Hochinteressantes Interview:
Greg Cosell: 2013 Draft Q&A – Part 1
FROM THE DESK OF GREG COSELL, GREG COSELL
Posted: April 19th, 2013
With the much-anticipated 2013 NFL Draft merely days away, Greg Cosell, expert NFL analyst and Senior Producer at NFL Films, sat down with TCIPF to answer questions submitted by YOU! Check out your Q&A with Greg for his take on everything from the importance of the Combine to what it takes to make an impact as a rookie.
What is the deepest position in this year’s draft?
One position I feel is really deep in this year’s draft is wide receiver. I think there’s a specific kind of receiver that the NFL is trending towards. It’s bigger WRs: guys who are 6’1 or 6’2…210, 215, or 220 pounds. Receivers who are not necessarily fast, in terms of timed speed, but they’re physical, they’re tough, they’re competitive, and they have very, very good hands.
There’s a number in that group: DeAndre Hopkins (Clemson), Da’Rick Rogers (Tennessee Tech), and Aaron Dobson (Marshall). Obviously you have Cordarrelle Patterson (University of Tennessee) who’s a little bit of a different kind of player but he’s 6’2, 216 pounds. Then you have his teammate, Justin Hunter, who is built exactly like A.J. Green (Cincinnati Bengals) and, when you look at him on film, he looks like A.J. Green. Now, he’s not at that level of player at this point, but he has similar attributes. I think Justin Hunter is the most vertically explosive receiver in this draft and, to me, is the most intriguing.
In your experience, how much of a player’s draft potential can be affected by his Combine performance?
To me, where a player gets drafted should not be affected by his Combine performance. I think if you’re doing your due diligence and watching copious amounts of tape, then you know what a player is. The Combine should really verify what he is or what he isn’t.
Every once in a while, you’ll get a situation where something that happens at the Combine seems totally contrary to what you saw on tape, either good or bad. When that happens, you need to revisit the player on tape. You should never draft a player based on his vertical jump or his 3 cone drill performance.
If you look at a wide receiver on film and you absolutely love him but, at the Combine, this WR runs a 4.9—you have to re-assess simply because that’s very, very slow. You’re forced to think about what you may have missed and perhaps it’s time to re-visit him on film. On the other hand, if you don’t like a player on film and, all of a sudden, he has a great vertical jump at the combine, that’s not reason to draft him. At the end of the day, you have to like him playing football, not working out in shorts and a t-shirt.
Based upon what you’ve seen from them, how do you think offensive tackles Luke Joeckel and Eric Fisher compare?
I think Joeckel and Fisher are similar players. Fisher is a little bit bigger. I think both of them are very good because of repetitive execution as opposed to elite athleticism. They’re good athletes, but they’re not at the level of great athletes. When you go back in recent history, over 15 years or so, and you have Jonathon Ogden, who was just inducted into the Hall of Fame; Orlando Pace; Walter Jones…These are elite athletes at the left tackle position. I don’t think Joeckel and Fisher are quite at that level. As I said, their strength is repetitive execution. They’re rarely off-balance and it’s so critical for tackles to be on-balance and not be in recovery mode, because that’s when you get beat. However, I think they are probably better athletically than Jake Long, the #1 pick in the draft five years ago. I wouldn’t say they’re as good athletically as Ryan Clady, of the Denver Broncos, who was the 12th pick in the 2008 draft. When all is said and done, I think both Joeckel and Fisher will play in the league ten years and be very solid players.
What does it take for a quarterback to be successful at the professional level?
This could be a college course that you spend a semester on. For a quarterback to be successful at the professional level, you have to start with attributes, traits, and characteristics and examine why QBs succeed in the National Football League.
Eventually, everything gets manifested in physical traits. To reduce it to the simplistic, “Cliffs Notes” version, you’ve got to be able to make throws. You can watch tape of NFL QBs and you can look at traits that are all measurable, identifiable, quantifiable, and tangible—it’s all there on film!
