 skills are only decent and in space the back is often required to make a guy miss by himself. 6.0

Run vision: 6.5 Locates the hole quickly and does not hesitate to get there. Not a cutback runner so doesn’t take advantage of those opportunities.

Tackle Breaking: 7.0 The best trait for Matthews. Good lean, leg drive, determination, and balance. Capable of breaking 3 tackles on any play.

Receiving: 6.0 This grade is tentative, as sample size becomes an issue. Not used a whole lot, but shows the ability to catch the ball outside his frame. Did drop a couple of passes against Illinois.

Run After Catch: 6.0 Matthews is a good athlete with great burst and good determination, but he didn’t seem terribly tough to bring down after a catch. Should be a weapon on screens.  Again, limited chances.

Blocking: 6.0 Willing blocker who could use some work, but shows the functional skills needed to become a good blocker.

Power: 6.5 Powerful runner who has the leg drive to break even good tackles, but not a bowl-you-over type of back.

Elusiveness: 6.0 Can cut and juke his way out of trouble, but really prefers a more physical approach.

Effort: 6.5 Fights hard for his extra yardage, has the right mentality for the RB position.

Fumbles/Errors: 6.0 Had a crucial fumble against Wyoming (that allowed Wyoming to get back into the game), but otherwise secure. Moves the ball to his outside arm and picks up the blitz well. Might be worth a higher grade here, but certainly not a problem.

Character: 6.5 Supposedly a hard worker on the practice field and the weight room. No concerns here, I think he’ll be a good presence.

Overall: Matthews is one of my favorite runners from this class. While not an explosive athlete, he led the NCAA in runs over 50 yards last year (and considering the scatbacks with big years in 2009, that’s impressive). These didn’t just occur against poor competition, either, with big games and big plays against Boise State, Wisconsin, and Illinois. He probably won’t have as many long runs in the NFL, but his ability to break tackles makes him a threat to turn every run (inside or out) into a huge gain, and he is a good athlete – before he ran at the combine I wrote down that I thought he could turn out a mid 4.4 40 time. I think Matthews will be selected in the late part of the first round or very early in the second, and that is a good place for him.

If I didn’t have health concerns, I’d take Matthews in the middle of the first. He’s an impressive, well-rounded runner with the strength to carry the load on offense. However, injuries are a concern as Matthews has missed 7 games in three seasons and has been knicked up in several others. That will have to be considered by teams interested in drafting him. As well, I think Matthews is a poor fit for the “modern” trend of shotgun formations and spread offense – Matthews is a much better fit for a team that plans to run the ball inside early and often, and plans to use TEs/FBs heavily in the running game. In the right situation, if he avoids injury, Matthews stands a good chance of becoming a pro-bowl player for several seasons.

Computed Grade: 6.29

Final Grade: 6.3

Jacoby Ford, WR, Clemson

Name: Jacoby Ford
Position: Wide Receiver
School: Clemson
Height: 5088 V
Weight: 186 V
40 Time: 4.28 V

Athleticism: Ford is small, but he is an exceptional athlete. He is one of the quickest players I have seen off the ball, capable of eating up cushion in the blink of an eye. Very quick changing speeds in his routes, decelerating and accelerating very nicely. While his top end speed and change of direction skills are only well above average, his exceptional quickness makes me feel comfortable with a high grade. 7.0

Hands: Ford has reliable hands, but suffers from his small size and lack of reach. Uses his hands to catch the ball most of the time, though he does let the ball into his chest occasionally. Good catch radius for a small player. Strictly off the numbers, Ford caught 14/19 passes I felt he could’ve caught, a very solid number. Three of the missed passes sailed over Ford’s head, but I felt a taller receiver (6’0) would’ve been able to reach those passes. One was dropped, and another was thrown low enough into the dirt that it could’ve been marked as uncatchable, but I felt some WRs would come down with it. While reliable, I don’t feel Ford has extraordinary hands in any sense. 6.0

Run After Catch: While Ford has exceptional quickness without the ball, he does slow up a bit with the ball in his hands. He is still quite fast and capable of outrunning many NFL corners, but he isn’t the 4.2 runner that he is without the ball. Ford’s quickness will create quite a bit of RAC, but he isn’t a terrible tough runner to tackle if you’re not eating his dust. Will set up his blocks on screens/reverses, and has some wiggle, but not a great YAC threat unless he is out in space. 6.0

Initial Quicks: 7.5 Incredible burst, especially off the ball.

Clean Release: 6.5 Great burst off the ball when unchallenged at the LOS. Not challenged much at all in college. Good strength and smarts should help.

Release vs Jam: 6.0 Rarely challenged here, but I don’t think he will have problems due to great burst (most corners are going to be reluctant to press) and underrated strength.

Routes: 6.0 Crisp route-runner against man-to-man coverage. I think this could develop into a big strength, but I didn’t see an excellent feel for zone coverage. Wouldn’t surprise me if this changes to 7.0 in the next couple of years.

Tough Catches: 5.5 Not strong enough to compete on jump balls (low vertical as well) or any play that requires him to outmuscle the CB for the ball, but hangs onto the ball while getting drilled.

Deep Speed: 6.5 Ford is so quick that he is a weapon on post routes, and he is still fast enough to beat corners in a footrace, but he has more burst than pure speed.

Blocking: 5.5 Low ceiling as a blocker, but Ford gives good effort and usually interferes with a defender, even attempting to block linebackers when the play requires it. I love the effort, but there is only so much he can do at his size.

Errors: 6.5 Looks to be a smart player without fumble or drop issues.

Character/Effort: 6.5 Doesn’t appear to suffer from lapses in concentration or any character faults. Gives good effort on the field.

Summary: Ford was a pleasant surprise, as he is truly a football player with track speed. I was very impressed with his ability to get open against man coverage (ran good routes) despite his small size, and his ability to eat up cushion and get into his routes is extraordinary. As a deep threat, Cornerbacks have to respect Ford’s athleticism and a false step by the cornerback can lead to six points. The biggest downside to Ford is that he is a small receiver who is not truly dynamic with the ball in his hands and he doesn’t have the strength that most successful small receivers possess, so it is hard for me to see him developing into anything more than a #2 target at best. Though he has great deep speed, Ford is really an underneath guy who could thrive in a timing offense, not the deep threat you’d expect given his athletic tools. Ford seems to be coming into stride as a receiver and looks to be a hard worker who should only benefit from a full-time devotion to football (has been a track star at Clemson as well). I think Ford can be a starter in this league, but it will take a flexible coaching staff that recognizes Ford’s strengths and weaknesses.

Final Grade: 6.1

Games Graded: Kentucky, Wake Forest, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State

CJ Spiller, RB, Clemson

Name: CJ Spiller
School: Clemson
Position: HB
Height: 5107 V
Weight: 196 V
40: 4.37 V

Athleticism: I wasn’t as impressed with Spiller’s athleticism as I would like to be, though it is still very good. He flashes superior athleticism, but too often he looks like he is running at 90% speed, which is very good but nowhere close to elite. He has better stop/start than change of direction and he does have elite speed when he sees a lot of space ahead of him. There are different ways to grade this (potential/actual), but I feel best grading it based on what I expect to see in the NFL. 7.0

Run Inside: Spiller is not a very good inside runner, and in the NFL he will need to improve in order to be effective. He has fantastic stop/start, allowing him to make some plays inside when defenses overpursue, but he is below average in every other way. He doesn’t have great vision inside, runs a little upright and without great balance, and lacks size. He’ll need to improve on those skills to earn a higher grade, but they are all things he could improve upon. 5.5

Run Outside: Spiller’s deficiencies running inside are countered with his effectiveness running outside. When he sees green ahead of him, he can get to his top gear pretty quickly and that top gear is very fast. He sets up his blockers better on the outside, he’s much shiftier outside, and he runs faster outside. 7.0

Run vision: 6.0 He has good vision outside the tackles, but he misses holes when running inside.

Tackle Breaking: 5.5 He’s not very big and doesn’t break many tackles when running inside. He is very shifty outside the tackles, though. Most runs are inside the tackles, so his grade here is weighted that way.

Receiving: 7.0 Looked very good as a receiver, showing the ability to run a limited selection of routes and make difficult catches.

Run After Catch: 6.5 When he gets to the outside, he is very shifty and he uses his athleticism well. Doesn’t have the power to break tackles, but has everything else.

Blocking: 6.0 This is a little harsh and I could certainly understand a higher grade. Spiller did not have any problems with blitzers, but against down linesmen he couldn’t overcome a lack of size. A good protector who can be left on the field without worrying his coach, but he doesn’t have the potential to be great here unless he unexpectedly adds a lot of weight.

