James Caseys highlight vid

[Chocolate Lab]

He looks like a WR to me.

I agree. Honestly, I'm kind of underwhelmed now that I've seen the video. Not sure I see anything that special about him... Mostly he shows really good hands, which is nice, but I don't see great power once he catches it or anything else that jumps out. Some of those little moves are nice, but a bunch of those best ones are against SMU, which these days is about like a high school team. I know he's an excellent all-around athlete, but that doesn't matter as much once you have to focus on one job in the NFL.

I just wonder where he would fit in with us. He looks like a perfect Richie Anderson type fullback like Parcells likes... Could we be trying to entice the Fins into a trade up with us during the draft, maybe for that high 3rd rounder?

 

[Maxmadden]

Jack of all trades master of none? Too tall to be a full back. TE or H-Back "project" but we wouldn't be able to get him on the field with our current roster.

Maybe if he slides we could take a chance, but rumors are round 2 or 3.

 

[Big Dakota]

Miami has 25,44 & 56 and it sound like they want him. Having two #2's they can afford to throw an early pick at the kid. Unless we over draft him @ 51 chances are he'll be gone by 69.

 

[CATCH17]

Miami has 25,44 & 56 and it sound like they want him. Having two #2's they can afford to throw an early pick at the kid. Unless we over draft him @ 51 chances are he'll be gone by 69.

I don't know if we'd be overdrafting him.


Plus crazy things usually happen in the 2nd round that just throws the rest of the draft for an entire loop.


It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this guy because I think he's on a lot of teams radars going into Saturday.

 

[Shinywalrus]

Doesn't seem like a perfect fit for us, and doesn't seem like a great physical fit for a traditional fullback position...but someone who could take both Ladouceur and Anderson's roster spot and free up for an additional OL/DB/WR could potentially be worth a #3/#4.

I admit I'm a little intrigued by the idea of having Roy Williams, Jason Witten, Martellus Bennett and a guy like Casey on the field at the same time, though...

 

[Rush 2112]

Doesn't seem like a perfect fit for us, and doesn't seem like a great physical fit for a traditional fullback position...but someone who could take both Ladouceur and Anderson's roster spot and free up for an additional OL/DB/WR could potentially be worth a #3/#4.

I admit I'm a little intrigued by the idea of having Roy Williams, Jason Witten, Martellus Bennett and a guy like Casey on the field at the same time, though...

All of our targets are tall.

If anything we need a small/quick WR to play the slot and return punts.

 

[Shinywalrus]

All of our targets are tall.

If anything we need a small/quick WR to play the slot and return punts.

The punt return thing I'll grant you, but I've yet to see any real evidence that offenses need "different" types of receivers to be successful. It's become sort of an ethos, not only around here, but in a lot of conversations on the internet and with television pundits. "You need a big target and a small, fast target!"

There's just no evidence of it. A receiver who can create enough separation to induce safeties to play a yard or two deeper in coverage is a necessity, but being small and fast is not the only way to get that.

New England has been successful with no bulky receivers at all. The Colts have never really had extremely bulky receivers, but love their prototype 6' 190, 4.45 route runners. The Cardinals have been successful with their big, slightly slower-than average corps of receivers fitting a similar mould.

I'd love a punt returner that could also play receiver, and granted, a lot of those will tend to be small, agile, types, but where is all the evidence that there's any value to doing anything but selecting the more skilled receiver, regardless of whether he's "different" from your existing guys? Because there's plenty of evidence that teams have made it work without that balance.

 

[Rush 2112]

The punt return thing I'll grant you, but I've yet to see any real evidence that offenses need "different" types of receivers to be successful. It's become sort of an ethos, not only around here, but in a lot of conversations on the internet and with television pundits. "You need a big target and a small, fast target!"

There's just no evidence of it. A receiver who can create enough separation to induce safeties to play a yard or two deeper in coverage is a necessity, but being small and fast is not the only way to get that.

New England has been successful with no bulky receivers at all. The Colts have never really had extremely bulky receivers, but love their prototype 6' 190, 4.45 route runners. The Cardinals have been successful with their big, slightly slower-than average corps of receivers fitting a similar mould.

I'd love a punt returner that could also play receiver, and granted, a lot of those will tend to be small, agile, types, but where is all the evidence that there's any value to doing anything but selecting the more skilled receiver, regardless of whether he's "different" from your existing guys? Because there's plenty of evidence that teams have made it work without that balance.

Beautiful analysis.

How much seperation did our tall WR's get last year?

I seem to remember multiple commentators talking about how our WR's had trouble beating press coverage.

 

[BAT]

What makes anyone think Casey can play FB?

Has anyone seen him lead block?

How many times have you seen Deon Anderson lead block? Not a pretty sight right?


Anyway, you guys have made up your minds obviously. Let's just see what happens on draft day.

 

[Rush 2112]

How many times have you seen Deon Anderson lead block? Not a pretty sight right?


Anyway, you guys have made up your minds obviously. Let's just see what happens on draft day.

Felix 8.9 YPC, Choice 5.1, MBIII 3.7

MBIII was 4.8 in 2007.

Cricket must be doing something right.

 

[BAT]

Felix 8.9 YPC, Choice 5.1, MBIII 3.7

MBIII was 4.8 in 2007.

Cricket must be doing something right.

Those numbers are not indicative of Cricket's blocking or even of his presence. Half the time, he's not even on the field. And when he is, he's missing assignments.


Cricket was splitting a lot of time w/the H-Backs (Witten, Bennett, Curtis). If he was so good, he would get playing time. His playing time is indicative of his production. How many times did you see Moose off the field in the 90's? He was always on your TV screen doing something.

 

[CATCH17]

All of our targets are tall.

If anything we need a small/quick WR to play the slot and return punts.

Agree but not at the cost of a better football player.

This draft is very receiver heavy though and we could land a guy like Mike Wallace or Brandon Tate later on in the draft.

 

[CATCH17]

The punt return thing I'll grant you, but I've yet to see any real evidence that offenses need "different" types of receivers to be successful. It's become sort of an ethos, not only around here, but in a lot of conversations on the internet and with television pundits. "You need a big target and a small, fast target!"

There's just no evidence of it. A receiver who can create enough separation to induce safeties to play a yard or two deeper in coverage is a necessity, but being small and fast is not the only way to get that.

New England has been successful with no bulky receivers at all. The Colts have never really had extremely bulky receivers, but love their prototype 6' 190, 4.45 route runners. The Cardinals have been successful with their big, slightly slower-than average corps of receivers fitting a similar mould.

I'd love a punt returner that could also play receiver, and granted, a lot of those will tend to be small, agile, types, but where is all the evidence that there's any value to doing anything but selecting the more skilled receiver, regardless of whether he's "different" from your existing guys? Because there's plenty of evidence that teams have made it work without that balance.

Great post.

The #1 thing is to get a good player regardless of what his measurables are.

 

[Rush 2112]

Those numbers are not indicative of Cricket's blocking or even of his presence. Half the time, he's not even on the field. And when he is, he's missing assignments.


Cricket was splitting a lot of time w/the H-Backs (Witten, Bennett, Curtis). If he was so good, he would get playing time. His playing time is indicative of his production. How many times did you see Moose off the field in the 90's? He was always on your TV screen doing something.

You are correct........he only plays on special teams.

Must be the reason we've been pursuing so many FB's in the draft and FA the last 2 years.

[/sarcasm off]

 

[BAT]

Agree but not at the cost of a better football player.

This draft is very receiver heavy though and we could land a guy like Mike Wallace or Brandon Tate later on in the draft.

Or Dallas can trade a 5th for Parrish and not worry about it. We already know that Parrish would improve the return game 1000%. But he would have competition in the slot from Crayton & Felix.

 

[BAT]

You are correct........he only plays on special teams.

Must be the reason we've been pursuing so many FB's in the draft and FA the last 2 years.

[/sarcasm off]

Uh, Mosley says Dallas is looking at a FB now. Maybe you didn't notice it over your sarcasm.

 

[Rush 2112]

Uh, Mosley says Dallas is looking at a FB now. Maybe you didn't notice it over your sarcasm.

You must have missed the part where he doesn't play FB.

 

[Shinywalrus]

You are correct........he only plays on special teams.

Must be the reason we've been pursuing so many FB's in the draft and FA the last 2 years.

[/sarcasm off]

One might also consider that fullback is not an extraordinarily important position in our offense as currently implemented, and that even moderate increases over Anderson's performance would not usually merit more than a 7th or UFA flyer.

But if someone can add a completely different dimension, perhaps it becomes a different question.

Anderson is an above-average special teams player, a slightly below average run blocking fullback, and a significantly below average pass blocking fullback.

Considering the changes made to wedges in the rules meetings this year, if Deon is on the roster next year, I would be shocked.

 

[BAT]

You must have missed the part where he doesn't play FB.

Now you are just being obstinate. The Cowboys are looking at him at that position, are you registering that???


You may not like it, or understand it, but it is happening. Whether he is chosen by the Cowboys or not, they are still considering him at that position. As well as at QB (3rd string), Wildcat QB, Slot, LS and TE. They would not be doing their due diligence if they were not examining every option to make their team better.


Not sure why it has become so personal with you over this player, especially b/c he is one of the most hard working most productive most versatile players in the draft.

 

[Rush 2112]

Now you are just being obstinate. The Cowboys are looking at him at that position, are you registering that???


You may not like it, or understand it, but it is happening. Whether he is chosen by the Cowboys or not, they are still considering him at that position. As well as at QB (3rd string), Wildcat QB, Slot, LS and TE. They would not be doing their due diligence if they were not examining every option to make their team better.


Not sure why it has become so personal with you over this player, especially b/c he is one of the most hard working most productive most versatile players in the draft.

I don't have a problem with him at all.

I actually like him a lot.

I'm all for drafting another TE since run a 2 TE offense and need depth.

Problem is this moving him to FB issue.

Doesn't usually work, if ever.

And it especially isn't going to work with a TE who is really more of a pumped up WR.

Tried it with James Whalen and it didn't work.

There is some smallish TE every year or so who is a great receiver that is going to transition to FB in the NFL.

Doesn't happen.