Wisconsin defensive end J.J. Watt turned in a fantastic workout at the combine

[cowboyjoe]

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-28/wisconsins-jj-watt-moving-up-draft-boards


http://dy.snimg.com/story-image/0/39/179004/21618-650-366.jpg
The one perhaps making the biggest impact, however, is Wisconsin's J.J. Watt. After watching Watt (6-5, 290) run the 40-yard dash in 4.78 seconds, NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock called him the "prototype" for a five-technique defensive end.

Wisconsin defensive end J.J. Watt runs a drill at the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, Monday, Feb. 28, 2011. (AP Photo) "I think one of the 3-4 teams will love him in the top half of the first round," Mayock said.

.....

The key numbers to remember are 7, 9 and 11. That's where the 3-4 teams such as San Francisco, Dallas and Houston select in the first round. One of those spots would be the peak of where Watt gets drafted.



Read more: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-28/wisconsins-jj-watt-moving-up-draft-boards#ixzz1FJXHcrs7

[Joe Rod]

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-28/wisconsins-jj-watt-moving-up-draft-boards


http://dy.snimg.com/story-image/0/39/179004/21618-650-366.jpg
The one perhaps making the biggest impact, however, is Wisconsin's J.J. Watt. After watching Watt (6-5, 290) run the 40-yard dash in 4.78 seconds, NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock called him the "prototype" for a five-technique defensive end.

Wisconsin defensive end J.J. Watt runs a drill at the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, Monday, Feb. 28, 2011. (AP Photo) "I think one of the 3-4 teams will love him in the top half of the first round," Mayock said.

.....

The key numbers to remember are 7, 9 and 11. That's where the 3-4 teams such as San Francisco, Dallas and Houston select in the first round. One of those spots would be the peak of where Watt gets drafted.



Read more: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-28/wisconsins-jj-watt-moving-up-draft-boards#ixzz1FJXHcrs7

So hard to pull the trigger at #9, but man the dude is exactly the type of player this team needs (mean).

[CATCH17]

So hard to pull the trigger at #9, but man the dude is exactly the type of player this team needs (mean).

I wouldn't be upset if we took him.

I love talented players who play with high energy.

[Sam I Am]

I wouldn't be upset if we took him.

I love talented players who play with high energy.

At #9 I would be. I just can't take a 3-4 DE at #9 unless you were getting someone like Suh, Seymour, or even Fairley. (Fairley on talent alone, I think he has bust potential due to being lazy)

[newlander]

At #9 I would be. I just can't take a 3-4 DE at #9 unless you were getting someone like Suh, Seymour, or even Fairley. (Fairley on talent alone, I think he has bust potential due to being lazy)


.......alot of you guys are settling IMHO. This guy is a top twenty pick, not a top ten pick. He's a nice, solid player with a great attitude, motor and work ethic who is a little undersized. So.....he reminds me of Leroy Glover back in the day. Nice, hard working team oriented dlineman. A top ten pick? NO.

[Portland Fanatic]

.......alot of you guys are settling IMHO. This guy is a top twenty pick, not a top ten pick. He's a nice, solid player with a great attitude, motor and work ethic who is a little undersized. So.....he reminds me of Leroy Glover back in the day. Nice, hard working team oriented dlineman. A top ten pick? NO.

He's not undersized at 6-5, 290 plus. He is very lean and strong and moves extremely well. He will not lose a step when he add's another 10 lbs. He is about the closet thing to a prototype 3-4 DE you can find. Glover was about 6-3 tops.

Assuming you were speaking of Watt?

[Cover 2]

.......alot of you guys are settling IMHO. This guy is a top twenty pick, not a top ten pick. He's a nice, solid player with a great attitude, motor and work ethic who is a little undersized. So.....he reminds me of Leroy Glover back in the day. Nice, hard working team oriented dlineman. A top ten pick? NO.
Are you kidding me? You're saying LaRoi Glover wasn't a top 10 pick?

I love JJ Watt, but he is not in Laroi Glover's league, and I've been touting him for the past 3 months.

[rash]

.......alot of you guys are settling IMHO. This guy is a top twenty pick, not a top ten pick. He's a nice, solid player with a great attitude, motor and work ethic who is a little undersized. So.....he reminds me of Leroy Glover back in the day. Nice, hard working team oriented dlineman. A top ten pick? NO.

Laroi Glover not a top ten pick? I'm pretty sure he was the heart of our front 7 back when we were statistically the number 1 defense in the league...

