Analyzing the Draft's Top Three Receivers

by jri111 on Mar 25, 2008 4:00 PM EDT Comment 65 comments

[editor's note, by Brian Galliford] Bumping this to the front page because, well, it's terrific work. Check out jri111's assessment of the three wide receivers most likely to become the #11 pick of the Buffalo Bills. End Note

All workout numbers are from the NFL Combine unless other wise stated (numbers obtained from NFL.com and nfldraftscout.com)

Limas Sweed (Texas-Senior)
Age: 23
Height: 6-3 7/8
Weight: 215
40-time: 4.48 (unofficial); 4.49 (pro day)
20-yard: 2.62; 2.62 (pro day)
10-yard: 1.54; 1.53 (pro day)
Vertical: 35"; 37.5 (pro day)
Broad: 10'8" (proday)
20-yard Shuttle: 4.33 (pro day)
3-cone Drill: 7.14 (pro day)

Strengths:

Excellent size (big frame with long arms)
Good athlete
Soft hands
Excellent body control and ball skills
Excellent leaper
Tough and strong
Adequate blocker
Ability to beat jam at the line
Not afraid to work in the middle of the field
Deceptively fast
"Instinctive" route runner (finds the holes in zones)
Catches ball at highest point

Weaknesses:

Does not have elite timed speed
Is not real quick or explosive
May struggle to separate from pro corners
Not a precise route runner
Some lapses in concentration which lead to drops
Relies too heavily on natural talents at time
Health concerns (wrist)
Seems to leave his feet to often to make the catch

Intangibles:

Hard worker
Knack for making plays when it counts

Stats:

2007: 19 receptions, 306 yards (16.1 average), 3 TDs (missed 7 games due to wrist injury)
2006: 46 receptions, 801 yards (17.4 average), 12 TDs
2005: 36 receptions, 545 yards (15.1 average), 5 TDs
2004: 23 receptions, 263yards (11.4 average), 0 TDs

Videos:

Malcolm Kelly (Oklahoma-Junior)
Age: 21
Height: 6-3 ¾
Weight: 224
40-time: 4.55

Strengths:

Sold build - strong upper body
Excellent combination of size and athleticism
Long arms
Tough - isn't afraid of contact
Decent speed (more quick then fast)
Can beat the Jam
Good route runner
Good blocker
Very good hands (secures the ball well in traffic)
Wins jump balls
Good yard after catch ability, maintains good balance

Weaknesses:

Make struggle to separate against pro corners
Lacks explosion
Lacks short steps and quick feet
Smooth, but not the most crisp route runner
In college, disappeared for long stretches
Injury - Suffered a concussion in '06, cartilage damage in knee in '06, required surgery. In '07 suffered hip pointer. Suffered leg contusion in Fiesta Bowl.

Stats:

2007: 49 receptions, 821 yards (16.8 average), 9 TDs
2006: 62 receptions, 993 yards (16.0 average), 10 TDs
2005: 22 receptions, 471 yards (14.3 average), 2 TDs

Videos:

Devin Thomas (Michigan St. - Junior)
Age: 21
Height: 6-1 7/8
Weight: 216
40-yard: 4.40
20-yard: 2.50
10-yard: 1.47
Broad Jump: 10'6''
Vertical: 28"; 33" (pro day)
20 yard Shuttle: 4.26
3-cone Drill: 7.15

Strengths:

Good size w/ long arms
Excellent bulk
Natural athlete
Great timed speed
Extremely elusive (good run-after-catch ability)
Good vision
Great leaping ability and ball skills
Tough, strong, and physical
Best fit is the west coast offense where he will have run-after-the-catch opportunities

Weaknesses:

Only one big season at college level
Not best route runner (rounds off his routes)
Lacks a burst (doesn't play at timed speed)
Average blocker
Not best hand (15 drops in '07)
Has to prove he could be a deep threat
Raw (could take time to develop)

Intangibles:

Outstanding return specialist
Lots of upside

Stats:

2007: 79 receptions, 1260 yards, (15.9 average) 8 TD's
2006: 6 receptions, 90 yards (15.0 average), 1 TD

Videos:

---------------------

Overall Sources:

Video Sources:

This FanPost was written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings. Its views do not necessarily reflect the views of Rumblings' editorial staff, but are just as valued as our own.

0 recs | Comment 65 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Let me be the first to say

Excellent work John, I'm sure it took you quite some time to gather up all this info, and compile it into one place.

I'm ruling out Kelly (despite that great free style rap), due to injury concerns, so I'm basically comparing Sweed and Thomas here.

Speed is about even, Thomas ran a 4.40 Sweed ran a 4.48, to me .08 of a second is not a big deal.
Sweed has better hands I will concede that, and I will say that his wrist injury doesn't bother me too much.
The real difference makers are the YAC ability of Thomas, and his kick return ability. To me those are the real pluses for Thomas that Sweed can't match.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 25, 2008 11:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I have to say...

I like all three. I give the nod to Sweed right now, but it's not by much. The three things I like most about Sweed are his toughness (the ability to go after the ball), his hands, and his high character.

I like Devin Thomas too and I think he has the perfect combination of size and speed to be an elite receiver. He has the most upside of the three I believe. However, when I look at what the Bills need, and when they need it, I have to go with Sweed.

First, the Bills need a bigger receiver, we all know that. And although Sweed and Thomas are both big Sweed has nearly three inches on Thomas.
Second, and somewhat related, Sweed is also known as an "endzone" threat, a label Thomas has not received at this point. Third, although route running could be improved for all three, I beleive Sweed's route running is better then Thomas' (I think Kelly is the best here). And lastly, and most importantly in my opinion, Sweed will be the most ready to play right now. Sweed has had four years of top competition in a major conference and has produce in nearly all four of them. Thomas has only played two seasons at MSU and his first, he only had 6 catches! He only had one could season, which could, or could not be a fluke. Even that aside though, there is no denying that Thomas is raw. He's going to take time to develop. Unfortunately, for the Bills, by losing out on Bryant Johnson, the Bills new rookie WR is going to be expected to start right away.

That fact alone makes me lean towards Sweed.

One last thing, I have to admit, I wrote Kelly off completely the other day. However, after going through this analysis, I now see why he was rated the number 1 WR by many. I'm not ready to give up on him yet. He's strong, physical, and fast. His injuries are a concern, but if he clears his physical with Bills doctors, I wouldn't mind him either.

Therefore, I really wouldn't mind any of the three. Right now, Sweed is still my guy. Followed closely by Kelly and then Thomas.

John I.

by jri111 on Mar 25, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scouting Wide Receivers

ESPN.com has just recently posted several columns on their website regarding wide receivers.

From what I read, this is the best one:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=reese_floyd&id=3310721

Feel free to discuss which is more important to the game: players or plays?

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 25, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remember that dead horse

I think it fell on you!!! I give you credit for posting the link.

by Joe P. on Mar 25, 2008 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since I posted the link

I encourage you to read it. It's another example that keeps the horse from dying. In fact, I think the horse will live forever because it's true: players are more important to the game than plays. I emphasize this fundamental concept because I think it answers many specific football questions.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 25, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not what we were talking about

We were talking about question #1 in this article, not players vs. plays called. You argued that the coach needs to change his scheme to accommodate the player. The first question in that article was," Does the receiver fit the scheme and/or coaching needs". And the last sentence of that paragraph, "the single best link to success is bringing in someone who fits in with your coaches and schemes." The next paragraph says the coach must be able to adjust the scheme, not change to a completely different one to accommodate someone you want to draft. To make it simple, scheme first, player second. I am sure you will not admit you are wrong, which is why you are trying to change the argument. After all, if you are not willing to take Bill Walsh's word for it, than what chance do I have!!!

by Joe P. on Mar 25, 2008 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Same argument

The plays that are called define the scheme. However, you can only call plays that your players have the ability to execute. So essentially, the players define the scheme. That is why players are more important than plays, or schemes and why coaches should create schemes based on their players.

How good is a coach if he cannot take advantage of talent, maximize his players' strengths, minimize his players' weaknesses, and build a scheme around his players? The coach's job is to get the most out of his players by putting them in position to make plays.

Teams should not pass on acquiring great players just because they don't fit the scheme they like to run. What good coach cannot adjust his scheme to take advantage of a great player's talent? Furthermore, what is wrong with completely changing your scheme to accommodate a great player, particularly if that player is a quarterback?

