manxman2601
PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 30,077
- Reaction score
- 25,532
That probably got your attention. Actually I'm not trying to argue that right now this is the case. I am however interested in discussing their value for the Pats relative to their draft slot. Consider:
Akiem Hicks:
6'5''
318 lbs
35 1/8'' arms
Michael Beockers:
6'5''
322 lbs
35'' arms
In this respect then, there is no real difference between the two.
On to the combine:
40 time:
Hicks: 5.23
Brockers: 5.36
Shuttle:
Hicks: 4.86
Brockers 4.81
3-Cone:
Hicks:7.75
Brockers 7.46
Vert:
Hicks: 31.5
Brockers: 26.5
Broad:
Hicks: 9'0''
Brockers: 8'9''
Bench:
Hicks: 26
Brockers: 21
So whilst generally their numbers are close, Brockers looks to be the more fluid athlete whilst Hicks is the stronger and slightly more explosive and I know which of those values I'd rather have in a DT.
Now the main reason for raising this point is that (according to Twitter), Michael Lombardi said yesterday that Hicks was regarded as a better prospect at LSU than Brockers. I didn't see the comment so I'm unclear on the context. Now I acknowledge that Brockers has spent longer in a quality program than Hicks with the coaching that that entails. But that has hardly led to an every down guy. Brockers has the ability to get on the field early for the Patriots as a run down DE/DT. However, if LSU were taking him off the field on passing downs, it's unlikely that BB will leave him on the field in the same situation. And we already have someone on the line adept at defending the run in Kyle Love. Do we really need Brockers to perform the same function as Love, particularly if it requires a significant trade up in the first to achieve it?
That leads us on to upside. Is there anything about Michael Brockers to suggest that he has the upside to be anything other than a run stuffer? I don't know but if talent, physical size and combine measurables are the best way to predict upside, I don't see Brockers having greater upside than Hicks - they're almost exactly the same at all 3.
In summary then, Brockers' only advantage over Hicks is longer spent in a quality coaching environment and the ability to be on the field more in year one albeit in a limited capacity. But there's little difference between them in terms of upside. On the other hand, Brockers would most likely require the use of two premium draft picks and the passing over of other quality prospects. Hicks on the other hand is likely to go between rounds four and six.
so my question is, is there really a value advantage in drafting Michael Brockers over taking Akiem Hicks?
Edit:
I'm not trying to suggest that Hicks should be a first rounder or that Brockers doesn't deserve his grade. I'm not trying to pull a Derek Wolfe/Jake Bequette here. I have no reason to contend their respective grades. What I'm suggesting is that if Brockers is limited initially to rushing downs and has no greater upside than Hicks (which of course is debatable), does the significant cost of drafting Brockers represent better value than drafting Hicks?
I fully expect to get slated for suggesting this
Akiem Hicks:
6'5''
318 lbs
35 1/8'' arms
Michael Beockers:
6'5''
322 lbs
35'' arms
In this respect then, there is no real difference between the two.
On to the combine:
40 time:
Hicks: 5.23
Brockers: 5.36
Shuttle:
Hicks: 4.86
Brockers 4.81
3-Cone:
Hicks:7.75
Brockers 7.46
Vert:
Hicks: 31.5
Brockers: 26.5
Broad:
Hicks: 9'0''
Brockers: 8'9''
Bench:
Hicks: 26
Brockers: 21
So whilst generally their numbers are close, Brockers looks to be the more fluid athlete whilst Hicks is the stronger and slightly more explosive and I know which of those values I'd rather have in a DT.
Now the main reason for raising this point is that (according to Twitter), Michael Lombardi said yesterday that Hicks was regarded as a better prospect at LSU than Brockers. I didn't see the comment so I'm unclear on the context. Now I acknowledge that Brockers has spent longer in a quality program than Hicks with the coaching that that entails. But that has hardly led to an every down guy. Brockers has the ability to get on the field early for the Patriots as a run down DE/DT. However, if LSU were taking him off the field on passing downs, it's unlikely that BB will leave him on the field in the same situation. And we already have someone on the line adept at defending the run in Kyle Love. Do we really need Brockers to perform the same function as Love, particularly if it requires a significant trade up in the first to achieve it?
That leads us on to upside. Is there anything about Michael Brockers to suggest that he has the upside to be anything other than a run stuffer? I don't know but if talent, physical size and combine measurables are the best way to predict upside, I don't see Brockers having greater upside than Hicks - they're almost exactly the same at all 3.
In summary then, Brockers' only advantage over Hicks is longer spent in a quality coaching environment and the ability to be on the field more in year one albeit in a limited capacity. But there's little difference between them in terms of upside. On the other hand, Brockers would most likely require the use of two premium draft picks and the passing over of other quality prospects. Hicks on the other hand is likely to go between rounds four and six.
so my question is, is there really a value advantage in drafting Michael Brockers over taking Akiem Hicks?
Edit:
I'm not trying to suggest that Hicks should be a first rounder or that Brockers doesn't deserve his grade. I'm not trying to pull a Derek Wolfe/Jake Bequette here. I have no reason to contend their respective grades. What I'm suggesting is that if Brockers is limited initially to rushing downs and has no greater upside than Hicks (which of course is debatable), does the significant cost of drafting Brockers represent better value than drafting Hicks?
I fully expect to get slated for suggesting this