If I knew we were getting a player as productive as him, I'd go with that guy in a heartbeat.

[The Realist]

At #9 I would be. I just can't take a 3-4 DE at #9 unless you were getting someone like Suh, Seymour, or even Fairley. (Fairley on talent alone, I think he has bust potential due to being lazy)

A guy like Suh comes around every couple of decades or so. When you do find one he goes in the top 2.

How long do you think you will have to wait to see one at 9?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QT2-mRCgX0

[TheFinisher]

Love me some JJ Watt!;)

[TheCount]

I still don't want a DE at #9 unless it's Fairley. I might be willing to accept Cam Jordan, but #9 is too high for a 3-4 DE in such a deep class unless you're getting a truely elite prospect.

[InmanRoshi]

I'm trying my hardest to see the correlation between LaRoi Glover and JJ Watt.

......... it's not happening.

Let me try again.

..................................... nope, nothing.

And it's amazing how many of you claim a 3-4 DE isn't worth the #9 pick "because it's a waste" also wanted to "waste" our proven All Pro nosetackle by moving him out to defensive end.

[Sam I Am]

A guy like Suh comes around every couple of decades or so. When you do find one he goes in the top 2.

How long do you think you will have to wait to see one at 9?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QT2-mRCgX0

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I don't want a 3-4 DE in the top 10 unless he is like Suh. The fact that we are drafting at #9 doesn't matter. We could have the #10 pick in the draft and I wouldn't draft Watt with it. He isn't a top 10 pick. Suh and Fairley are. I'm on the fence about Dareus being a bonafide top 10 pick. The fact that he will play DE in a 3-4 is very damaging to how high he should be drafted IMO. He just isn't THAT dominate of a player.

[Sam I Am]

I'm trying my hardest to see the correlation between LaRoi Glover and JJ Watt.

......... it's not happening.

Let me try again.

..................................... nope, nothing.

And it's amazing how many of you claim a 3-4 DE isn't worth the #9 pick "because it's a waste" also wanted to "waste" our proven All Pro nosetackle by moving him out to defensive end.

A 3-4 DE is worth the #9 pick if his name is Suh. Not Watt.

[The Realist]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I don't want a 3-4 DE in the top 10 unless he is like Suh. The fact that we are drafting at #9 doesn't matter. We could have the #10 pick in the draft and I wouldn't draft Watt with it. He isn't a top 10 pick. Suh and Fairley are. I'm on the fence about Dareus being a bonafide top 10 pick. The fact that he will play DE in a 3-4 is very damaging to how high he should be drafted IMO. He just isn't THAT dominate of a player.

Would you take Ngata at 9?

[Sam I Am]

Would you take Ngata at 9?

Yes, and he would play NT and not DE. A NT has quite a bit more value to me than a 3-4 DE.

[TheFinisher]

Yes, and he would play NT and not DE. A NT has quite a bit more value to me than a 3-4 DE.

Would you pass on Richard Seymour at 9? Because that's who Watt is compared to.

[Sam I Am]

Would you pass on Richard Seymour at 9? Because that's who Watt is compared to.

I would take Seymour at #9.

People can say Seymour and Watt are comparable, but while I see some similarities, Watt isn't Seymour. I like Watt and would without question draft him in the first round. Just not with the 9th overall pick. I would trade back and grab him around 15 if I could. If I draft a DE in the top 10, he has to be a superstar. I think Watt is going to be really good, but not a superstar ala Seymour, Suh, Sapp, etc.

[The Realist]

Yes, and he would play NT and not DE. A NT has quite a bit more value to me than a 3-4 DE.

Ngata plays mostly DE for the Ravens and Gregg starts at NT.

Mt. Cody will be the starter in the future at NT.

Since NT is more valuable would you take Dareus at 9.

He can play NT no problem and will be 330+ before you know it.

[Sam I Am]

Ngata plays mostly DE for the Ravens and Gregg starts at NT.

Mt. Cody will be the starter in the future at NT.

Since NT is more valuable would you take Dareus at 9.

He can play NT no problem and will be 330+ before you know it.

Yeah, I noted Dareus and my thoughts on him being a top 10 pick in another thread. I'm actually on the fence about him.

[TheFinisher]

I would take Seymour at #9.

People can say Seymour and Watt are comparable, but while I see some similarities, Watt isn't Seymour. I like Watt and would without question draft him in the first round. Just not with the 9th overall pick. I would trade back and grab him around 15 if I could. If I draft a DE in the top 10, he has to be a superstar. I think Watt is going to be really good, but not a superstar ala Seymour, Suh, Sapp, etc.

Just curious, anything specifically about him you don't like or just a gut feeling? I get that with some prospects sometimes too.

I don't think he's on Suh's level, no one really is, but I think he's the best DL in the class. He has the measurables, production, work ethic,intensity, athleticism of a top 10 pick.... He's dominant at the LOS, has a variety of pass rush moves, has shown ability to rush the passer from both the outside and the inside. I mean after the combine I'm having a hard time finding any faults in this kid's game.

[Sam I Am]

Just curious, anything specifically about him you don't like or just a gut feeling? I get that with some prospects sometimes too.

I don't think he's on Suh's level, no one really is, but I think he's the best DL in the class. He has the measurables, production, work ethic,intensity, athleticism of a top 10 pick.... He's dominant at the LOS, has a variety of pass rush moves, has shown ability to rush the passer from both the outside and the inside. I mean after the combine I'm having a hard time finding any faults in this kid's game.

Actually, it's not that I don't like Watt. I really do. I think the kid is going to be a great player, I just don't think he is a superstar in the making playing a 3-4 DE position. If I am drafting top 10, I want a to try to get a guy that will be a big time difference maker.

In a different thread, I noted what positions I would take a top 10 player, what positions I would be hard pressed to take one, and what positions I would not ever take one. DE is a hard press position. I would need to know he was going to be one of the most dominate in the league at his position. I'm sold that Watt will be good, but the best 2 or 3 at his position? That I'm not sold on.

[TheCount]

Ngata plays mostly DE for the Ravens and Gregg starts at NT.

Mt. Cody will be the starter in the future at NT.

Since NT is more valuable would you take Dareus at 9.

He can play NT no problem and will be 330+ before you know it.

Dareus isn't half the athlete Nagta is.

And even with that, Nagta wasn't taken 9th overall.

This whole thing where you use hindsight to say whether a player would have been taken earlier is silly. Would you have taken Revis #9? Well of course now you would. Would you have taken Tom Brady #1 overall? Um, sure.

What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

[The Realist]

Dareus isn't half the athlete Nagta is.

And even with that, Nagta wasn't taken 9th overall.

This whole thing where you use hindsight to say whether a player would have been taken earlier is silly. Would you have taken Revis #9? Well of course now you would. Would you have taken Tom Brady #1 overall? Um, sure.

What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

I totally disagree with the assertion that Dareus isn't half the athlete Ngata is. I don't all of Dareus #'s but his 40, 10 yard split and 3 cone is better than Ngata's.

Dareus is clearly a better athlete than Taylor and Taylor matched or beat Ngata in everything but bench, and vert.

[CanuckCowboysFan]

Yes, and he would play NT and not DE. A NT has quite a bit more value to me than a 3-4 DE.

Ngata is a End at Baltimore.

[baj1dallas]

.......alot of you guys are settling IMHO. This guy is a top twenty pick, not a top ten pick. He's a nice, solid player with a great attitude, motor and work ethic who is a little undersized. So.....he reminds me of Leroy Glover back in the day. Nice, hard working team oriented dlineman. A top ten pick? NO.

So you don't think a 10 year starter, every down player with multiple probowls is good enough for #9? We should hold out for the sure fire HoFers? Like who?

[baj1dallas]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I don't want a 3-4 DE in the top 10 unless he is like Suh. The fact that we are drafting at #9 doesn't matter. We could have the #10 pick in the draft and I wouldn't draft Watt with it. He isn't a top 10 pick. Suh and Fairley are. I'm on the fence about Dareus being a bonafide top 10 pick. The fact that he will play DE in a 3-4 is very damaging to how high he should be drafted IMO. He just isn't THAT dominate of a player.

Your grading just doesn't make sense. How many dominant players come out in the draft every year? Maybe 3 in a good year? If you could get a player who would have a career like Hines Ward at #9, or Chad Clifton, or some other non glamorous guy that has a great career, isn't that a good deal?

[TheCount]

I totally disagree with the assertion that Dareus isn't half the athlete Ngata is. I don't all of Dareus #'s but his 40, 10 yard split and 3 cone is better than Ngata's.

Dareus is clearly a better athlete than Taylor and Taylor matched or beat Ngata in everything but bench, and vert.