These were my original arguments.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 25, 2008 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not sure we are using the word scheme

in the same way. For the sake of this argument, I was using scheme to refer to your basic offensive and defensive philosophy, for example west coast vs. power run. A power run team can call a play using a 3 receiver set. It does not change the fact they like to run the ball. You seem to want to use scheme to define formation. In that case, what you say is somewhat true. A coach should not call a play without the player needed to execute the play. I guess the Bills should have gone run, run, run, and punt. As far as great players go, a truly great player can be good in any scheme, but only great in the right scheme. Trouble is, it is difficult to know which players are going to be great when you draft them. Thus the infamous 1st round bust. That is why coaches sometimes pass on a player who has great potential, but that potential does not match the scheme. Your odds of getting a very good/great player go up dramatically when you match up the two.

by Joe P. on Mar 26, 2008 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

First, I was saying that players define the plays that are called, which define the scheme. For instance, if you have a QB whose strength is short/intermediate passing and big WR's with great yards-after-catch ability, it would make sense to call a lot of quick slants, shallow crossing routes, etc. to maximize the players' talents. Basically, that's a West Coast passing scheme based on the players.

Second, I am not sold on comprimising talent for fit. It's up to the coach to get the most out of the players.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 26, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree but

I don't think that happens by taking BPA. It is by design by drafting players that fit the scheme the coach wants to run. If you have a lot of YAC receivers then draft a deep ball QB, the strenghts of your QB and receivers don't match up.

by Joe P. on Mar 26, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

However

if the QB cannot get the ball to your receivers, then his is probably not a great player worth drafting and adjusting/changing your scheme for, or building your scheme around.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 26, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you would only draft great players? Brilliant!

Any ideas on how to do that? There are a lot of teams who will pay big money to avoid drafting players that turns out to be busts. Only draft great players....I am so glad you could clear that up for me.

by Joe P. on Mar 26, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you are in position

to draft a great player, don't pass on him just because he doesn't fit the scheme you like to run.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 26, 2008 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not only that, but

I also believe that over the middle, Sweed can be a powerful force that can shed tackles and take the big hit. More than open field ability, which is what we have in Parrish already, Sweed can run a guy over if he's not in the right position and also knows how to use his body to keep himself safe. Although I would hardly equate the two, I believe Parrish brings to us most of what DT brings.

After watching the videos on Kelly, I would say that he is less of a presence over the middle than Sweed is. The verticality and redzone threat may be equal, or perhaps go to Kelly's side slightly, but what are we really looking for? A guy who can consistently make a catch in traffic 8-10 yards down the field. And the best fit for that is Sweed, IMO.

by Kumario! on Mar 26, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I don't think we're looking for a possession receiver - Josh Reed does that. (Flame away, Nick.) We need a West Coast, T.O.-type guy that can make plays all over the field, especially once the rock is in his hands. Thomas is more of a threat to take a short pass the distance than Sweed is by a long shot - and he can make those throws over the middle you referenced.

As far as Parrish goes - yeah, he's good in the open field, but Thomas gives you that plus excellent size. When you lay a hand on Parrish as a receiver, he's down. Thomas is more of a tackle-breaker. We need that in this offense badly.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 26, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great work

Just really good work. This is a great guide.

by DCRumbler on Mar 25, 2008 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Kelly

I think we should wait until Kelly's April 9th workout before ruling him out. As I believe someone on this blog already mentioned, scouts did leak injury concerns about Calvin Johnson when he came out trying to make him slip in the draft to their team.

That said, I too like Sweed of the three. He reminds me a young Muhsin Muhammad or as rotoworld said it, of Herman Moore.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Mar 25, 2008 11:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That person

was foreign arrow, just to give credit where credit is due

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Mar 25, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice post John.....

I personally like Sweed the most out of these three. Kelly has too big of injury concerns and Thomas' has bricks for hands so it is pretty much Sweed by default, his wrists do not bother me and I have seen quite a bit of him and personally think he would be a good fit and could come in and be our #2 immediately. I do like Thomas' YAC ablitiy and returning capabilites but YAC only matter if you Catch the ball first. Who cares if Sweed is not a return man that should be an added bonus, after all we are looking for a number 2 WR not a Kick Returner in the first!

