Massaquoi to Bears?

[nfoligno]

Honestly, all the reach talk gets away from the point.

 

A player rising in value in the offseason is different from reaching for a player on draft day. Lets say that on draft day, we took Mossaquoi in the 2nd or 3rd round, and lets further say that on draft day, that is the general consensus of his value. But whether he is a perceived value or not on draft day isn't the issue. The issue is how much his value rose due not to his play on the field, but how he looked in the offseason in shorts.

 

That was my point all along. I question players who's value take dramatic rises in the offseason.

 

Its one thing for a minor school prospect who may do very well on the field, but flies under the radar due to the level of competition, but then looks good, for example, in the senior bowl or something. But Mossaquoi played for a big school, and if he wasn't in the spotlight, it wasn't because of the team he played on.

 

We entered the offseason, and few knew of him. Then we start to hear, "watch out for this player in the late rounds". Suddenly, he shows up at workouts, and in shorts puts on an impressive display, and his stock goes up. And it continues to climb for some reason until he is eventually talked about in the 2nd round. That is my issue. A guy who goes from being talked about as like a 5th or 6th round prospect leaping all the way to the 2nd or 3rd round, based not on his field play/production, but what he did in shorts.

 

That is simply different from draft day value or reaches. If we took him in, say, the 3rd round, it may not be viewed as a reach, as his stock has climbed that high. I simply have an issue w/ such a dramatic stock climb.

 

First things first: I'd be way happier to get Iglesias in round two than Massaquoi. Iglesias is faster, produced way more, has better hands, runs better routes, gets separation much more easily, etc etc. Check out their scouting reports on CBS Sports: they break down every receiver's game area by area. At the end, they compare Iglesias to Bobby Engram and Massaquoi to...Keary Colbert. Engram and Colbert were both mid-2nd-round picks, but I think we know who turned out to be a steal and who turned out to be a massive reach.

 

That's really my main point: I think it's a little pointless to debate the merits of reaching in general, rather than discussing a particular player and WHY he'd be considered a reach at that spot. Look at the guys on your list from small programs: Forte from Tulane, Tillman from Louisiana Lafayette, Manning from Abilene Christian. They were all considered reaches because of their level of competition: all three proved that they could be contributors (even Manning, now that he's at nickel) at the next level. So I'll put "level of competition" down as an OK reason to reach for a guy.

 

Look at the guys from big programs, and ask yourself why they dropped: Bradley had major injury concerns, Johnson was a huge character risk, Bazuin wasn't considered athletic enough to be a pass-rusher or strong enough to be a base end. Hester was the only guy with no red flag, aside from the fact that he was very raw and would need to learn a non-returner position.

 

Of those four, the questions about every single one of them turned out to be apt: Bradley couldn't get over his injuries, Johnson got in trouble with the law, Bazuin could never cut it as an NFL DE, and Hester is still learning his position. So you have to look at how much each player's issues hurt the team, and how much less valuable they were because of those issues.

 

In Hester's case, he could be considered less valuable because he could only contribute IMMEDIATELY at returner (which he did on a historic scale) and would need to learn to be a WR. That's an OK reason to reach for someone: look how it turned out for Chicago.

 

The other three, as it turns out, were considered less valuable for very good reason. That's why none of them are still on the team: they might have had some good points, but they couldn't contribute long-term because of the exact issues that were identified in the draft. Lesson learned: it's riskier to reach for someone who drops because of injuries, legal trouble, or physical inability to play his position. Massaquoi falls directly into that last category: if a wide receiver is a reach because he can't catch, don't reach for him.

[Stinger226]

Honestly, all the reach talk gets away from the point.

 

A player rising in value in the offseason is different from reaching for a player on draft day. Lets say that on draft day, we took Mossaquoi in the 2nd or 3rd round, and lets further say that on draft day, that is the general consensus of his value. But whether he is a perceived value or not on draft day isn't the issue. The issue is how much his value rose due not to his play on the field, but how he looked in the offseason in shorts.

 

That was my point all along. I question players who's value take dramatic rises in the offseason.

 

Its one thing for a minor school prospect who may do very well on the field, but flies under the radar due to the level of competition, but then looks good, for example, in the senior bowl or something. But Mossaquoi played for a big school, and if he wasn't in the spotlight, it wasn't because of the team he played on.

 

We entered the offseason, and few knew of him. Then we start to hear, "watch out for this player in the late rounds". Suddenly, he shows up at workouts, and in shorts puts on an impressive display, and his stock goes up. And it continues to climb for some reason until he is eventually talked about in the 2nd round. That is my issue. A guy who goes from being talked about as like a 5th or 6th round prospect leaping all the way to the 2nd or 3rd round, based not on his field play/production, but what he did in shorts.

 

That is simply different from draft day value or reaches. If we took him in, say, the 3rd round, it may not be viewed as a reach, as his stock has climbed that high. I simply have an issue w/ such a dramatic stock climb.

I dont think every thing is based on how he looks in shorts on the pre draft. I think they find out he much he might love the game, if he has football inteligence, he might be a stronger player than anticipated to handle the physicallity of the game. Other thoughts go into there opinion which might cause a player to rise. I think a strong point of a player is production and other than his last year, didnt show much in that area. Odds are if they werent producted in college they probably arent going to be in the pros. But there are a few they show better, like if they were on a dominating running team, may not have the stats. I think WRs are a crapshoot anyways, 12 picked in the second round last year and only two were productive. Although some may show up this year or next as a better player.

[Guest TerraTor]

Have you actually watched him in games? I haven't and there's not much on YouTube, so can you tell me what about his game you don't like?

 

 

drops way too many passes

[nfoligno]

I agree all that stuff you mention matters and is meaningful. And that is why players move up and down some in the offseason. But that does not explain (for me) a player jumping as much as Moss and some others.

 

Hey, I agree it is a crapshoot. But even in craps, you have different bets w/ different odds. A deal w/ tell you some bets are sucker bets. That doesn't mean they will never pay off. It just means your odds are worse. On the other hand, if you play the bets which have the best odds, again, you are guaranteed nothing. You simply have greater odds of hitting.

 

So I agree the draft is like craps, and it is all a crap shoot. But I also think that if you have a player like Mossaquoi who soars up the charts in the offseason, he is (to me) viewed more as a higher risk bet.

 

I dont think every thing is based on how he looks in shorts on the pre draft. I think they find out he much he might love the game, if he has football inteligence, he might be a stronger player than anticipated to handle the physicallity of the game. Other thoughts go into there opinion which might cause a player to rise. I think a strong point of a player is production and other than his last year, didnt show much in that area. Odds are if they werent producted in college they probably arent going to be in the pros. But there are a few they show better, like if they were on a dominating running team, may not have the stats. I think WRs are a crapshoot anyways, 12 picked in the second round last year and only two were productive. Although some may show up this year or next as a better player.

[Stinger226]

I agree all that stuff you mention matters and is meaningful. And that is why players move up and down some in the offseason. But that does not explain (for me) a player jumping as much as Moss and some others.

 

Hey, I agree it is a crapshoot. But even in craps, you have different bets w/ different odds. A deal w/ tell you some bets are sucker bets. That doesn't mean they will never pay off. It just means your odds are worse. On the other hand, if you play the bets which have the best odds, again, you are guaranteed nothing. You simply have greater odds of hitting.

 

So I agree the draft is like craps, and it is all a crap shoot. But I also think that if you have a player like Mossaquoi who soars up the charts in the offseason, he is (to me) viewed more as a higher risk bet.

Your right about that, if we could get him in the 4th, there is less valve at that pick so the risk is more worth taking. The 2nd round would be to high to me, but if the other top prospects are gone, as a second tier WR it may be an ok pick, just not at 2.

[Stinger226]

I agree all that stuff you mention matters and is meaningful. And that is why players move up and down some in the offseason. But that does not explain (for me) a player jumping as much as Moss and some others.

 

Hey, I agree it is a crapshoot. But even in craps, you have different bets w/ different odds. A deal w/ tell you some bets are sucker bets. That doesn't mean they will never pay off. It just means your odds are worse. On the other hand, if you play the bets which have the best odds, again, you are guaranteed nothing. You simply have greater odds of hitting.

 

So I agree the draft is like craps, and it is all a crap shoot. But I also think that if you have a player like Mossaquoi who soars up the charts in the offseason, he is (to me) viewed more as a higher risk bet.

At that spot, I would like to see Robiskie, but dont think he will be there. I think Nicks will be gone too, but think Britt could be there, and Iglesias. Which one would you take at that point?

[nfoligno]

Can I have R. Johnson?

 

I know that is not your question, but if there is in fact a run on WRs, that means other players are slipping a bit. My preference is always to avoid drafting at the backend of a run. Sometimes you can't avoid it, but I do not want to draft players who do not belong in the 2nd just because of a prior run on WRs.

 

I would also make this point. The more teams that draft a WR in front of us (1st and 2nd round) the fewer teams likely to draft WR after us. Thus, I would argue several of the WRs we may be talking about w/ our 2nd round pick could still be there in the 3rd.

 

But back to your question, as I know you would otherwise give me grief for my non-answer

 

I personally like Iglesias more than Britt. I am just not a fan of Britt. However, the general consensus is Britt is a FAR better talent. So if Britt were to slip to us in the 2nd, then he would be a far greater value, as well as a prospect w/ a considerably higher floor.

 

From pretty much day one, this has been my hope/value outlook

 

Nicks - 1st round

Robiskie - 2nd round

Iglesias - 3rd round

 

I think those three players are all somewhat similar in style, though the talent different dictates the round value. Now, Robiskie has risen, as has Iglesias, and we don't have a 1st. So at this point, I just pray Nicks or Robiskie slip to us. If not, I would still prefer to look at Iglesias in the 3rd, rather than reach for him in the 2nd.

 

 

At that spot, I would like to see Robiskie, but dont think he will be there. I think Nicks will be gone too, but think Britt could be there, and Iglesias. Which one would you take at that point?

[bradjock]

Can I have R. Johnson?

 

I'd be happy with him, but we'd need to make an effort in free agency to help correct the glaring weakness we have at WR.

 

I know that is not your question, but if there is in fact a run on WRs, that means other players are slipping a bit. My preference is always to avoid drafting at the backend of a run. Sometimes you can't avoid it, but I do not want to draft players who do not belong in the 2nd just because of a prior run on WRs.

 

Doesn't the first run start in the first round and likely end with Robiskie? Yes we would be jumping on the tail end of that run. But starting with Mossaquoi, there's supposed to be a 2nd round including Iglesias, Pat White, Derrick Williams, Ramses Barden, Louis Murphy, Deon Butler, Quinten Lawrence, and Massaquoi (that's based on Kiper's projections) So while we'd get the tail end of the first run, we'd be at the start of the 2nd run.

 

I would also make this point. The more teams that draft a WR in front of us (1st and 2nd round) the fewer teams likely to draft WR after us. Thus, I would argue several of the WRs we may be talking about w/ our 2nd round pick could still be there in the 3rd.

 

Maybe, but from 49 & 99 . . . that's one helluva a wait.

 

I think those three players are all somewhat similar in style, though the talent different dictates the round value. Now, Robiskie has risen, as has Iglesias, and we don't have a 1st. So at this point, I just pray Nicks or Robiskie slip to us. If not, I would still prefer to look at Iglesias in the 3rd, rather than reach for him in the 2nd.

 

Does Robiskie have the talent to really stretch the field? If he doesn't, my guess is we'll go with a guy who can. Hell, he could be available and we might pass on him.