The more tape you watch, the more you recognize these traits. You must be able to throw the ball extremely accurately: “ball location” is the better term. You must be able to throw the ball with bodies around you, when the pocket is collapsing—in the cauldron of fire. To use the term I like, “a muddied pocket” because, in the NFL, the bodies get close to you, a lot more so than they do in college football. You must be able to move around a little bit in response to pressure; not necessarily run around but move, reset, and maintain your downfield focus, then deliver the football. You must be able to throw the ball with timing and anticipation. What that means is you must be able to throw before receivers come out of their breaks. In college, you can get away with waiting until they come out of breaks—not in the NFL. You must be willing to make difficult throws and this is something that’s always overlooked. In the NFL, the windows are very small, very tight. If you’re not willing to pull the trigger to make tight throws, particularly in those critical 3rd and long situations to convert 3rd downs, you are not going to be a high-level NFL quarterback.
Then, of course, there’s decision-making. The more tape you watch, the more you can see where the ball should go based on route combinations and coverage. That’s why I say all of these things are measurable and quantifiable. No one’s a great QB because he’s a great guy; no one’s a great QB because he’s good in the huddle, or because he takes his offensive lineman out to dinner and bond. Eventually, you have to make throws.
In this day and age, what are the expectations of a quarterback when he is drafted in the first round (in terms of a timetable for performance)?
This has dramatically changed. If you draft a QB in the first round, and certainly within the top 10 or top 15, you are basically saying by the sheer fact that you drafted him that he’s a franchise quarterback and he’s playing right away; that’s where we’ve evolved to in the NFL.
If you look at this year’s draft, let’s say Geno Smith gets drafted in the top 10. You’re drafting Geno Smith because you believe he’s a franchise quarterback. You can’t draft Geno Smith at, let’s say, #7 and then call a press conference to say, “We don’t know when Geno Smith is going to play!” You simply cannot do that anymore. If you draft him at #7, he’s your starting quarterback from the moment Roger Goodell says, “With the 7th pick in the draft…” That’s the way it is now. So you have to understand that, if you’re going to draft a QB in the top 10 or top 15, the expectation is that he’s your starting QB.
How have teams’ approaches to the safety position evolved in recent years?
The questions about safeties have changed dramatically in recent years. It used to be that the safety position was clearly delineated between two kinds of safeties: box safeties, who are essentially glorified line backers, and free safeties, who play deep and are essentially viewed as pass coverage safeties. The NFL game has changed offensively with the passing game such that safeties have become far more interchangeable. They must be—otherwise, teams and defensive coordinators will have a hard time defending offenses today. You can’t just be a box safety. Now, if you have one of those guys who’s just a box safety, that limits and reduces what you can do on the defensive side of the ball simply because he has physical and athletic limitations. So, this idea of a box safety as someone who basically plays within the box as a run defender—are there still these players? Absolutely! You could argue that the Ravens just won a Super Bowl with Bernard Pollard who is essentially a box safety. There are always exceptions. However, I think as the NFL goes forward, teams will not look to make that delineation between box safeties and deep safeties; they will want interchangeable safeties that can play both roles.
From the tape you’ve seen, which player projects as the potentially best, most dominant NFL pass rusher? Why?
I think there’re a couple of players who, at this moment in time, you wouldn’t automatically plug in and say they’re dominant from day one. However, I think they have skill sets that lead one to believe that, with experience and nurturing, they could become dominant pass rushers. I think there’re three names that come to mind: Jarvis Jones (University of Georgia), Barkevious Mingo (LSU), and Dion Jordan (Oregon).
Jordan was not used primarily as a pass rusher in college. He was basically a standup outside linebacker and they used him a lot in space. I had to watch an awful lot of film because I wanted to see him rush the QB; he didn’t just automatically do that. After a while, when I saw enough plays, I said to myself, “This kid is really athletic!” He can bend. He’s flexible. I think, over time, Jordan can evolve and develop into a very good pass rusher.
Mingo is a guy that is very, very fast—he has explosive traits. To me, he was a little straight-line in his movement. He needs a bit more flexibility—that’s something that he needs to work on. However, he can run and he’s very athletic, overall.
To me, Jarvis Jones is the most NFL-ready pass rusher right now. I don’t think he’s quite as purely athletic as Jordan or Mingo, but I think there’re similarities between Jones and someone like Terrell Suggs from the Baltimore Ravens. I think Jones is the most ready to step in with his variety of moves to be a NFL pass rusher beginning week 1.
Over the past few years, there have been a lot of receivers drafted early within the first round. However, not all of them have had an immediate impact on their team’s offense. How does the growing sophistication and specialization of the WR position in the NFL influence college WR’s draft prospects?
I think so much now with WRs entering the NFL becomes a function of the offense the NFL team runs. Because many teams in college run spreads, those receivers don’t run a lot of routes—they’re open an awful lot just by nature of the offense and the kind of throws that are made in those spread offenses. I immediately think of Justin Blackmon when he went to the Jacksonville Jaguars—he played in a spread at Oklahoma State. I watched a ton of Oklahoma State film and there were so many throws where he literally ran a straight line and he was wide open and they just threw him the ball. It wasn’t even really a route. Then he gets to Jacksonville where they run a fairly conventional offense and he’s got to learn a lot of things—he’s got to learn how to get off press, he’s got to learn how to read the coverage on the move—something that a lot of these spread college receivers have no idea how to do because they don’t read coverage on the move. This makes the learning curve a bit steeper.
If you end up going to an NFL team that uses more spread principles and you’re utilized that way, I think the transition is a little easier. It really all depends on where you went to college (what kind of offense you played in) and where you transitioned in the NFL: which team and what kind of offense they run. If you’re going to be in the NFL as a more traditional X receiver (weak side wide receiver) or a Z receiver (strong side receiver) and you’re going to run the NFL route tree but you haven’t done a lot of that, there’s a learning curve. It takes time because you’re not running against air—there’re actually defenders on the field. You have to learn how to read them as well and then run the routes with the proper timing. The way it works with a NFL passing game is that route depths are tied in and synced up with the depth of the QBs drop so there’re 3-step routes, 5-step routes, 7-step routes…these all have depths that are tied in to the 3-step drop of the QB, the 5-step drop of the QB, and the 7-step drop of the QB. If you’re not where you’re supposed to be, the QB is not going to throw you the ball. These are things that receivers have to learn and this takes time.
Between the two top-rated guards, Chance Warmack and Jonathan Cooper from North Carolina, which would be a better fit into a zone-running scheme? Why?
I personally really like Jonathan Cooper and think that, since I’ve been watching college tape (7-8 years), he is the most purely athletic offensive guard I’ve seen. Since zone-running schemes really require offensive linemen to be as close to dancing bears as they can possibly be, I think Jonathan Cooper would fit better. Zone-running schemes require tremendous synchronization. All five offensive linemen need to have the same footwork. They have to look like, as we say, elephants on parade (all the same). I think Cooper is more purely athletic than Warmack and he’s one of those special guys with his feet—he’s very nimble and that’s normally not a word you use to describe a 305 or 310 lb. man.
Cornerback is arguably the deepest position within this draft. Which cornerback has impressed you the most and why?
That’s easy for me—the cornerback that has impressed me the most might surprise a lot of people: D.J. Hayden (University of Houston). There’s a medical concern with him because he had a life-threatening injury that is not normally associated with a football injury. I believe he’s been medically cleared, but when you have that kind of injury, there’s definitely a concern. However, I think D.J. Hayden has the most complete skill set of any CB in this draft, including Dee Milliner and Xavier Rhodes.
I don’t believe Hayden will be the first CB taken, but I don’t know where he’d stand if there was no medical concern. I believe, with his combination of movement, aggressiveness, competitiveness, playing personality, and the fact that he’s a very physical and willing run-support defender, that D.J. Hayden is the most multi-dimensional corner in this draft.
In your opinion, who is the most complete (in terms of run-blocking and pass-catching abilities) tight end in the draft?
The best tight end in this draft is Tyler Eifert from Notre Dame and I think this speaks to the evolving nature of the TE position. TE is becoming a far more important position than it’s ever been because of the growth of the passing games.
One of the things we’ve seen in recent years, which is really difficult for defenses, is the growth of what we call “12” personnel: 1 back, 2 TEs, and 2 WRs. Because you have 2 TEs on the field, normally the defense stays with their base personnel; however, if you have 1 or 2 really good receiving tight ends, like the New England Patriots, it’s very difficult to match up. You have to make a decision on defense: Do I play with my base personnel and risk getting stuck with some matchups I don’t particularly like in the pass game? Or do I play with my nickel personnel, take out a linebacker to put in another DB, and risk getting stuck with some undesirable matchups in the run-defense?
I think Tyler Eifert can be a TE you can align outside as a WR because he did that at Notre Dame. There were numerous times I saw him beat corners on the outside, which is very good for a TE. While he’s not a great blocker, he’s a good enough blocker to line up on the line of scrimmage. I think Tyler Eifert is the best TE in this draft and I don’t see why a TE like that shouldn’t be drafted within the top twelve or top fifteen, given the way the NFL game is moving.
What is your take on the recent conversation regarding the devaluation of the running back position in the draft?
Now you’re getting into one of my favorite subjects: value leading up to the draft. Everybody talks about it. However, it’s really an abstract concept because we’ve come to accept that there are certain positions that are now not viewed as premium positions. Therefore, you don’t have to draft that position until later in the draft.
It’s a great conversation, even an academic and intellectual discussion. Coaches never think that way because they simply want players that can play. For example, let’s talk running backs: this year there’re Eddie Lacy (Alabama) and Montee Ball (Wisconsin). I think Eddie Lacy is probably the best back in this draft as far as being a foundation, or feature, back. However, you’ll hear people saying, “Why draft Lacy in the 1st round when you can draft Jonathan Franklin (UCLA), in the 3rd or 4th round?” That’s valid except when it’s week six and a coach is in a game; they’re up by two points with six minutes to go and they need to run the ball—now you need a back who can run a ball. Consequently, that philosophical debate about value doesn’t mean anything to coaches. If they don’t have a back that can run the ball and they lose a game because of this, that’s a problem. Value is a great discussion now: it’s a lot of fun, it’s all over Twitter, and people talk about it all the time—for coaches, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
What has stood out to you in watching Geno Smith on tape?
Geno Smith is an intriguing player to watch on tape because he clearly has a NFL arm. He clearly has very good feet and, on the surface, he has what you look for in an NFL QB and what you believe could be an elite NFL QB.
All of the traits are there—he’s a very smooth looking thrower…until you dig a lot deeper! His footwork is very poor. Because it’s not very good, although his arm strength is a positive, there’re times when some of his deeper throws lose a little velocity on the back end; they hang a bit because his feet are not solidly under him and he’s not throwing with great balance. There are also times when he’s struggled with erratic and inconsistent accuracy. You can do everything right as a QB but, if you can’t throw the ball where you want to, you’ve got nothing.
The other thing that stood out on film is that there’s a lack of anticipation—he waited on throws. You can complete those throws in college but those throws do not get completed in the NFL. There’s a term that I use in regard to Geno Smith and it relates to the lack of anticipation: “slow eyes.” I think he takes just a beat too long to deliver throws that are there and open. While there’s much to like about his physical attributes, there’re other things that need to be cleaned up and improved upon. This is ultimately why I don’t see him as a top five or top ten pick in this year’s draft.
Manti Te’o will be a much-mentioned name on Draft weekend for many reasons. What did you see of him on tape? What other linebackers will his career ultimately resemble?
I think Manti Te’o will be a solid NFL player and we’ll stop there. I think he’s ultimately an inside stacked linebacker who will play in base-personnel packages, not in the sub-packages (nickel or dime). I think he’s best in a confined area.
If you look back over recent years, there have been a number of linebackers that have been better prospects coming out of college than Manti Te’o. That’s the only way you can do it because once guys get to the NFL, many things happen so it’s hard at that point to compare. Looking back, you’ve got James Laurinaitis (Ohio State) who’s been with the Rams for four years; Paul Posluszny (Penn State), a second round pick; Jon Beason (U Miami)…all better prospects coming out than Manti Te’o. This says nothing of Luke Kuechly and Patrick Willis—Manti Te’o is not even in their class. I think he’ll end up having a very nice NFL career and he’ll be a solid, good player. However, I do not think he’ll ever be spoken about as an impact defender.