Power: 6.0 While Spiller lacks the size to overpower tacklers, he has a very muscular build and does a decent job falling forward.

Elusiveness: 6.5 This grade is comprehensive, which hurts Spiller. He is not very shifty inside the tackles, but exceptionally shifty outside the tackles.

Effort: 6.5 I love his effort as a blocker, his willingness to do everything his team asks (return man, runner, and receiver). He conserves his energy, particularly as a runner, which means I can’t give him a 7.0 here.

Fumbles/Errors: 6.0 He had the ball stripped twice in the five games I did on Spiller, which is pretty high, but it doesn’t seem like a consistent problem. Threw two HB passes, one into triple coverage and the other to a wide open target for a TD.

Character: 6.5 According to everyone, Spiller is a great guy who is involved in the community. Plays through pain and has some leadership qualities. No problems here, should be a hard working guy who avoids the police blotter.

Overall: (This one will be long, even by my standards) Normally, by the 4^th game I do on a RB I’m getting bored, because they have stopped showing me anything new. That was not the case with Spiller, who has so many games that seemed to conflict with eachother. The last game I did, the bowl game against Kentucky, showed a much more athletic Spiller than the other games. He also seemed to be a much better inside runner against Wake Forest and Florida State than in the other games. Etc. There could be any number of reasons for this discrepancy, but I feel the most likely is a combination of injury and adjustment to a starter’s role (conserving more energy, except in the bowl game where he could give everything he had without worrying about next week).

The problem is, that doesn’t sound good when projecting Spiller to the NFL. I think that Spiller should abandon his duties as a return man, not because such a role is unimportant but because those collisions tend to be more violent and all that running will sap his energy. He also doesn’t offer much as an inside runner. Ideally, Spiller is a back who catches maybe 5 passes a game, plays on 3^rd down almost regardless of the playcall, and gets most of his carries on outside plays (with some inside runs to keep defenses honest). In that role, Spiller could be a very useful player. Of course, then we have to talk about injuries. I don’t include an individual “injuries” grade because I am not qualified to distinguish between a 6.0 and a 6.5 here, but I do consider it for the final grade. Spiller, when he is knicked up, becomes a much less effective athlete (particularly speed/elusiveness, and he loses his normal toughness). You draft Spiller because of his athleticism, so losing that is a huge problem. That will have to be considered by teams, since Spiller has had a history of minor injuries.

My belief (which is a general guideline open to exceptions, not binding rule) is that you only take a running back in the first round if he can run all the plays well, block effectively, and threaten as a receiver. Spiller’s struggles running inside mean that I wouldn’t take him before the beginning of the second round, and really I only saw one game (Kentucky) where I was wowed by what I saw from Spiller. Maybe he was hurt, maybe he was conserving energy – that’ll be the case in the NFL too, though, and should be considered by teams before deciding where they would take Spiller.

Computed Grade: 6.46

Final Grade: 6.4

Derrick Morgan, DE, Georgia Tech

Name: Derrick Morgan
Position: DE
School: Georgia Tech
Height: 6030
Weight: 266
40: 4.72

Athleticism: Morgan is a very good athlete for an end his size. He does not excel at any one area, but has above-average burst, pursuit, speed and leverage. His change of direction could be better, but it is at worst average for a starter in the NFL. 6.5

Play vs Run: Morgan is generally very good against the run. Morgan is one of the few accomplished pass rushers who is able to get to the quarterback without constantly taking himself out of position against the run. He has good strength and leverage, and is able to provide a jolt with his hands to disengage. Great on outside runs. I’d like to see him improve at the POA, especially when double teamed, but overall he does a very solid job. 6.5

Play vs Pass: You’re going to get tired of me saying this, but again Morgan is very good against the pass. He has a variety of moves, a good nose for the ball, and flashes the ability to get off the snap quickly. He creates a lot more pressure than his impressive sack total would indicate, really being a disruptive force. Strong bull-rush and speed rush skills. I see a lot of double-digit sack seasons in Morgan’s NFL career. Also pretty good in coverage for a DE, especially for a potential strongside end. 7.0

Quickness off Snap/Explosive First Steps: Morgan is inconsistent here, as he rarely pins his ears back. Even when he is playing the run, Morgan gets a solid jump off the snap and has good foot quicks, but when he pins his ears back he flashes great quickness off the snap. Great snap anticipation either way, rarely gets a bad jump. 6.5

Closing Burst: This is one of the few areas where Morgan is merely average. He is a good athlete, but doesn’t seem to have an extra gear when chasing down the QB – quite possibly because he is going at 100% most of the time anyways. 6.0

Pursuit: Morgan is a natural runner who gives excellent effort, but he doesn’t have elite speed. He still earns an above average grade here, but really it’s an extension of his effort. 6.5

Pass Rush Moves: Morgan has a wide variety of effective pass rush moves that he is comfortable and effective using. One of his better areas. 7.0

Speed Rush: Morgan is fast enough to simply run around some tackles when he gets a good jump. 6.5

Bull Rush: Because of his combination of leverage, motor, and strength, Morgan provides a strong bull rush. 6.5

Hand Play: Morgan gives a very nice jolt when he gets his long arms into the OLM. However, I’d like to see him use those arms to keep hands off of his body, as too often Morgan has to work to disengage (which he does well). 6.0

Leverage: Morgan has the ability to play with outstanding leverage, but as he tires he is susceptible to playing a little higher and loses some of his power. Still, I think spending less time on the field will help him maintain what can be excellent leverage. This grade could end up being a 7.0 if Morgan is kept fresh. 6.5

Strength: Morgan has great upper-body strength for a DE, no matter where he lines up. His upper body strength (and long arms) are big reasons why Morgan’s pass-rush moves work so well. However, he could use more lower-body strength to anchor. 6.0

Anchor at POA: Morgan is not a problem here, but he could improve. He’d be well above average as a right defensive end, but occasionally Morgan struggles to anchor, especially when double teamed. 6.0

Motor: Probably his best attribute, Morgan has a great motor. He’s a high-effort player who’s competitive drive compliments his physical talents. 7.0

Coverage: I normally don’t even grade this, but GT put Morgan is space several times in the games I’ve seen. He has surprisingly good instincts in coverage for a DE, and he’s not a bad athlete. I’m not sure if he could transition well in a 3-4, but he’d be very good for a 4-3 end. 6.5

Tackling/Hit Power: Solid tackler who is capable of providing a jolt when he hits someone. Pretty solid in space and rarely misses a tackle. 6.5

Instincts: Morgan does a pretty good job locating the ball and has good snap anticipation. He plays his position smartly. 6.5

Errors: In 6 games, I have Morgan jumping offsides once. Doesn’t appear have issues playing smart football.

Intangibles: Considering how hard he plays and his reputation as a great leader, I think Morgan is likely to be a very hard worker who won’t give his team any headaches. Has never missed a game due to injury or suspension at GT. 7.0

Summary: I was not expecting to like Morgan as much as I did. However, he combines above-average athleticism and technique with good instincts and an excellent motor, and won my respect. Three important things stand out: How often Morgan was on the field (rarely subbed out and GT constantly lost TOP), how many plays Morgan created for others, and how well few flaws Morgan has. While Morgan does not have the incredible physical skills one likes in a top-10 pick, his well-rounded game will make him an impact end in the NFL.

Lastly, one misconception I wish to clear up: Morgan did not struggle at all in the Orange Bowl against Iowa. He did not have the numbers, but Iowa wanted nothing to do with him and changed their game plan to avoid a Clemson-esque meltdown. Despite that, Morgan still flushed Stanzi out of the pocket several times, though his lack of a closing burst meant that some of those scrambles resulted in positive yardage. He had a very good game against Iowa, and did not really struggle against Bulaga either (had at least two pressures against the Iowa LT despite being matched up as the LDE most of the game).

Weighted Grade: 6.5
Actual Grade: 6.7 (the weighted grades are still flawed as they don’t really stress the 7+ grades like I’d like, so this is the important one)

Gerald McCoy, DT, OU

Name: Gerald McCoy
School: Oklahoma
Position: Defensive Tackle
Height: 6041 V
Weight: 295 V
40: 4.96 V

The Big Three:

Athleticism: McCoy is an exceptional athlete for a defensive tackle. He had enough athleticism to have played a very good DE (4-3 or 3-4) in college even at his current weight, and if he shed some weight I have no doubt he could play 4-3 DE in the NFL. That said, his athleticism is special for a DT so in no way am I advocating a move to DE. He has pretty good pursuit speed, excellent short area quickness, and he’s comfortable in space when stunting or turning the corner. 7.0

Play Vs Run: McCoy is very disruptive against the run, but this is not necessarily the same as being productive. McCoy almost always gets a great jump off the line of scrimmage, and he often is in the backfield before the running back has the ball. Unfortunately, he does not always break down and actually make the tackle, but he does slow the runner. He plays very well on runs away from him, chasing down the ball carrier more than most DTs. His biggest area of improvement is runs right at him, as he can be pushed back consistently by two and is too aggressive against one. 6.5

Play Vs Pass: McCoy has a ton of potential as a pass rusher, but again I’m not sure it will translate into numbers. McCoy is quick off the snap and has great hands usage – that is a scary combination for most guards, and so McCoy gets a steady stream of double teams in most passing situations, which he still often beats to at least apply pressure. When left alone, he will cause havoc but does not always make the tackle, as he redirects pretty slowly. 6.5

The Rest:

Play Strength: He has adequate upper-body strength, which helps him win the hands game, but he doesn’t have the lower body strength to really anchor at the POA. If he can improve his lower-body strength, it would go a long ways. 6.0

Pursuit: McCoy gives great pursuit against the run and the pass. While not a threat to chase runners 30 yards, McCoy is a great athlete (for a 300lb man) and makes a lot of tackles chasing down running backs from behind. His strong motor plays a big role here, McCoy plays almost all the defensive snaps and rarely takes a breather, too. 6.5

Technique: He will fight to keep hands off him (great hand quicks) and uses several pass-rush moves effectively, including a very quick spin move (not common in collegiate DTs). 7.0

Quickness Off Snap: Probably McCoy’s best attribute. McCoy is exceptionally quick off the snap, and what makes it so special is that McCoy is consistently getting great jumps. 7.5

Tackling: McCoy does not break down well in space, but when he reaches his target he does a good job of taking him down. 6.0

Hitting: McCoy is capable of throwing his weight around when he has a clear lane to his target, but most of the time McCoy is not dishing out devastating hits. 6.0

Run POA: This is an area where I’d like to see improvement from McCoy. Unless he makes the tackle with his burst, he is likely to be taken out of the play, whether he overruns it or he is just blocked away. With his technique and natural gifts, he should be at least adequate here. Did give a good showing in goal-line situations, suggesting he has the capability. 6.0

Run/Pass Recognition: It’s a little hard to tell, because McCoy seemed more focused on a gap than discipline against the run, but I don’t think McCoy had a difficulty recognizing the play, as he generally seemed to locate the ball well, though he occasionally bit completely. 6.5

Consistency/Motor: McCoy’s game-to-game consistency seemed similar in all four games I scouted. He also plays most snaps at a high effort, occasionally he does get too high as the play wears on though and that hurts him. However, I feel it is negated by his motor pass rushing and in pursuit. 6.5

Instincts: This is one area that is confusing. Conventionally, a quick burst off the snap like what McCoy has would indicate great instincts, and McCoy’s good hands use shows that he is a student of the game. But you see McCoy play too aggressively at times, missing tackles or biting hard on misdirection. 6.0

Leverage: McCoy generally plays at a good pad level, but occasionally he will get too high in his pads, especially as a play wears on. 6.0

Errors/Flags: McCoy was remarkably un-flagged, doesn’t make a ton of errors (though not perfect here). 6.5

Summary: McCoy is both interesting and frustrating. His combination of size, athleticism, and technique is really appealing. He even has the good head and character teams value. However, I don’t feel he will ever have the statistical dominance most expect from a top tackle. I believe he will get some numbers, don’t get me wrong, but I’d expect his numbers to more Tommie Harris than Kevin Williams. Harris is a great tackle who makes his teammates better by constantly making the ball-carrier adjust, and that’s what McCoy will be. If you surround him with talented teammates, McCoy could bring out the best in them, but he probably shouldn’t be the only talented member of the line if you want to harass quarterbacks.

Weighted Grade: 6.47
Actual Grade: 6.8 (I’m not sure why these are so different, but I feel McCoy is an excellent talent deserving of a top-5 pick.)

Ben Tate, RB, Auburn

Name: Ben Tate
School: Auburn
Position: HB
Height: 5110 V
Weight: 220 V
40: 4.43 V

The Big 3:

Athleticism: Tate is a surprising athlete in many ways. 90% of the time, he runs at about 6.0 speed – pretty much average, which isn’t surprising (or bad) for a back his size. However, what’s really interesting is that Tate has a 2^nd gear that he rarely shows, and when he takes off he is very fast. I think the (4.43) 40 is accurate when looking at what Tate can do, but a little faster than you normally see. Tate also has better-than-average COD for a back his size and runs at a good pad level. While I’d like to see him run at full speed more often, he’s certainly capable of bursting a big run when he sees the hole. 6.0

Run Inside: This is an area where Tate does a very solid, if unspectactular, job. He has the size and leg drive (a trademark of Auburn runners) to force linebackers to square up on him. He also has a bit of creativity when running inside the tackles and has the burst to get through the hole quickly. While not extraordinary here in any way, he also doesn’t have any bad flaws and overall does a pretty good job working with a poor OL. 6.5

Run Outside: Tate is a pretty good athlete with pretty good creativity, which is why he is – you guessed it, pretty good – on outside runs. When he sees open space, he has the speed to get touchdowns (saw two long TD runs on outside carries). He has good hips and can adjust (if not start/stop) without losing a lot of speed. Not the threat a guy like Jahvid Best is, but still someone you can give the ball to on outside runs without feeling like you’re calling a doomed play. 6.0

The Rest:

Run vision: 6.0 Bounces a lot of runs outside, but it usually works. Has the burst to take advantage of holes. Not a cutback runner.

Tackle Breaking: 6.5 Good size, keeps his legs moving, and shiftier than you’d expect from a back with his power.

Receiving: 5.0 This grade is fairly tentative, as Auburn did not throw the ball to Tate much. Tate was at least somewhat responsible for that, dropping several passes of varying difficulty. (Note: This was almost given a N/A, and the good folk at NFLDraftScout.com actually give Tate praise for his receiving, so it might not be this bad. But given what I saw, a 5.0 is appropriate.

Run After Catch: N/A I doubt Tate would rank above a 5.5 here due to average athleticism, but not enough catches to make a firm grade.

Blocking: 5.5 Tate is a willing blocker with decent strength, but he has pretty heavy feet and could struggle with more athletic NFL defenders. Something he could work on, but I question his ability to ever be a great pass protector with his concrete feet.

Power: 6.5 Tate runs with pretty good power. While rarely bowling defenders over, he does a good job falling forward and dishes out as many hits as he takes.

Elusiveness: 5.5 Tate has some wiggle in his hips that allows him to break/avoid tackles when running outside and in the open field, but he isn’t a truly elusive runner.

Effort: 6.0 Runs physically and is a willing blocker, but there are times that you want Tate to fight more for extra yardage.

Fumbles/Errors: 6.0 Tate had one fumble (a helmet-induced fumble against Tennessee), but he holds the ball securely. Played in a no-huddle offense and did not seem to struggle with missed assignments. (Note: ESPN lists Tate without a fumble (for his career), which goes against what I have in my notes. NFLDraftScout mentions it as a previous problem, but I don’t see any reason why a strong runner who holds the ball securely should be a fumble problem, so I am keeping this grade as well)

Character: 5.5 I feel there are a couple legitimate concerns. Certainly does not lack for confidence, as he believes he is the best back in the country and better than Heisman winner Mark Ingram of Alabama. More concerning is that he sat out the 1^st quarter against MSU without any kind of word from the coach – that’s usually a discipline issue. I don’t think Tate is a bad guy, but I have concerns about maturity.

Overall: Tate is a runner who’s success could range from “decent” to “Pro-bowl”. He has the talent to reach the latter, but he’ll probably need a coach who gets on his case in order to do so. He definitely could use some work on his blocking, and from what I’ve seen his receiving could use quite a bit of work. What’s intriguing about Tate is that physically he is a fit for the ZBS, but his running style is more fitting for a man-running scheme. In a zone runner, excellent burst is imperative. Tate has flashed that kind of burst from time to time, but always on slower developing plays (my theory is that Tate doesn’t quickly decide where he wants to run and only uses his top gear when he has a path of green ahead of him. On the delayed handoffs, Tate has more time to figure out where he wants to go, so we see more speed). If Tate can be coached to quickly make a decision and to run at top speed, I think he could be very successful in a zone system that works out of a traditional formation. While Tate has experience running out of the shotgun, I feel his running style is more conducive to a traditional I-Formation attack. Tate can handle the load for a team, but I feel he’s even better when sharing carries with another back, allowing Tate to give max effort in each run and allowing for a 3^rd down back. Because I feel Tate may only be an asset when the playcall is a run, I can’t give him above a 3^rd round grade, but I feel that’s about where Tate should go anyways.

Computed Grade: 5.96

Final Grade: 6.0