PDA

View Full Version : Scouts: Biggest disappointments


jhns
12-23-2009, 04:44 PM
It is unfair to call a prospect a bust after just 14 NFL games, but the following players from the 2009 draft class have been disappointments. First-round picks Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman have had their share of growing pains -- that's what happens to rookie QBs -- so the jury is still out on them. I also won't heavily criticize a guy if injuries have been the primary factor holding back his progress.


1. Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR, Oakland (first round)
Rookie wide receivers are making an impact all over the NFL this season, including in Oakland. But it is Louis Murphy who has been the promising youngster here -- not Heyward-Bey, who continues to drop passes at an alarming rate. He has a lot of work to do. Many rookie wideouts are more impressive.


2. Tyson Jackson, DE, Kansas City (first round)
This pick was a reach from day one. Jackson is just not physically talented enough to justify being selected with the third overall pick. He may turn into an above-average 3-4 defensive end -- and I realize 3-4 defensive linemen are at a premium -- but I just don't see Jackson as a difference-maker. He gets manhandled too often.



3. Aaron Maybin, DE, Buffalo (first round)
As the 11th-overall selection, Maybin needs to be more prominent, even if it is just as an edge pass-rusher, which was considered his forte. He is undersized for a 4-3 defensive end and is a liability as a run-support player. He has only 15 tackles and no sacks.



4. Pat White, QB, Miami (second round)
I am not knocking his quarterback skills. But White was expected to take the Dolphins' Wildcat package to a higher level. It hasn't happened. He has only 54 rushing yards and no touchdowns. He hasn't had more than two carries since Week 9, when he carried six times for a season-high 45 yards against New England.



5. Jason Smith, OT, St. Louis (first round)
Like many players on this list, Smith isn't necessarily destined for failure in the NFL. In fact, of everyone listed here, I still have the highest hopes for Smith. But it sure would have been nice to get more production out of the second overall draft pick, especially considering that he is capable of playing either tackle spot.



6. Malcolm Jenkins, DB, New Orleans (first round)
On draft day, it appeared the Saints got a gift when Jenkins fell in their lap. But he has looked overmatched physically at this level as a cornerback. He isn't quick or explosive, and his movement skills look to be better suited for free safety. That may end up being his spot once Darren Sharper moves on. He has had ample opportunity because of the Saints' rash of cornerback injuries, but he doesn't look the part.



7. Glen Coffee, RB, San Francisco (third round)
It is difficult to criticize later-round picks, but Coffee had a golden opportunity to spell and back up Frank Gore. Although he has been productive on occasion, he just doesn't show the agility or make-you-miss attributes that are needed at this position. He is a straight-ahead banger, but little more.



8. Alphonso Smith, CB, Denver (second round)
It isn't Smith's fault that Denver traded next year's first-round pick to acquire his services, but that is a factor in this equation. Smith has had a difficult time breaking into the Broncos' excellent secondary. When he has played, he hasn't made an impact.



9. Brian Robiskie, WR, Cleveland (second round)
The book on Robiskie on draft day was that he was very NFL ready and that his intermediate route-running skills should lend itself well to QB Brady Quinn's skill set. To put things mildly, there has been opportunity for a wide receiver to step up or jump into the starting lineup for the Browns this year. Robiskie just hasn't gotten it done.



10. Andre Smith, OT, Cincinnati (first round)
The sixth pick of the draft, Smith has been unable to nail down the starting right tackle spot for the Bengals. He plays quite a bit as a sixth offensive lineman. I wonder what his contributions would be if he hadn't held out so long. The Bengals might grind out yardage behind this behemoth for years to come, but it would be nice to have seen more in Year 1.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4762852


It is way early for this but I agree with the list.

PRBronco
12-23-2009, 04:49 PM
Wow I thought for sure this would be a condemnation of Robert Ayers. I really want to know if Smith is still fighting an injury, the ability to play doesn't just disappear.

Ambiguous
12-23-2009, 04:51 PM
He looked awful on Sunday. He has some time to improve, hopefully he works hard and grows 6-10 inches taller.

Paladin
12-23-2009, 05:01 PM
Funny boy....

He may well get better next year. Certainly had a collegiate career that suggested he might be able to play in the pros, and the Broncos were not the only team who thought he was good prospect.....


But of course, you "know" better......

Ambiguous
12-23-2009, 05:04 PM
Funny boy....

He may well get better next year. Certainly had a collegiate career that suggested he might be able to play in the pros, and the Broncos were not the only team who thought he was good prospect.....


But of course, you "know" better......

I actually think he's been fine for the most part, but definitely not worth the 1st we gave up for him.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-23-2009, 05:16 PM
I actually think he's been fine for the most part, but definitely not worth the 1st we gave up for him.

Again. For the gazillionth time. Bowlen didnt want to pay for 2 first rounders.