I'm not just talking about the numbers.

[baj1dallas]

This whole thing where you use hindsight to say whether a player would have been taken earlier is silly. Would you have taken Revis #9? Well of course now you would. Would you have taken Tom Brady #1 overall? Um, sure.

What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

How can you say that it doesn't mean anything? If the Lions had been smart and drafted Ngata at #9 instead of Ernie Sims, think how good that line could be right now. Or certainly he could be playing in Buffalo or Green Bay but instead they went for more glamour positions and got burned.

[Sam I Am]

Your grading just doesn't make sense. How many dominant players come out in the draft every year? Maybe 3 in a good year? If you could get a player who would have a career like Hines Ward at #9, or Chad Clifton, or some other non glamorous guy that has a great career, isn't that a good deal?

Eh? Did you know Hines Ward would turn out to be the player he was? Considering he went in the 3rd round, (93rd overall) I'm not sure anyone was sold on him.

Besides, a WR has more impact on a game than a 3-4 DE so the point is moot. As for Chad Clifton, no I wouldn't have taken him with the #9th overall pick. Neither did Green Bay. (44th overall)

I think my drafting methodology is very sound. Specific positions are top 10 positions, (you consider anyone in that position to be draftable. Even if he isn't because of the position. Like a QB) there are some positions that if the player dictates they will be one of the best in the league, but it's not a top 10 position, you can then take them top 10. There are some positions that it doesn't matter how good that player is, you NEVER draft that position top 10. Like FBs, punters, kickers, etc.

[Bullflop]

A prolific DE like Watt would make the secondary's job much easier. I'm not necessarily for taking a DE in the first round but I wouldn't be disappointed in the least if he were taken. It may be a few spots too high for him but it's also very possible he's been undervalued, IMO.

[Sam I Am]

If we trade down. No way I take him at #9.

[InmanRoshi]

People have a very simplistic, cut and dried, 2 dimensional 1985 viewpoint of what a 3-4 DE is. 3-4 defenses in the future are going to require their DE's to move all around the line, playing 3 tech and doing a lot more penetrating in the backfield. We already see in with Rob Ryan in the Jets with the way he uses Shaun Ellis and Trevor Pryce, and the way he used Trevor Pryce in Baltimore, and in the way Green Bay used Cullen Jenkins. In the future Teams are going to get away from the strctly 5 tech two down guys like Igor and Spears, and get versatile guys who can play any varieity of gaps and techs, depending on the package and down and distance. The versatility required to play head up on the OT in a 5 tech on one snap, and then shift inside to a penetrating 3 tech on the following snap, or even slide inside between the guard and center in a 2 tech on nickel packages is going to require a lot of talent, and very few people are going to have the God Given ability to do it. It's going to be a premium posiiton.

[Cover 2]

People have a very simplistic, cut and dried, 2 dimensional 1985 viewpoint of what a 3-4 DE is. 3-4 defenses in the future are going to require their DE's to move all around the line, playing 3 tech and doing a lot more penetrating in the backfield. We already see in with Rob Ryan in the Jets with the way he uses Shaun Ellis and Trevor Pryce, and the way he used Trevor Pryce in Baltimore. In the future Teams are going to get away from the 5 tech two down guys, and get versatile guys who can play any varieity of gaps and techs, depending on the package and down and distance. The versatility required is going to be at a premium, and very few people are going to have the God Given ability to do it.
Agreed. In the NFL schemes are always evolving.

[Sam I Am]

People have a very simplistic, cut and dried, 2 dimensional 1985 viewpoint of what a 3-4 DE is. 3-4 defenses in the future are going to require their DE's to move all around the line, playing 3 tech and doing a lot more penetrating in the backfield. We already see in with Rob Ryan in the Jets with the way he uses Shaun Ellis and Trevor Pryce, and the way he used Trevor Pryce in Baltimore, and in the way Green Bay used Cullen Jenkins. In the future Teams are going to get away from the strctly 5 tech two down guys like Igor and Spears, and get versatile guys who can play any varieity of gaps and techs, depending on the package and down and distance. The versatility required to play head up on the OT in a 5 tech on one snap, and then shift inside to a penetrating 3 tech on the following snap, or even slide inside between the guard and center in a 2 tech on nickel packages is going to require a lot of talent, and very few people are going to have the God Given ability to do it. It's going to be a premium posiiton.

How about when Rob Ryan had a safety playing DE in one of those wild *** formations. :laugh2: