dawhizz Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Sorry if this has already been posted, but Draft Party (http://www.youtube.com/user/DraftParty) has put together videos of the top WR prospects in the draft, which is helpful for those of us who haven't seen much of them in college: Michael Crabtree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ySmg1f8ZSM Jeremy Maclin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA619-10IIM Darrius Heyward-Bey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjaBWuo4zA Percy Harvin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34--XTjboDI Kenny Britt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a98USWn8dG0 Hakeem Nicks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWakmo3_m2s Brian Robiskie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urUgs3FeiGc Juaquin Iglesias http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qGtpemtA08 I realize it's a small sample size, but the two I was most impressed with (besides Crabtree of course) were Nicks and Robiskie. Nicks made everything look really easy the way that you want your WR to do (didn't fight the ball, didn't let catching the ball affect his stride, etc) and that behind-the-back catch was ridiculous. I'm actually warming to him at #18. On Robiskie, I'm starting to think that a more accuracte QB at Ohio State would have pushed him up another round. On one of the plays (around 0:35), he has a faster DB on him, he slows down like he's going to have to go back to the ball, causing the DB to slow down too, then at the last moment he gets a burst and springs forward to make the catch. That's a really savvy, veteran move that not a lot of college WRs do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Nicks and Robiski are two of my favorite WRs in the draft. The problem that I see is in terms of draft day value. While I have warmed up considerably to the idea of Nicks at 18, I am simply not sure the staff would agree as I am not sure many would consider him a solid value at 18. As for Robiski, I am not sure he makes it to our 2nd pick, but would be a HUGE reach at 18. Sorry if this has already been posted, but Draft Party (http://www.youtube.com/user/DraftParty) has put together videos of the top WR prospects in the draft, which is helpful for those of us who haven't seen much of them in college: Michael Crabtree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ySmg1f8ZSM Jeremy Maclin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA619-10IIM Darrius Heyward-Bey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjaBWuo4zA Percy Harvin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34--XTjboDI Kenny Britt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a98USWn8dG0 Hakeem Nicks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWakmo3_m2s Brian Robiskie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urUgs3FeiGc Juaquin Iglesias http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qGtpemtA08 I realize it's a small sample size, but the two I was most impressed with (besides Crabtree of course) were Nicks and Robiskie. Nicks made everything look really easy the way that you want your WR to do (didn't fight the ball, didn't let catching the ball affect his stride, etc) and that behind-the-back catch was ridiculous. I'm actually warming to him at #18. On Robiskie, I'm starting to think that a more accuracte QB at Ohio State would have pushed him up another round. On one of the plays (around 0:35), he has a faster DB on him, he slows down like he's going to have to go back to the ball, causing the DB to slow down too, then at the last moment he gets a burst and springs forward to make the catch. That's a really savvy, veteran move that not a lot of college WRs do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnesat Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Nicks and Robiski are two of my favorite WRs in the draft. The problem that I see is in terms of draft day value. While I have warmed up considerably to the idea of Nicks at 18, I am simply not sure the staff would agree as I am not sure many would consider him a solid value at 18. As for Robiski, I am not sure he makes it to our 2nd pick, but would be a HUGE reach at 18. I keep looking at Mock Drafts and where our picks are. Honestly I hate the 18th pick. I think that what is going to come down to on draft day is who drops, and if nobody drops like crabtree, or oher then who do the Bears go after. I think you are right and the staff won't reach. I am just not sure there is much option because it doesn't look like any of our potential first round picks could be anything but a reach. I am just not sure that the other WR's or db's available are worth the 18th pick, but you know what, Forte wasn't worth anybodies 18th pick last year. We got him in the second round, and I think if the draft were held again he wouldn't be there at 18. My point is this, we can't tell how they will turn out, but looking at how far back our second round pick is I don't think any of the guys above will be available except maybe Iglesius and he didn't impress me at all watching him at the senior bowl. I honestly think that if Nicks, Britt, or even depending on how the Bears rate him, Robiskie is there at 18 and the other guys (oher, crabtree, dhb, etc.) are not then we should take one of those three guys. I think they will make the biggest impact on the team and stand the best chance of looking like a good pick at the end of the season. I think we need to draft a WR that can start this year, and I don't think we can get an OL or a DB that stands a better chance of starting and making an impact this year and in the future with the 18th pick. I think in the second we can get an OT or OG or DB and the dropoff is going to be minimal. I am just scared that when looking at this deep WR class they will start to go before we pick in the first and will all be gone before we pick in the second. I will be sick to my stomach if we miss one of these 3 guys in the second by a couple of picks. Sorry for the long post, but I agree though and I don't think the staff will reach. I think at the end of the season we will look back at the available WR's we passed on and be sorry that we didn't reach for one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Nicks and Robiski are two of my favorite WRs in the draft. The problem that I see is in terms of draft day value. While I have warmed up considerably to the idea of Nicks at 18, I am simply not sure the staff would agree as I am not sure many would consider him a solid value at 18. As for Robiski, I am not sure he makes it to our 2nd pick, but would be a HUGE reach at 18. I'm very high on Robiskie after watching him in the Combine drills. He made everything look 10 times easier than most of the other WRs, and a lot of the balls that came his way were VERY badly thrown. Even before that ridiculous sideline catch, he was looking like he was already an NFL wideout, which none of the other guys (even DHB and Nicks, in my opinion) did. If we're going to be counting on a rookie to step in and contribute immediately, I think he's the one who could do it. I'm with you as far as our draft position: as I've said before, I'd love to see Chicago trade down in round 1 in exchange for moving up in round 2. One of the good OT prospects will still be around at the bottom of the 1st, and we don't need Monroe or Jason Smith, since their skillsets put them both pretty squarely at left tackle. I'd be hesitant to pick Robiskie at 18, but if we could trade up to 33 or 34 in the second, I'd take him in a heartbeat. If the Bears are going to reach at #18, though, I'd rather they "reach" for Robiskie or a guy like Jairus Byrd. If you're going to overpay somebody, better to overpay a guy who's more or less guaranteed to be a solid contributor. That's why I liked the Jake Long pick so much: yeah, Miami's paying a little too much for him and he's not totally spectacular, but he was a no-risk pick - they knew he'd be, at a minimum, very very good. With the amount of guaranteed money that guys in the first round get now, I'd take a higher floor over a higher ceiling any day. Robiskie might not have the potential that Maclin and DHB have, but those two could possibly end up being nothing in the NFL, and Robiskie seems guaranteed to be at least a very solid #2 receiver. You can gamble on guys with potential later on: if it's me, I'm giving the first-round money to the safest pick possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I'm very high on Robiskie after watching him in the Combine drills. He made everything look 10 times easier than most of the other WRs, and a lot of the balls that came his way were VERY badly thrown. Even before that ridiculous sideline catch, he was looking like he was already an NFL wideout, which none of the other guys (even DHB and Nicks, in my opinion) did. If we're going to be counting on a rookie to step in and contribute immediately, I think he's the one who could do it. I'm with you as far as our draft position: as I've said before, I'd love to see Chicago trade down in round 1 in exchange for moving up in round 2. One of the good OT prospects will still be around at the bottom of the 1st, and we don't need Monroe or Jason Smith, since their skillsets put them both pretty squarely at left tackle. I'd be hesitant to pick Robiskie at 18, but if we could trade up to 33 or 34 in the second, I'd take him in a heartbeat. If the Bears are going to reach at #18, though, I'd rather they "reach" for Robiskie or a guy like Jairus Byrd. If you're going to overpay somebody, better to overpay a guy who's more or less guaranteed to be a solid contributor. That's why I liked the Jake Long pick so much: yeah, Miami's paying a little too much for him and he's not totally spectacular, but he was a no-risk pick - they knew he'd be, at a minimum, very very good. With the amount of guaranteed money that guys in the first round get now, I'd take a higher floor over a higher ceiling any day. Robiskie might not have the potential that Maclin and DHB have, but those two could possibly end up being nothing in the NFL, and Robiskie seems guaranteed to be at least a very solid #2 receiver. You can gamble on guys with potential later on: if it's me, I'm giving the first-round money to the safest pick possible. That kind of "highest floor" theory is one of the reasons I'm intrigued by Max Unger from Oregon (who I mentioned in the "Outside the Box Prospects" thread). Here's a guy who has played LT and OC. He projects best to OC or OG, but seems to be able to at least be "in the mix" at either OT spot as well. Maybe he has the skills to be the starting OT opposite Williams. Certainly the mix of experience inside and outside suggests he deserves a look at RT if needed. But, ultimately, you may be able to stick him at your worst position and consider it an immediate upgrade and he provides true flexibility for the roster going forward. When you compare that with a pure OT like William Beatty who would be available at around the same time (late first round), but might have a difficult adjustment period if you moved him somewhere else (or just rot on the bench waiting for his chance), isn't Unger the more valuable pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 First, I can't say that I hate where we pick. Seriously, that seems to be what fans say every year, and I once did myself. No matter where we picked, it was bad. If we picked 5th, fans would say the draft was 4 deep. Pick 4, it is 3 deep. I have come to believe that it doesn't matter where you draft, but simply how you draft. Angelo has had two top 10 picks, yet it was a pick at 14 that was his best. 2nd best? 31st pick in the 1st round. So to me, it really doesn't matter where you pick, but simply how you pick. Second, over the years, I have changed my opinion on reaches. Once, I ranted and railed if it seemed we reached even a tad for a player. More than anything, value was key. I would argue that if you wanted a player who was a reach, trade down and get him in a slot which offered better value. But over the years I have changed because (a) I believe I have seen examples of when we traded down for a player/position, but then who we wanted was gone, and we were left w/ something less and ( I have seen when others (and even we) have reached (public opinion) for a player, but that player was who the team wanted, they got, and few today consider them reaches, or even remember the team reaching. Examples of when I believe we traded down and didn't get who we wanted. Many would argue, but it is simply what I believe. 1999 - We had what, the 7th pick in the draft. The top 3 QBs were taken 1-2-3, and we traded down looking to get "our" QB for a better value. We drafted Cade that year at #12. IMHO, we were targetting Culpepper, who was taken (obviously) by Minny one spot ahead of us. But few, if any, expected Minny to go after a QB. W/ Cunningham, Brad Johnson and even Jay Fiedler, their QB situation (at least short term) appeared set. It was believed Minny would look to add a player in the draft who would offer immediate impact. But they took Pepper instead, looking to the future. Our guys always said Cade is who they wanted, but what else are they supposed to say. IMHO, it was Pepper they were after, but once Minny took him, they went for Cade to save face. 2003 - Again, we have a top 10 pick (4th) and trade down. IMHO, we were looking to get one of the many DTs who were so highly ranked in the draft. While that didn't translate in the NFL, there were 4 DTs who were graded out as top 10 picks, as well as Suggs, who many had us taken as high as 4th. IMHO, w/ so many DL in the draft, I think we traded down thinking we could get extra pick(s) (received an extra 1st for the trade) and get one of the guys we wanted for better value. But then there was a run on DL, where 5 were taken between the 4th and 12th picks. In fact, when it came time for us to pick, we traded down another spot, IMHO, because all the guys we liked were taken. We then took Haynes at 14 and Rex at 22. I have also wondered over the years if it was Boller we liked, or Rex, but that doesn't matter. IMHO, the key here was DL, and I think we didn't get our man after trading down. Now, our man likely was a bust anyway, but still. That's not the point. 2006 - I know few are going to agree, and so much of what Angelo has said over the years sure makes it sound like DM was our target all along, but I have always believed he wasn't. That year, I think we were really after a LB. Briggs was due to hit FA, and many felt we were not going to be able to keep him, and we nearly were not. So much of our defense had come to rely on the LB duo that I believe we were after one of the many LBs who were projected in the late 1st, early 2nd. To that point, they were all still on the board. But after we traded down, 4 LBs went w/in the first 6 picks of the 2nd round: DeMeco RyansD'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh and Thomas Howard. I have always believed it was one of these LBs (or several) we were targetting, but didn't anticipate such a run on LBs, and thus all were off the board before our traded down pick was due, thus we drafted a little known player in Daniel Manning. The other side of this is when a team appears to reach for a player, but does so w/o a 2nd thought. The A#1 time I saw this, and the time I really began to 2nd guess the idea of value, was in 2002. Far and away, the player in the draft I wanted was Dwight Freeney. At the time, he was considered a late 1st round value, and thus I thought he would be there for us. Then his stock began to rise, and it was believed he would go in the early to mid 20s, thus I began to scream to move up and get him. Well, I screamed for nothing. Indy shocked everyone by taking him at 11, which was considered a huge (10 spot or more) reach. Dungy didn't seem to care. He said Freeney was the player they felt they had to have. They knew he would never make it to their 2nd round pick. When asked why he didn't trade down, he said it wasn't worth the risk. Getting a player at for better value was simply not worth the risk of losing out all together on the player they really wanted. Thus they "reached" for a player in 2002, and I think few today even remember that. An example I would throw out there for the bears is Hester. Some would argue other teams had interest in him to, near our pick, so many he wasn't a reach. I would argue he was a reach, but more teams than we were willing to reach to get him. Regardless, he took him and while so many (including myself) felt he was a reach then, how many even think about the round he was drafted in, much less where, much less whether he was a reach or not. Today, we only think about what he has done on the field. I am not saying we should take a late 2nd round value in the mid/late 1st round. But I do not scream as much about reaching and value as I once did. If Nicks (for example) is a player who our staff loves, who our staff believes can really make a significant difference on the team, but may be considered by most a reach, so what. Take the player and let those critics talk to you when the guy is putting up 1,000 yards. And if he is a bust, does it really matter if he was a reach or not. Then the story is only about how your 1st round pick was a bust, not whether he was a reach or not. I keep looking at Mock Drafts and where our picks are. Honestly I hate the 18th pick. I think that what is going to come down to on draft day is who drops, and if nobody drops like crabtree, or oher then who do the Bears go after. I think you are right and the staff won't reach. I am just not sure there is much option because it doesn't look like any of our potential first round picks could be anything but a reach. I am just not sure that the other WR's or db's available are worth the 18th pick, but you know what, Forte wasn't worth anybodies 18th pick last year. We got him in the second round, and I think if the draft were held again he wouldn't be there at 18. My point is this, we can't tell how they will turn out, but looking at how far back our second round pick is I don't think any of the guys above will be available except maybe Iglesius and he didn't impress me at all watching him at the senior bowl. I honestly think that if Nicks, Britt, or even depending on how the Bears rate him, Robiskie is there at 18 and the other guys (oher, crabtree, dhb, etc.) are not then we should take one of those three guys. I think they will make the biggest impact on the team and stand the best chance of looking like a good pick at the end of the season. I think we need to draft a WR that can start this year, and I don't think we can get an OL or a DB that stands a better chance of starting and making an impact this year and in the future with the 18th pick. I think in the second we can get an OT or OG or DB and the dropoff is going to be minimal. I am just scared that when looking at this deep WR class they will start to go before we pick in the first and will all be gone before we pick in the second. I will be sick to my stomach if we miss one of these 3 guys in the second by a couple of picks. Sorry for the long post, but I agree though and I don't think the staff will reach. I think at the end of the season we will look back at the available WR's we passed on and be sorry that we didn't reach for one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnesat Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Thank you. you said it much better than I did. I actually had posted about Hester and how that worked out for us though it was considered a reach, and Indy and how we should take a page from there draft book, but I deleted it. I live right outside Indianapolis so I see the Colts doing that all the time. They value a player and take them despite what the critics say. Gonzalez, when nobody thought they needed a receiver, I believe Addai was also kind of a surprise pick, and Freeney definitely was. I just hope Angelo doesn't overthink this time and that they take a player that they believe in to make a difference this year. First, I can't say that I hate where we pick. Seriously, that seems to be what fans say every year, and I once did myself. No matter where we picked, it was bad. If we picked 5th, fans would say the draft was 4 deep. Pick 4, it is 3 deep. I have come to believe that it doesn't matter where you draft, but simply how you draft. Angelo has had two top 10 picks, yet it was a pick at 14 that was his best. 2nd best? 31st pick in the 1st round. So to me, it really doesn't matter where you pick, but simply how you pick. Second, over the years, I have changed my opinion on reaches. Once, I ranted and railed if it seemed we reached even a tad for a player. More than anything, value was key. I would argue that if you wanted a player who was a reach, trade down and get him in a slot which offered better value. But over the years I have changed because (a) I believe I have seen examples of when we traded down for a player/position, but then who we wanted was gone, and we were left w/ something less and ( I have seen when others (and even we) have reached (public opinion) for a player, but that player was who the team wanted, they got, and few today consider them reaches, or even remember the team reaching. Examples of when I believe we traded down and didn't get who we wanted. Many would argue, but it is simply what I believe. 1999 - We had what, the 7th pick in the draft. The top 3 QBs were taken 1-2-3, and we traded down looking to get "our" QB for a better value. We drafted Cade that year at #12. IMHO, we were targetting Culpepper, who was taken (obviously) by Minny one spot ahead of us. But few, if any, expected Minny to go after a QB. W/ Cunningham, Brad Johnson and even Jay Fiedler, their QB situation (at least short term) appeared set. It was believed Minny would look to add a player in the draft who would offer immediate impact. But they took Pepper instead, looking to the future. Our guys always said Cade is who they wanted, but what else are they supposed to say. IMHO, it was Pepper they were after, but once Minny took him, they went for Cade to save face. 2003 - Again, we have a top 10 pick (4th) and trade down. IMHO, we were looking to get one of the many DTs who were so highly ranked in the draft. While that didn't translate in the NFL, there were 4 DTs who were graded out as top 10 picks, as well as Suggs, who many had us taken as high as 4th. IMHO, w/ so many DL in the draft, I think we traded down thinking we could get extra pick(s) (received an extra 1st for the trade) and get one of the guys we wanted for better value. But then there was a run on DL, where 5 were taken between the 4th and 12th picks. In fact, when it came time for us to pick, we traded down another spot, IMHO, because all the guys we liked were taken. We then took Haynes at 14 and Rex at 22. I have also wondered over the years if it was Boller we liked, or Rex, but that doesn't matter. IMHO, the key here was DL, and I think we didn't get our man after trading down. Now, our man likely was a bust anyway, but still. That's not the point. 2006 - I know few are going to agree, and so much of what Angelo has said over the years sure makes it sound like DM was our target all along, but I have always believed he wasn't. That year, I think we were really after a LB. Briggs was due to hit FA, and many felt we were not going to be able to keep him, and we nearly were not. So much of our defense had come to rely on the LB duo that I believe we were after one of the many LBs who were projected in the late 1st, early 2nd. To that point, they were all still on the board. But after we traded down, 4 LBs went w/in the first 6 picks of the 2nd round: DeMeco RyansD'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh and Thomas Howard. I have always believed it was one of these LBs (or several) we were targetting, but didn't anticipate such a run on LBs, and thus all were off the board before our traded down pick was due, thus we drafted a little known player in Daniel Manning. The other side of this is when a team appears to reach for a player, but does so w/o a 2nd thought. The A#1 time I saw this, and the time I really began to 2nd guess the idea of value, was in 2002. Far and away, the player in the draft I wanted was Dwight Freeney. At the time, he was considered a late 1st round value, and thus I thought he would be there for us. Then his stock began to rise, and it was believed he would go in the early to mid 20s, thus I began to scream to move up and get him. Well, I screamed for nothing. Indy shocked everyone by taking him at 11, which was considered a huge (10 spot or more) reach. Dungy didn't seem to care. He said Freeney was the player they felt they had to have. They knew he would never make it to their 2nd round pick. When asked why he didn't trade down, he said it wasn't worth the risk. Getting a player at for better value was simply not worth the risk of losing out all together on the player they really wanted. Thus they "reached" for a player in 2002, and I think few today even remember that. An example I would throw out there for the bears is Hester. Some would argue other teams had interest in him to, near our pick, so many he wasn't a reach. I would argue he was a reach, but more teams than we were willing to reach to get him. Regardless, he took him and while so many (including myself) felt he was a reach then, how many even think about the round he was drafted in, much less where, much less whether he was a reach or not. Today, we only think about what he has done on the field. I am not saying we should take a late 2nd round value in the mid/late 1st round. But I do not scream as much about reaching and value as I once did. If Nicks (for example) is a player who our staff loves, who our staff believes can really make a significant difference on the team, but may be considered by most a reach, so what. Take the player and let those critics talk to you when the guy is putting up 1,000 yards. And if he is a bust, does it really matter if he was a reach or not. Then the story is only about how your 1st round pick was a bust, not whether he was a reach or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I live right outside Indianapolis Me too, I about 20 miles NE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnesat Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Me too, I about 20 miles NE. Small world, yeah I live in Noblesville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 NFO - great post and I am also begining to feel the same way about the draft as you. It is the approach of getting good football players that teams like Baltimore, NE and Pittsburg seem to do deliberately and have just a way to draft well year after year. I just want our GM to go and get a player if he thinks that player is the guy that will make a positive impact on the team as soon as possible. I can not stand when a GM tries to be to cute or seems to be to passive in the draft. I am still urk that the Bears passed on FB Peyton Hillis last year when they had four 7 rounders. Since I live in Denver I hear alot about the Broncos non stop but when Shannahan moved up a few years ago to grab Cutler I absolutley loved that move mainly because he was putting his neck on the line and making a statement that this QB is someone to build a team around. I would be far more forgiving as a fan if our team missed on a player that believed in if it was their primary target and not the next best available becasue they were afraid to pull the trigger on a player value wise like Hester for example since. JA and Lovie had to fix the return game and thought he was the one and went and got him! With that being said I like Robiskie and Nicks the best and one could argue drafting both would make this team much better along with another OL. This team will not go anywhere until we get healthy on offense. We need to just tweak the Def a little but we will not have a chance to win a Superbowl with out getting a legit offense. Angelo's best attributes is that he seems to be very good at managing the cap and drafting Def now we just need to find the right personel for a good offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hakeem Nicks and Robiskie were impressive. Nicks Reminds me a lot of Anquan Boldin and he seems to be the perfect fit for what we need, a big possession type WR who always catches the ball. However, I'm not sure what he ran at the combine and I don't know about his intangibles...character etc. Whereas Robiskie seems much more of a sure thing. ...it seems Nicks ran a 4.54 at the combine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 According to this side, Nicks and Robiskie each ran a 4.49, though I have seen other sites liting Robiskie as high as 4.48 and Nick as low as 4.52. Regardless of any slight difference, from what i can tell, each are considered near identical in terms of speed. I think Nicks is more often graded higher, and that is likely as much about total production as it is simply about talent. Nicks set school freshman records his first year, then continue to see his numbers climb finishing w/ 1,200 yards and 12 scores this last year. Robiskie didn't really play until his junior year, when he then exploded. But his numbers went way down this past year, due (according to most) system changes on the team. But the point is, Robiskie has one good year to Nicks two or three. So while the two players are VERY similar, I think Nicks is usually graded out a bit higher due to the greater body of work. To me, that would appear to make Nicks seem like the safer bet or sure thing, though Robiskie could be viewed as the better value. I loke both, but I do like Nicks a bit more. Hakeem Nicks and Robiskie were impressive. Nicks Reminds me a lot of Anquan Boldin and he seems to be the perfect fit for what we need, a big possession type WR who always catches the ball. However, I'm not sure what he ran at the combine and I don't know about his intangibles...character etc. Whereas Robiskie seems much more of a sure thing. ...it seems Nicks ran a 4.54 at the combine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hakeem Nicks and Robiskie were impressive. Nicks Reminds me a lot of Anquan Boldin and he seems to be the perfect fit for what we need, a big possession type WR who always catches the ball. However, I'm not sure what he ran at the combine and I don't know about his intangibles...character etc. Whereas Robiskie seems much more of a sure thing. ...it seems Nicks ran a 4.54 at the combine. I like both Nicks and Robiskie as ending up being the best receivers out of the draft. I think there is a chance Robiskie could be there at two. Nicks ran a 4.48 at the combine. Another player I like is Britt/Rutgers, he moves well for a big guy and is quite strong. Robiskie is the 7th ranked receiver so he might be there at two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.