drpatriot

Let me start off by saying that I don't believe that there is a major need at DB this season, especially because we have somewhere around 14 DBs on the roster at this point. With this in mind, I have a small bone to pick. It seems that majority of people on this board who have us taking a DB in a draft have us selecting Richard Marshall, usually around the 2nd round. My question for everyone is: why is there so much love for Marshall?

The reason that Marshall was originally put on someone's draft board is because he played Fresno State for Pat Hill, who coached under BB. We drafted two players from Fresno State last year, so it seemed plausible that we would draft Marshall this year. Though this logic is shaky, I can understand it. However, recently Marshall has been rising for no apparant reason. Why is this? Marshall only ran a 4.47 40 at his Pro Day, which is nothing spectacular. And according to Study of Draft Prospects with Stats (Pony's defensive prospect rankings, which were an excellent piece of work btw), Marshall, who played in a non-BCS conference, had only average stats in college, even compared to players in BCS conferences.

I just don't see the reasoning behind the love for Richard Marshall. If someone can explain it, I would really appreciate it.

__________________
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann

spacecrime

Marshall won't be around when we pick in second round.

Well, yeah, when your main criteria for setting up a draft board are 40 times, he isn't that hot, is he? Some players do not have good "measurables" but play very well, better than the workout warriors. Perhaps Marshall is one of these. Maybe Fasano is also.

drpatriot

I concede that there isn't necessarily a relationship between a low 40 time and success in the NFL. I also agree that workout warriors are overrated and that good workout stats should correlate with, not supersede, good college stats. However, I also don't believe that "immeasurables" really applies for the cornerback position because interceptions and pass deflections are what cornerbacks should be measured by. If a pass comes toward them, they should either deflect it or intercept it, period.

However, my main concern is still that he only managed 3 interceptions per year in a non-BCS conference. This doesn't show good field instincts or good hands. How do bad hands and bad instincts translate to success in the NFL?

__________________
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann

PATSNUTme

IBWT and S too.

BelichickFan

He might be. He very well might be. Heck, a draft guy I really respect had him available for us in the 3rd round.

spacecrime

Again, you are using stats solely to prove the worth of a player. Worse, you are using the lack of a particular stat (few interceptions) to "prove a player has both bad instincts and poor hands.

That is even sillier than using 40 times, in my opinion.

Many DTs have, and will continue to have, more sacks than Seymour. Does this mean Seymour has poor technique and no drive off the line? Of course not.

There are many variables to consider here, mostly how a player is used, and how he plays.

Delthea ONeil got lots of INTs by gambling a lot. Few remember all the times a WR he was covering got a TD. They just look at stat sheets. That is why I am not impressed with Ty Law's 10 INT's this year. Law is a great CB. He was not a better CB last year because he got more INTs.

Stats are fun, but you have to look at them in the context of the player involved, and the system involved. Troy Brown got 101 receptions in 2001. That's more than Branch got last year. So Branch runs bad routes and has bad hands? Maybe we only had two options in 2001, Brown and Patten. Last year we had a slew of WR's and three TE's who could catch. So each individual receiver's stats go down. When Brady throws TD passes to 11 or 12 players in a season, each player is going to catch less than if only 3 or 4 receivers catch TD passes.

Marshall may not be any good, I don't know. I always buy the draft guides (have ESPN, Sporting News and Street & Smith now, Kiper's on the way). I pay much less attention to 40 times, passes caught or defended, etc than I do the narrative describing how they play, and what their GAME strengths and weakness are.

For future Pats WR's, i look first for crisp route running, for TE's. must catch AND block, for CB's, must play the run effectively, be able to press, and recover well.

Stats are highly over-rated unless you take them in context. Jon Huston's career kicking stats aren't very good, but he really only kicked his freshman and senior years. He sucked his freshman year, and was great his senior year. So forget the "career" stats and focus on the senior stats.

Context is everything. When in doubt, ignore the stats and see how the palyer plays.

spacecrime

I overspoke. I should have said, "I sincerely doubt he won't be around in the second round."

Obviously I cannot say what will happen in the draft.

But I think if we want Marshall, we will have to trade up with the second round pick, or could trade down with the first.

Personally, I would take any of Marshall, hill, or Cromartie. Trade down and wait until only one is left, then trade up to the next spot and take whoever is left.

ice

I like Olb (lawson) at 21 and do like Marshal in the early second, but not sure of what it would take to move that far up. Also would it be worth two picks to move up for marshal?

thoughts

BelichickFan

No it's not worth trading up for Marshall. He may make it to our second pick anyway and if he doesn't there will be someone of equal quality.

Remember - very deep draft.

drpatriot

Obviously I give more appreciation to stats than you do, although I probably misspoke (miswrote?) when I said that this "shows" that he has bad hands and bad field vision. I should have said "suggests" that he has bad hands and bad field vision because there ARE factors other than measured stats, such as how many passes were thrown at targets he was covering, how many possible interceptions he dropped, how many touchdowns he allowed to receivers he was defending, and the context of his 68 tackles per season (run game/pass game).

The reason, of course, that I have used these stats is because they are the only firsthand basis that I have for evaluating Marshall as I have never seen him play. They may not tell the whole story, but they at least tell some of it. If someone who has seen Marshall play has any information that suggests that he is, in fact, much better than his stats imply could post here with some sort of analysis, that would be fantastic.

__________________
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann