In NFL Draft, not everything is as it seems

Once again we welcome free-lance journalist Mark Leonard to share his thoughts on the NFL Draft. Mark is from Lorain and grew up a Browns fan. You can find some of his other WFNY pieces here.

No one who follows the sport needs to be told this time of year is annually among the most exciting for fans of the NFL. Seems everyone has an opinion on the top-ten draft prospects, if not a four-round mock its creator is eager to share with whomever’s patient indulgence he can abuse. Surely most have long ago identified their preferences for their favorite team.

Draft weekend is a good time to be affiliated with the league, even with labor strife marring the atmosphere. Everyone is at least an imaginary GM, wheeling and dealing with uncanny aplomb. We’re all geniuses, if only for this week. No personnel need will survive the wondrous maneuvers we’ll devise.

So it may be the contents of this entry should better have been circulated significantly earlier. Because it seems as if too many have failed to notice the game is no longer contested with merely 11-on-11. Not even 22-on-22, kicking-game specialists excepted.

More accurately, professional football has become a 33-player enterprise, give or take a few. And such awareness should be firmly in place before one goes about projecting a draft for oneself or one’s team.

We’ve all been exposed to the sentiment that the NFL has become a specialist’s sport, but the concept somehow refuses to resonate with many once draft time comes around. It simply is not so that all players fit all clubs or all schemes.

Consider how often during recent weeks we’ve heard/read someone opine: “This draft is said to be deep in DE talent. Therefore, the Browns should deal-down and get one of them later in the draft.”

Though commonplace, perhaps, such thinking is lunacy. Such talk testifies to how many remain unable to grasp the aforementioned importance of scheme, fit and specialization.

Similarly, there are many among us who’d contend this is an especially good draft crop. That, too, is far from true. It is a decidedly weak draft. At some spots, though this is often the case, it is downright horrible.

Misconceptions such as these cause one to think an article such as this one is long overdue. Anyone seeking to understand and/or forecast draft values needs first to come to grips with the distinctly unique demands of the 33 (or so) specific football positions.

Let’s begin to identify a few, shall we?

Of course, there are QB, FB, RB, TE, WR, OT, OG, C, PK, P, long-snapper, DE, DT, OLB, MLB, CB, SS, FS. There are return-specialists, as well, perhaps one each for kickoffs and punts, since each requires different skills sets. That already numbers 20, with very little new learned, if anything.

There are also individualized skill sets distinguishing a LT from a RT, a one-technique DT from a 3-technique, a 3-4 DE from a 4-3, a weakside 3-4 OLB from a 4-3’s. The slot-receiver is a quite different sort than is a conventional wideout. Similarly, there are RBs for running downs and RBs for pass-catching downs, just as there are run-blocking TEs and pass-catching TEs. An ideal MLB is not synonymous with an ILB, of which there tend to be two types. Quite likely, even 3-4 DEs are not interchangeable in some systems. And not all DTs can be NTs—or visa-versa. Not all CBs can cover the slot; not all slot-defenders could survive isolated on the corner.

These distinctions are particularly relevant at a time of year when the average fan is suddenly shopping for an outside linebacker to fill his team’s perceived need. What he is not always factoring is whether that OLB is necessary for the strong or weakside, even though that fan may be astute enough to recognize his outfit employs a 4-3 instead of a 3-4.

One can’t just throw open one’s draft guide to OLB and run one’s finger down the listings. One needs to know which candidates can perform the specifics of a given position.

As a matter of fact, this is a particularly bad year to be needing a coverage OLB, the guy who typically aligns on the weakside in a 4-3. Whereas the weakside OLB in a 3-4 is characteristically his team’s premier pass-rushing threat, the WOLB in the 4-3 must be able to match-up with TEs, RBs and occasionally slot-WRs in coverage. He must be able to perform comfortably in space, with speed, quickness, agility, change-of-direction and open-field tackling among his specific challenges.

These must be genuinely athletic men, often former RBs themselves. Tough and physical, yet nimble and balanced; alert and instinctive, yet aggressive and able to back-pedal.

Understandably, such individuals can be rare, even among LBs.

Returning to the earlier contention that this is a great draft class for DEs, it is and it is not.

That is so because not all DEs expected to crowd Round One are identical. Some seem created for a 3-4; others figure only as edge-rushers. From this latter grouping, some project better as 3-4 OLBs than as 4-3 DEs. What had appeared to be a singular position to the average under-informed fan, DE actually encompasses four distinct positions—the three listed (3-4 DE, 3-4 OLB, 4-3 weakside DE), as well as strongside 4-3 DE.

So, this draft-predicting business is not nearly as simplistic as too many fans suspect of it. Nor are things even as simplistic as this piece is presenting them to be—however non-simplistic these distinctions seem to some less-familiar with the game.

Moreover, any who join me in maintaining this must be the year the Browns exploit the uncommon wealth of 4-3 pass-rushing DE options should also realize the selection must come in Round One, as none will remain available for the start of Round Two. DEs for the 3-4 may still present, as should 3-4 OLBs; but the top-shelf edge-rushing DEs will not survive the initial round. It is quite likely the last will depart at choice 20, in fact.

Allow that paragraph to serve to exemplify why knowing what this article set out to demonstrate is essential. Ohio State’s Cameron Heyward may, in fact, be expected to remain potentially available into Round Two, but he’d be of little benefit to the Browns, at least insofar as their pass-rushing urgency is concerned. He is a 3-4 DE. Maybe he could move inside and factor as a 3-technique DT. But he is not an edge-rusher, nor a consistent sacking threat.

If Cleveland is to finally address its long-standing need for an authentic 4-3 pass-rusher at DE, it must be done early in Round One. Whereas some may choose to argue #6 is too early for tabbing one, #21 will probably be too late.

Similarly, the distinction has been made by this writer that the Browns more so need a bona fide slot-receiver threat than they do an outside guy, the likes of which they may already possess. Not every WR is this draft class will complement the in-house candidates. Some will require the subtraction of another, leaving unfilled the slot vacancy. In the interest of economy, therefore, it might be better to concentrate on landing the correct slot guy, moving forward with the on-hand wideout cast elsewhere.

——————-

As for the thought that this, at one point, was to be an exceptional draft class, that impression fell to further inspection. Originally, there was a great deal of fascination about the OTs, with several initially projected for the top 12. It may now be none is taken even that high.

The DL crop remains enticing, though not all fit all systems, as stated. There are three good DTs for the first half of Round One. And maybe four pass-rushing 4-3 ends by 20. But many of the D-linemen best fit a 3-4, well into Round Two. None of the LB spots is especially rich. Highly-rated Von Miller is a sack-specialist best used moving forward; he is not a three-down player. Nor are most of the LBs discussed for early rounds, regrettably.

Thin, too, are CB, C, G. Safety and TE may see one selection between them prior to Round Three. For the first time in draft history, it may be no RB will go in Round One. Only once before has fewer than two been tabbed (Greg Bell by Buffalo in ’84.) WR could see but two taken in One. Though QB will again be over-drafted, it will not be because the position is replete with stars.

It is not an especially good draft, unless one is looking to reinforce along both lines of scrimmage.

——————–

There is a phrase in contemporary lexicon reminding that: “It is not all about you.” Mention is being made to this because there has been an active, hostile and self-absorbed bunch repeatedly criticizing beat-reporters in the mainstream media. While they are certainly free to do as they please, these folks seem to forget much of what they know and have learned about the respective clubs came from the efforts of those they now malign.

That they have perhaps out-grown need for the material regularly generated by those reporters is no fault of the writers, who have a continuous flow of new and still-learning youngsters coming up behind these disgruntled malcontents. Do the reporters no longer have an obligation to educate the next generation of readers? Do they exist solely for the gratification of those finding fault?

None of us can be all things to all people; we can only hope to satisfy our own standards, being true to ourselves while executing the duties of our assigned jobs. Fortunately, there exist alternative means for those of us requiring deeper analysis or more sophisticated treatments. Be happy for them and be encouraged to seek and utilize them. Leave the beat guys and gals alone to please their bosses and to inform those less knowledgeable.

After all, it’s not all about you, you know.

And, in the event someone suspects this writer is simply taking up for his friends in the media, know I have no such friends. Not surprisingly, I have few friends of any sort.

————————-

Notes from a nit-wit:

1.) As if it would be pleasant to revisit the events of Draft Day 2009, know the Browns paid more last April to move up from 71 to 59 than they extracted from the Buccaneers and Eagles combined the prior spring, when allowing them access to franchise QB Josh Freeman and play-making WR Jeremy Maclin. The Browns gave two 5’s to grab RB Monterrio Hardesty, but got only two 6’s when deferring to Tampa and Philadelphia in advance of drafting Alex Mack.

2.) While it is reasonable and comforting to opt for confidence in Cleveland GM Tom Heckert, his draft history along the DL has been somewhat less than inspiring, at least based upon what was done while he was helping Head Coach Andy Reid in Philadelphia. The duo nabbed Corey Simon, Jerome McDougle, Mike Patterson, Broderick Bunkley, Trevor Laws and Brandon Graham early, each completely without the subsequent justification of distinction. I’d ask you to stop me once I’ve named a difference-maker, but I’m already done.

3.) A while back I’d listed some veteran trades worth considering. Forgotten was this one between Denver and Baltimore whereby the Broncos would get Jared Gaither for Ryan Harris in an exchange of OTs. One that could work for new Browns’ D-Coor Dick Jauron would deliver DEs Chris Kelsey and Aaron Schobel from Buffalo. The players and coach became familiar when the latter was head coach of the Bills. Neither athlete enjoyed Buffalo’s conversion to the 3-4 in 2010, Schobel sitting out all year in theoretical retirement, while Kelsey struggled at SOLB. Conversely, Robaire Smith (unsigned) and Mike Bell might fare better in Western NY than they figure to here.

4.) Likely you’ve seen for yourself the research NFL Network provides relative to the Browns. Most recent playoff appearance: 2002. Last playoff win: 1994. Last road playoff win: 1969. Fewest originally-drafted players on their roster in the league: 17.

Enough of my nonsense for now. Enjoy the draft, y’all.

(Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)