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP on Mar 25, 2008 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

your absolutely right

when you say that Sweed could come in and immediately be our #2. I think he's the most likely out of the three to have an instant impact, due to his size and the red zone threat he'll be. And we, and Trent, need that.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Mar 25, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've gotta say

I've been rolling these guys around in my head (not getting much work done I might add) and it still comes down to one thing for me. I don't want any of them at 11. I would still rather have Harvey. If the Bills could trade down O.K. but I'm still a little uneasy about any one of these guys at #11.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 25, 2008 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts exactly......

I know it looks like we will be taking one of these three at 11, but I like you sireric would still much rather take Harvey at 11. I would feel just as comfortable with our WR position if we took Harvey, and got Nelson in the second or third and one of the TE prospects somewhere in the 2-3 as well.

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP on Mar 25, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear ya

agreed.

I've been thinking about how we can get Harvey AND one of the WR's. I think it can be done, though two trades would have to be consummated.

-Trade #11 to Detroit/Arizona for #15/16 and their 3rd rounder. Pick Harvey there.

-Trade our #41 and the earlier of the 3rd's, and maybe a 4th or future pick to move ahead of Tennessee in the 1st. Take Sweed, Thomas or Kelly, at least one of whom should be available for sure.

Take a TE with the remaining 3rd, a CB with the comp 4th that we should get, a C and another WR in the 5th/6th and depth in the 7th.

I'd love for all this to happen, but it's as likely as me getting drafted in the NFL and NBA drafts.

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great Plan

I hope Jauron is paying attention!

by Joe P. on Mar 25, 2008 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Make sure you're sitting down.

I would rather have Harvey too at #11 then any of these 3 WRs.

by krytime on Mar 25, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I sat down

Then almost fell out of my chair.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 25, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a job well done John

I don't think this analysis could be done any better.

Now for anyone who wants to compare the 3 WR's, there is all the info you'll ever need right here. I love the video additions. Too bad there isn't more on Thomas.

Right now it's Sweed and Thomas, ahead of Kelly, at this point. If Kelly's health checks out and he runs well at his workout, he'll vault back up there with the other 2.

The only downside here is you're going to have to do this for other positions now. Hope you have time!

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

analysis

pheonomenal. Love it. I don't know why it just seems like Thomas is bills kind of guy. He just kinds of jumps off the page

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Mar 25, 2008 12:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Thanks JRI, this is the comparison I was looking to see.

I suppose if OBD are targeting only one of the three they won't trade down, despite having to take them at 11. But if they are content with any one of the three they could trade down, or take Harvey or a CB and try to trade up into the late 1st round. I haven't seen anyone talk of trading up though.

by south123 on Mar 25, 2008 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Still sticking with Sweed

I'll still take Sweed as I feel him can contribute before Thomas. Kelly scares me with his track record of injuries. While Sweed got hurt last year, it was the first major injury of his career in college. Kelly is on his 3rd and probably counting up now.

Thomas suffers from the drops, plain and simple. And yes, you can train to improve your ability to catch a ball (I know from personal experiece having played DE/TE in high school and spending all 3 summer months with my team's QB catching balls, about 50-60 a day 5x a week) it is NOT enough to make a drop prone person into anything close to a consistent catcher.

Alot of it has to do with mental focus, ability to concentrate on the task at hand (I bet in the films of Thomas's drops, he heard foot steps coming or was trying to get upfield before catching the ball, something our WRs do already all to often), and lastly if they were born with the ability to catch a ball. At some point, training and teaching cannot overcome the persons own inate talent for ball catching.

So in my book it stands Sweed, Kelly (though injury prone), Thomas and then Nelson for my top 4 WRs. Hardy is out of it because the dude can't stay off the police blotter, and we need to avoid Knuckleheads like that.

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Mar 25, 2008 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Matt Miller's rankings

Matt Miller of Mocking The Draft put up his top five by position. I was shocked at his rankings in for many positions particularly TE and RB.

His WR rankings are of interest to this conversation.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 25, 2008 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I dont care who is the 11th pick as long as

we get a guy who can make an impact immedately. Either offense or defense will do, but I lean more towards a WR then anything.

Do you BILLieve?

by NYTXFAN on Mar 25, 2008 4:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Immediate Impact

What do you think the objective of drafting college football players to play for NFL teams is?