Hogan11
12-23-2009, 05:19 PM
No Know? Geeze....after reading how bad he's been on here all week, I could've sworn he'd be on the list

Ambiguous
12-23-2009, 05:47 PM
Again. For the gazillionth time. Bowlen didnt want to pay for 2 first rounders.

So we were forced to use it on a player that wasn't worth it? We could have traded down or gotten someone else in the 2nd.

Mr.Meanie
12-23-2009, 05:54 PM
So we were forced to use it on a player that wasn't worth it? We could have traded down or gotten someone else in the 2nd.

If only we would have used our crystal ball. Good point...

DBroncos4life
12-23-2009, 06:04 PM
Again. For the gazillionth time. Bowlen didnt want to pay for 2 first rounders.

Why make two first round picks part of the deal?

steeledude
12-23-2009, 06:06 PM
If only we would have used our crystal ball. Good point...

Well...you clearly have one, so why didn't you loan it to the Broncos on draft day? I mean how else would you know to back the guy who says Bowlen didn't want to pay 2 first round picks next year? Or are you just arguing the second half of the point that we wouldn't know who to pick?

As far as I know Bowlen has said, on record, money had nothing to do with the decision. They just thought Phonzy boy was that good. Maybe they thought he was like a Dumvervil who was also too small, but was considered a sackmaster. Alphonso is considered too small and considered a interception master. Well, ha ha, until he came to the NFL that is.

oubronco
12-23-2009, 06:32 PM
Again. For the gazillionth time. Bowlen didnt want to pay for 2 first rounders.

and exactly how do you know this

NYBronco
12-23-2009, 06:34 PM
That darn Cutler... if only he would have called Bowlen back. ROFL!

Lolad
12-23-2009, 06:43 PM
Again. For the gazillionth time. Bowlen didnt want to pay for 2 first rounders.

this is pure speculation

Rulon Velvet Jones
12-23-2009, 06:47 PM
Geez, get off the kid's dick. He's still green.

Lolad
12-23-2009, 06:51 PM
Geez, get off the kid's dick. He's still green.

1st rounds picks are supposed to be able to come in and contribute early. He's clearly not doing it

misturanderson
12-23-2009, 07:28 PM
1st rounds picks are supposed to be able to come in and contribute early. He's clearly not doing it

He also wasn't a first round pick. We also didn't give up any more than any other team would to gain an early 2nd by trading a future pick.

WABronco
12-23-2009, 07:33 PM
1st rounds picks are supposed to be able to come in and contribute early. He's clearly not doing it

Says who? You? There are plenty examples of highly-selected DB's developing down the line. The Bengals' duo, Josh Wilson in Seattle, Tracy Porter, Nnamdi Asomugha....

yerner
12-23-2009, 07:40 PM
I think Leon Hall struggled his first year too. Now he is shutting big time wrs down almost weekly.

The MVPlaya
12-23-2009, 07:42 PM
Leon Hall did have 5 ints his first season.

maher_tyler
12-23-2009, 08:45 PM
Hard to get any playing time when Champ Bailey, Andre Goodman and Ty Law are on the roster. That's some pretty stiff competition for a rookie reguardless if he was a "1st round" pick or not!

lex
12-23-2009, 09:01 PM
Hard to get any playing time when Champ Bailey, Andre Goodman and Ty Law are on the roster. That's some pretty stiff competition for a rookie reguardless if he was a "1st round" pick or not!

Goodman is so good that they let him walk and replaced him with two rookies, one of which being Sean Smith, who played safety last year in college.

Ty Law is so awesome that he wasnt even on a roster for most of the year.

SoCalBronco
12-23-2009, 09:59 PM
Again. For the gazillionth time. Bowlen didnt want to pay for 2 first rounders.

That's not really sufficient justification for getting rid of the first rounder. Denver really could use two first rounders this year. It would be real nice to have two big time picks up front. Or, as others have said, we could have used the other one to trade back and amass picks while maintaining a regular first round pick. Cost should not enter into the discussion, anywhere....especially since Bowlen has long maintained that he'll do whatever it takes and spends whatever it costs to bring about success. Surely paying an extra first rounder is not a big deal given the fact that: a) he hasn't spent very much money (relatively speaking) the last 3-4 years (See the Pat Kirwan Study) and b) per Eddie Mac's calculations, Denver is supposed to have tens and tens of millions of space under the cap for this upcoming year (i.e. so you can't say the signing bonus for the additional 1st would be prohibitive).

I really hope that wasn't the reason it was done. If you would tell me that they did this because....I dunno, let's pick something out of the air....how bout because they like Wake Forest prospects, I would respect that more than saying it was about cost.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-23-2009, 10:03 PM
this is pure speculation

Except I think its fairly obvious. The cost of a first round pick has become very prohibitive. Now, you can make the argument they got the wrong guy (who the hell ever really knows though, plus lets give him more than a year), or they should have traded it down this year (so you get multiple picks at a lower price than just one), so on and so forth, but I firmly believe there was a mandate from above that said he's not paying 4 1st rounders in two years.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-23-2009, 10:06 PM
That's not really sufficient justification for getting rid of the first rounder. Denver really could use two first rounders this year. It would be real nice to have two big time picks up front. Or, as others have said, we could have used the other one to trade back and amass picks while maintaining a regular first round pick. Cost should not enter into the discussion, anywhere....especially since Bowlen has long maintained that he'll do whatever it takes and spends whatever it costs to bring about success. Surely paying an extra first rounder is not a big deal given the fact that: a) he hasn't spent very much money (relatively speaking) the last 3-4 years (See the Pat Kirwan Study) and b) per Eddie Mac's calculations, Denver is supposed to have tens and tens of millions of space under the cap for this upcoming year (i.e. so you can't say the signing bonus for the additional 1st would be prohibitive).

I really hope that wasn't the reason it was done. If you would tell me that they did this because....I dunno, let's pick something out of the air....how bout because they like Wake Forest prospects, I would respect that more than saying it was about cost.

C'mon SoCal, youre a smart guy. Money is always the bottom line, regardless of what should and shouldn't happen. And cap space has nothing to do with payroll, the cap could be 500 million, doesnt mean the broncos will ever approach it.

They obviously liked smith, Denver certainly wasnt the only ones as he had a first round grade by many, so they felt this was the best use for the trade.

But there's no doubt in my mind that the pick would be traded regardless. Plus, it certainly wouldnt shock me to see Denver trade down this year to accumulate multiple picks instead of overpaying a top ten guy

SoCalBronco
12-23-2009, 10:07 PM
Except I think its fairly obvious. The cost of a first round pick has become very prohibitive. Now, you can make the argument they got the wrong guy (who the hell ever really knows though, plus lets give him more than a year), or they should have traded it down this year (so you get multiple picks at a lower price than just one), so on and so forth, but I firmly believe there was a mandate from above that said he's not paying 4 1st rounders in two years.

What's wrong with paying 4 first rounders in two years? He hasn't spent money in 3-4 years. Look at the Kirwan study. They were among the league's best in wins per dollars spent ratio the last few years. Considering that we've been only .500 during that time period, its clear that we haven't spent anything. And like I said above...Eddie Mac illustrated that we have TONS of space this year.

It's hardly prohibitive. Please.

enjolras
12-23-2009, 10:07 PM
Smith played incredibly well all through the pre-season and into the beginning of the regular season. This place was filled with threads just crowing about him. He was all over the field.

I think the pace of the game caught up with him and some mental hurdles kicked in. He's overthinking the game, and it's really hurt his performance. In other words, he sure looks a lot like a rookie corner back.

Give him a full off-season of preparation. He's going to be just fine. He's a developing talent, and the sky is absolutely the limit for him. His attitude seems to be right and his physical skills are definitely there... he just needs to piece it together. Lets see if these coaches can mold that into a dynamic play-making corner. I think they will.

enjolras
12-23-2009, 10:08 PM
What's wrong with paying 4 first rounders in two years? He hasn't spent money in 3-4 years. Look at the Kirwan study. They were among the league's best in wins per dollars spent ratio the last few years. Considering that we've been only .500 during that time period, its clear that we haven't spent anything. And like I said above...Eddie Mac illustrated that we have TONS of space this year.

It's hardly prohibitive. Please.

I'm not convinced he has the money to spend.

SoCalBronco
12-23-2009, 10:09 PM
Smith played incredibly well all through the pre-season and into the beginning of the regular season. This place was filled with threads just crowing about him. He was all over the field.

I think the pace of the game caught up with him and some mental hurdles kicked in. He's overthinking the game, and it's really hurt his performance. In other words, he sure looks a lot like a rookie corner back.

Give him a full off-season of preparation. He's going to be just fine. He's a developing talent, and the sky is absolutely the limit for him. His attitude seems to be right and his physical skills are definitely there... he just needs to piece it together. Lets see if these coaches can mold that into a dynamic play-making corner. I think they will.

I'm not ragging on Smith. I know he has ball skills. I know he can play. Hitting a rookie wall is understandable. I just still think the value given up was too great and unnecessary. Remember, they were only about 10-12 spots behind that pick, it's not that hard to give up something less valuable (along with that pick) and move from the late 40s to the mid to late 30s, rather than giving something much more valuable away in the future.

SoCalBronco
12-23-2009, 10:13 PM
I'm not convinced he has the money to spend.

If Bowlen is having real and consistent cash flow problems, then maybe he shouldn't be in this business. Personally, I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to say Bowlen is REALLY financially struggling. While the Broncos are the main engine of his income, the revenues from the relatively new stadium and TV deal are pretty good. Forbes generally ranks us in the latter part of the Top 10 in terms of monetary value, which suggests the net revenue can't be too bad. He's probably taking some measure of a hit from the recession as everyone is, but I would be surprised if there were serious cash issues. If they had a problem in terms of living too lavishly (ie with high priced FA's), they've more than likely cured that in the last 3-4 years as they haven't spent much compared to the rest of the league in that time.

If there really is a deeper problem, which I doubt, then maybe he shouldn't be in it, as I said.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-23-2009, 10:57 PM
If Bowlen is having real and consistent cash flow problems, then maybe he shouldn't be in this business. Personally, I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to say Bowlen is REALLY financially struggling. While the Broncos are the main engine of his income, the revenues from the relatively new stadium and TV deal are pretty good. Forbes generally ranks us in the latter part of the Top 10 in terms of monetary value, which suggests the net revenue can't be too bad. He's probably taking some measure of a hit from the recession as everyone is, but I would be surprised if there were serious cash issues. If they had a problem in terms of living too lavishly (ie with high priced FA's), they've more than likely cured that in the last 3-4 years as they haven't spent much compared to the rest of the league in that time.

If there really is a deeper problem, which I doubt, then maybe he shouldn't be in it, as I said.

I agree that maybe he shouldn't be in the business, but its obviously his passion and favorite thing in the world. Bowlen is a real estate guy right? Well whatever he is, he wouldn't be the first man effected by the current economy. I'm sure his fortunes will turn (and judging by the Dow, they probably already have ... for the rich). So how can you tell him to sell the team? I'm sure he'd do anything to keep it in his name, which includes playing with a team with a low collective salary.

Cap space is an irrelevant issue, its all about cash flow and how much he has to dole out. I was also in the camp that said he probably didn't mind getting rid of Cutler because he wouldn't have to pay him. It also might be part of the reason Marshall never got an extension. But now that he sees he will have to pay some of his expiring contracts some coin to stay competitive, he probably doesn't want to add more salary on unproven players if he doesn't have to.

Say what you want about McD and Xanders, i just dont think they felt SO strongly about a cornerback they knew wouldnt have that much impact in his first season, that they'd willingly trade a 1st rounder if they had carte blanche.

Of course there is speculation involved in this, but as an observer, it makes sense.

lex
12-24-2009, 12:33 AM
I agree that maybe he shouldn't be in the business, but its obviously his passion and favorite thing in the world. Bowlen is a real estate guy right? Well whatever he is, he wouldn't be the first man effected by the current economy. I'm sure his fortunes will turn (and judging by the Dow, they probably already have ... for the rich). So how can you tell him to sell the team? I'm sure he'd do anything to keep it in his name, which includes playing with a team with a low collective salary.

Cap space is an irrelevant issue, its all about cash flow and how much he has to dole out. I was also in the camp that said he probably didn't mind getting rid of Cutler because he wouldn't have to pay him. It also might be part of the reason Marshall never got an extension. But now that he sees he will have to pay some of his expiring contracts some coin to stay competitive, he probably doesn't want to add more salary on unproven players if he doesn't have to.

Say what you want about McD and Xanders, i just dont think they felt SO strongly about a cornerback they knew wouldnt have that much impact in his first season, that they'd willingly trade a 1st rounder if they had carte blanche.

Of course there is speculation involved in this, but as an observer, it makes sense.

I agree with you for once. As you correctly point out, its not just one thing that suggests money is an issue. Its several things. I remember reading that he was upset with with the Travis Henry signing. Maybe its stuff like that and maybe its also the economy. He's become more of a stickler about money. Not only were there the issues you mentioned but you can also look at how he brought in someone from the Patriots, who, while theyve changed their MO in recent years, were once successful while underpaying their players. There was a point in time where people talked about this being how people bought in. They would move guys like Deion Branch rather than paying him. It seems like after they lost to us in 2005, their MO changed and they started bringing in guys like Adalius Thomas and Randy Moss. Regardless, I can see how the appeal of the patriots to other owners would be the whole getting more for less thing that was prominent in 2001-2005.

Popps
12-24-2009, 01:32 AM
Smith played incredibly well all through the pre-season and into the beginning of the regular season. This place was filled with threads just crowing about him. He was all over the field.

I think the pace of the game caught up with him and some mental hurdles kicked in. He's overthinking the game, and it's really hurt his performance. In other words, he sure looks a lot like a rookie corner back..

Totally agree. I've thought that lately as I watch him. He just doesn't look like he's playing with confidence. CBs have to have a **** load of confidence to play the position.

We'll see, but he's another guy that I think we need a lot more time to judge.