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 25, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Answer

To sell jersey's and season-ticket packages?

I'm the jolly little baker and you'll find me on the label of Kaufman's Rye Bread

by DCRumbler on Mar 25, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where did you study?

The Tom Donohoe College of Clownery?

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Close

Kenyon, which is just as ineffective over the long-haul.

I'm the jolly little baker and you'll find me on the label of Kaufman's Rye Bread

by DCRumbler on Mar 25, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hah, my college was/is worse than yours!

Hah, I've got you beat for ineptitude up till 3 years ago. I went to Oberlin College, and no matter how badly managed Kenyon's football program was while I was there, we always managed to slink under the bar!

Now we can start the ongoing "My college sucked worse at sports than yours did arguement!" and this might be the ONLY time such an arguement will ever take place. Most poeple brag about how good their school was, well we can do better than that, I want to fight over how bad yours was!

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Mar 25, 2008 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lords vs. Yeomen

As I see it, we have two items to discuss regarding these two fine NCAC affiliated institutions:

Your latest football losing streak was 40, from 97-01, right? Last team to beat before the streak: Kenyon. Team you beat to break the streak: Kenyon. That speaks volumes for both our programs. At least you had notoriety and an ESPN clip. We just continually sucked.
Mascot war; which is more intimidating: a Lord or a Yeoman? I have no answer for this. All I know is our girls are called the Ladies. Are your girls the Yeowomen?

Now if we can just get some Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Allegheny, and Earlham Bills fans to chime in on this!

I'm the jolly little baker and you'll find me on the label of Kaufman's Rye Bread

by DCRumbler on Mar 25, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least fans show up to your games

Indeed the NCAC is a fine group of schools, and far superior in its own operations than NCAA could ever be. Afterall, its not like Ohio Wesleyan or Allegheny ever cheated in getting guys who should be playing Div. I ball to come to their school with unfair Financial Aid at all.

My freshman season we had one home game with a whopping 35 people in the stands. Take away the 15 family members, and 4 girlfriends of guys on the team, that leaves us with 16 people who cared enough to come out to a game. And yes, I was there for a couple of those wonderful losing seasons.

Thankfully they broke it before I left school, that would have killed me to never have won a game over my whole time there. Of course, by that point I was off the team thanks to neck and back injuries, but hey, I worked as a student trainer which was good fun, especially the win. Of course, part of our secret for breaking out of the losing doldrums were Mormon JUCO transfers, nothing like flooding the field with a bunch of 20+ year old Mormons who all keep clean (Drink, drugs and police blotter wise) and want to play football all the time. But, SHHHH keep it a secret, or all the schools in the NCAC will catch on!

And yes, sadly the fine young hippe trustafarian non-leg shaving woman of my school are called the Yeowoman. Needless to say, all of the guys at my school envied you Kenyon folks with the names Lords and Ladies, at least that makes sense and sounds cool! The funny thing about our nickname was that the reason Oberlin men sports teams are called "Yeoman" is not because of our early agricultural background, but in fact due to a very old mid-1800s cheer, "Go Ye Oberlin Men" was a popular one, and over the years got shortened (e.g. Go Ye O Men) to the now commonly used Yeoman.

There was many a debate among us athletes at the school over which type of Yeoman we were. Are we the solid dependable, but slightly stupid and ox like farmer? Most likely not, too many would argue we were smarter than that, and I always pointed out we had very few ox-like people wandering on our sporting fields. The group was that we were like the Yeoman of the military, whether that be horse mounted or bow equipped (for more fun uses of Yeoman see Wikipeida here. Sadly, my side never won its arguement either. Since it raged all 4 years I was there, and still from what people I know who work at the college now report, it is still ongoing, oh well.

In the end, I would say I find a Lord somewhat more intimidating just because courtesy of Henry the VIII, many consider Lords to be the type who order heads chopped off on a regular basis. Not many people find a dirt grubbing farmer much of a threat unless he is waving a sharp farming implement in your face at that moment.

Finally, yes, I indeed call upon all attendees of this Blog who are or were once students of the fine NCAC to please step forward and indentify which fine institution you attended!

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Mar 25, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

never heard of them

i can honestly say ive never heard of these schools before. haha.

by big john on Mar 25, 2008 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me either

From the sounds of it we were not missing much.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 26, 2008 6:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was on campus when you beat us in '01

But to be fair, it didn't affect me in the slightest. I had long given up on that team (when you arrive on campus, they give you a syllabus, ID card and a sense of inevitability regarding those shoulder-padded disasters). And having been raised in the Columbus area, I was naturally a tOSU fan when it came to college football.

Nonetheless, the idea of D-III football certainly is more appealing than the D-I purchasing, I mean recruiting of student athletes. On a side note, a friend of mine was recruited to Michigan. When I saw him about a month after signing and spending time on the campus, he was driving around in a brand new Caddie. Oh to be a D-I prospect.

When I thought of Yeomen, I was always under the impression that it was a Chaucer(probably because I majored in English). Therefore, I thought of you guys as bow-wielding woodsmen: Robin Hood-esque figures capable of stealthily dispatching your enemies in the name of the King.

However, when I thought about the Lords, I envisioned gout-riddled, wig wearing froufrous, clogging up Parliament with absurd dictations on virtues of the serfdom. But, hey, the grass is always greener...

An a larger note, I am not surprised by the lack of knowledge regarding Kenyon (common phrase of ours being: Kenyon is not near Uganda"), but the lack of recognition for Oberlin stuns me a bit. W.O. Quine anybody? Come on! Ok, not ringing a bell? What about "Scotty doesn't know."

I'm the jolly little baker and you'll find me on the label of Kaufman's Rye Bread

by DCRumbler on Mar 26, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget Charles Martin Hall

If it weren't for this man, none of us would enjoy the wonderful joys of our Aluminum heavy society since he invented the economical method of creating aluminum. He then went and founded that small company called Alcoa.

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Mar 26, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Peter Buchman

Screen writer for Jurassic Park III

I'm the jolly little baker and you'll find me on the label of Kaufman's Rye Bread

by DCRumbler on Mar 27, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also the writer of the Princess Bride

William Goldman is also another famous Oberlin Alum, who wrote the book and screenplay for that great romantic comedy movie The Princess Bride which is quoted oh so often by people (like myself) who grew up with it.

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Mar 27, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Andre the Giant

His best acting role!!

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 28, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thomas it is!!!

I am not saying that the Big 12 is not a good conference, and I live in Big Ten country and I HATE the Big Ten (I am a Syracuse fan). What I have learned is that if you want a consistent DB, the place to go, top to bottom is the Big Ten.

This brings me to my point in which if you look at all the tangible things we are looking for in a receiver... Thomas is the guy. Don't bother looking at the stats, because unless you watch every game and run down every type of defense and the players he played against, numbers don't matter. Thomas is the right combination of elusiveness and size. Some might say that 6'2 is not that big, but when 6'2 is 4 inches taller than our tallest receiver, that is a huge difference. Boldin, C, Johnson, TJ Houshmandzadeh and R. Wayne are all between 6'0 and 6'2 (Owens, Fitzgerald and B. Edwards are all 6'3). I would take any of these guys on a 3rd and goal with no time left to go up and get a ball. I am not saying that Thomas will be an All Pro, but his height at 6'2 should not be a factor. If it is not a factor I don't see how we could pick anyone else.

by hilliarddavid on Mar 25, 2008 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on height

especially since I feel we need to add another WR later in the draft. We can find a 6'4" leaper then to give us that type of redzone threat.

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they do fraft one of the "big three"

That's it. Doubt they would even draft another WR until the 6/7 round, and that guy would be practice squad fodder at best.

by krytime on Mar 25, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Top 3 for us, but not the top 3 in the draft

I understand that this list is the top 3 WRs that are a good fit for us... and I mostly agree (even with the order)... my "fit" list would have Hardy (6-6,4.40) as #3...

However, the title says the top 3 in the draft... and on that basis, i don't think Devin Thomas deserves the #3 spot ahead of Jackson.

Has anyone seen this guy play, or even his highlight reels?... he's downright amazing.. and that punt return vs Oregon...wow ... and vs Tenn... ridiculous.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=desean+jackson

Desean Jackson (Cal-Junior)
Age: 21??
Height: 5-9 1/2 (combine)
Weight: 169 (combine)
40-time: 4.27 (unofficial); 4.35 (combine)
20-yard: 2.52 (combine)
10-yard: 1.53 (combine)
Vertical: 34 1/2" (proday)
Broad: 10'2" (proday)
20-yard Shuttle: 4.19 (proday)
3-cone Drill: 6.82 (proday)

Strengths:
* Has gaudy speed and plays at that speed
* Has never dropped a catchable ball (ESPN broadcast)
* Caught everything at combine, looked good
* Can jook anybody... so fun to watch
* Can make the circus type catches
* Excellent body control
* Great routes.. gets open b/c of his feints
* Catches ball at highest point
* No major injuries

Weaknesses:
* Size, size, size, size
* Wasn't used over the middle due to size
* Poor blocker because of size
* Did I mention his size?

Intangibles:
* Very quiet and surprisingly humble
* Teams adjust their game plan specifically for him
* No character or off-field issues
* Great decoy... always draws the safety
* Nobody would dare blitz the safety when he's on the field... that's saying something

Stats:

Year     G-GS     Rec.     Yds.     Yds/R     TD     Long
2005     11-10     38     601     15.8     7     56
2006     13-13     59     1,060     18.0     9     62
2007     12-11     65     762     11.7     6     44
Career     36-34     162     2,423     15.0     22     62

Jackson's Career Punt Return Stats
Year     G-GS     PR     Yds.     Avg     TD     Long
2005     11-10     1     49     49.0     1     49
2006     13-13     25     455     18.2     4     95
2007     11-11     12     129     10.8     1     77
Career     35-34     38     633     16.7     6     95

Jackson's Career Rushing Stats
Year     G-GS     Rec.     Yds.     Yds/R     TD     Long
2005     11-10     8     48     6.0     0     17
2006     13-13     5     19     3.8     0     9
2007     12-11     11     132     12.0     1     73
Career     36-34     24     199     8.3     1     73

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have Devin with us... but frankly he "looks" very slow on the field... has a horrendous vertical for a WR (28" or 33" for a WR??? that's awful) and he's not that great of a return man when you compare him to Parish... and is downright ordinary compared to Jackson. Jackson has a 34" vertical which is in NFL range.

That said, there is no way I would want Jackson with us unless he drops to the 2nd or 3rd round, which won't happen... b/c he gets drafted just on his return abilities alone.

by osmanBAE on Mar 25, 2008 7:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Jackson

How is he anything more than a better Roscoe? Even that could be debatable.

Just wondering, why do you think Thomas looks very slow on the field? Every time I've seen him, he's running by and away from defenders. He looks pretty dang fast to me. And his vertical is a whole inch and a half less than Jackson's, which you said is within the NFL range. I'm confused by your deeming that horrendous.

Thomas averaged 30 yards a kick return this year. That's awesome. Maybe he doesn't have the jukes of Parrish or Jackson, but he sure gets the job done. I'd much rather have a guy returning kicks like Thomas than Jackson. His size and strength helps him hold up much better on kick returns. Jackson is obviously the better punt return option where juking comes into play much more.

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Parish is the bomb

In all honesty, i think roscoe is better than jackson as a returner... so don't get me wrong there... nothing gets my heart beating than seeing roscoe's blury legs as he runs...

When it comes to Thomas' speed... i'll say i've only watched 6 MICH state games total (which is more than most)... but what I see is he doesn't have that "burst" after the catch... take a look at Sweed... now I watch almost all of the texas' games b/c that's where my family lives and sweed has that "burst" after the catch... i'm not alone in this... everyone was SHOCKED at his combine 40 time... and really... meaning he doesn't play at that speed...

As far as verticals... i believe IF you're considered a top 5 WR... you should have a vertical in the 35" range... more than any other position, this stat is critical to WRs and an inch or two makes all the diff in the world... I never said Jackson had a good vertical... which is why I meant it barely is "within NFL range"...i was saying he's just ok....

If you've seen Thomas jump... you'll know that the 28" is more the reality during game time... Kelly is in the 37-38" range which is exceptional...

Now tell me, NFLDraftScout now has Thomas as the #1 WR... 4.4 is an outlier for him... and 28" vertical seems to be his game vertical... and as the #1 WR, does that seem so odd that I say its awful?... if he was the #6 or #9 WR, i'd say it was a non-issue... but the way our board is puffing up Thomas is unwarranted... that's my real ponit.

by osmanBAE on Mar 25, 2008 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

Good points. I'll take your word on it as I've only seen a couple of MSU games.

I do think Thomas' speed and burst are better than what you are giving him credit for.

I'm willing to bet his true game vertical is somewhere between the two measurements. I guess that's not all that great, but it's not like he's 5'10" out there.

If Kelly proves to be healthy and runs well, I think he'll jump right back to the top. I like Sweed the most still, but Thomas has grown on me.

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh yeah

one more thing... i believe Thomas is only used on KOR... Jackson has never done one KOR.. he's used exclusively for PR... so having a KOR avg over 20 is not that exceptional (although 30yrd per KOR is awesome, a stat I didn't know about)...for PR...if you avg 15yrds per PR, you're in the top 10 in the country.

by osmanBAE on Mar 25, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My first post

I might as well jump right into the deepend of the pool.Sweed is the only wr that I think will do anything in the league. Thomas is a nothig more than a punt returner and Kelly can't even spell healthy let alone stay healthy.Stay tuned for more moronic or brilliant statements.

by ThatGuy2 on Mar 25, 2008 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Way to be that guy

Thomas isn't even a punt returner!

Why do you like Sweed only?

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

punt returner

At least he called it.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 25, 2008 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gut Feeling

But if you look at the stregths his the only that finds holes in zones,red zone great hands etc. The only thing missing is a battered girlfriend, but thats a plus

by ThatGuy2 on Mar 25, 2008 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good Job

I agree with sireric that Harvey is the best value at 11, if DRC is gone. Faster impact. QB to WR usually takes time. If the goal is WR first pick, trade down. If not drops, Thomas. If not hurt, Kelly. If not caught, Hardy. Sweed, just not an 11. But he would be my man. I liked the Reese article. Does the WR win control of contested balls, fit your scheme, and does he get YAC? Great analysis. Given those, I change to Thomas. Many more great plays than drops. Why can he catch a ball coming at him but not always going with him? Second would be Hardy. Put him in the Bills locker room.

by keuka121 on Mar 25, 2008 8:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Target Practice

Maybe I am mistaken, but what good would Jackson's vertical be if he is 4-5 inches shorter than everyone else?

If Limas is 6'4" and jumps 37"(and has cool shoes on) is he not 9'5" in the air, with his arms stretched another 3 ft, for a total of 12'5"?

If Thomas jumps, he is 8'9" in the air, plus a 3 ft reach giving him 11'9"

If Malcolm Kelly jumps, he gets hurt, so he is not in the air. But if he lying on the ground he can still reach up 3 ft so I give him that

And if Desean Jackson jumps, he is 8'8" in the air, reaching up to 11'8".

by south123 on Mar 25, 2008 9:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

best post line ever

"if Malcolm Kelly jumps, he gets hurt, so he is not in the air"

I loved it. I cried I laughed so hard. It sounds like a doctor seuss line. haha.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Mar 25, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I loved it too

Well play south123, well played.

by Kurupt on Mar 25, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Devin Thomas

From Al's hot rumors:

"Michigan State WR Devin Thomas told Sirius NFL Radio that he has a good feeling about the Buffalo Bills organization after a recent visit with the team"

I'm not sure what that means, but I think Thomas is the guy that the Bills are targeting, that's my gut feeling anyway.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 26, 2008 7:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If our QB makes short throws consitantly,

then the bills will target a guy who has good RAC abililty, it does make sense. And everyone agrees that this guy seems to have the most potential to become great, whereas the others are more or less finished products. I'de be happy with Thomas.

by Lance in Germany on Mar 26, 2008 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like the idea of WR with 11th?

Is everybody comfortable taking one of the "big three" with the 11th overall? We all know its going to happen, but are you comfortable with it?

I guess I can be: the idea is to get the best player who will have the largest impact on the team. The best WR in the draft can definitely do that for the Bills.

But, no matter how you feel about grabbing that WR in round one, you must admit that, by scouting standards, it's going to be a reach. And if we take Thomas (I personally don't have that big of a problem with it if we do) it most certainly will be. I mean, Kiper will rip us, and he's a friggin genius.

I'm the jolly little baker and you'll find me on the label of Kaufman's Rye Bread

by DCRumbler on Mar 26, 2008 2:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs