Choice to make..who would you take

[patchick]

You can't honestly say he is the best in last five years. First of all, he hasn't even played a down in the NFL. Second, you have Vilma. Also, I would put Lofa Tatupu, Nick Barnett, and even last year's DROY DeMarco Ryans, also Andra Davis into consideration before simply labeling a guy the "best" when he hasn't proven anything. Just because he runs fast doesn't mean everything. Plus, many feel that he isn't big enough to play inside in 3-4 defense. He does possess physical talent and that's all you can conclude as of now.

That's all true, but to be fair you can only judge prospects against each other based on how good they looked before the draft. Odds are against Willis actually becoming the best ILB in a 5-year span, but you could make a decent case that he's the best all-around prospect at the position in some while. Remember that when Tatupu was drafted in the 2nd round it was considered a reach at the time! (And if you're knocking Willis based on size for the 3-4, you'd better drop guys like Vilma, Tatupu, Ryans and Barnett too...they're all smaller.)

 

[Clonamery]

That's all true, but to be fair you can only judge prospects against each other based on how good they looked before the draft. Odds are against Willis actually becoming the best ILB in a 5-year span, but you could make a decent case that he's the best all-around prospect at the position in some while. Remember that when Tatupu was drafted in the 2nd round it was considered a reach at the time! (And if you're knocking Willis based on size for the 3-4, you'd better drop guys like Vilma, Tatupu, Ryans and Barnett too...they're all smaller.)

It's just a rash statement. Period. He said, "he is only viable ILB in the draft."

How could anyone be fair in response. I am fairly ignorant in most matters but even I know an(y) argument in response is required.

 

[patchick]

It's just a rash statement. Period. He said, "he is only viable ILB in the draft."

He sure did, and I wouldn't defend that statement for a second. But that wasn't what was being argued. The responses were all about a different statement, that Willis is the best ILB to come around in five years. As long as you read that as best ILB prospect (because that's the only thing you can fairly compare at this point) I think it's an interesting question.

I'm not even the biggest Willis booster on the board, but I'm hard pressed to think of a recent ILB with a better combination of size, speed, athleticism, character and on-field production coming out of college. Who would you name?

 

[Clonamery]

He sure did, and I wouldn't defend that statement for a second. But that wasn't what was being argued. The responses were all about a different statement, that Willis is the best ILB to come around in five years. As long as you read that as best ILB prospect (because that's the only thing you can fairly compare at this point) I think it's an interesting question.

I'm not even the biggest Willis booster on the board, but I'm hard pressed to think of a recent ILB with a better combination of size, speed, athleticism, character and on-field production coming out of college. Who would you name?

My problem is I don't know if he is an ILB and not an MLB (only) so I can't support the statement either way. I'm just hoping he's off the board so the people in his corner don't have to deal with the anxiety.

 

[patchick]

My problem is I don't know if he is an ILB and not an MLB (only) so I can't support the statement either way. I'm just hoping he's off the board so the people in his corner don't have to deal with the anxiety.

Yeah, I'm not so sure he's an ideal ILB either, but I'd take the chance if he fell to 24. But I don't imagine the decision will ever come up, he should be long gone.

I have this sinking suspicion that I won't like anybody at 24.

 

[Clonamery]

Yeah, I'm not so sure he's an ideal ILB either, but I'd take the chance if he fell to 24. But I don't imagine the decision will ever come up, he should be long gone.

I have this sinking suspicion that I won't like anybody at 24.

I'd take the chance too.

I'm going along the line that they'll pull a Logan-Mankins-type-pick and trade out of the first (if they can) with the other pick. There's only a couple of players that fill our 'needs' that feel (ok) late first round to me but a lot more in the 2nd and 3rd with value and fill need.

 

[patchick]

I'm going along the line that they'll pull a Logan-Mankins-type-pick and trade out of the first (if they can) with the other pick.

That would be be my best guess too. The intriguing question: who is a "Logan Mankins type pick" in this draft? Mankins fit the Patriots profile to a T -- body type, approach to the game, college program he played in, etc. And he filled an obvious need on the team as well. He was a surprise for just two reasons: BB's past draft history at that position, and the general pundit consensus that he wasn't a good "value" at that slot. In round 2 he wouldn't have been a surprise at all...I had him on my short list and I'm sure many others did too.

It strikes me that one guy in this draft fits that entire description: David Harris.

 

[dryheat44]

He sure did, and I wouldn't defend that statement for a second. But that wasn't what was being argued. The responses were all about a different statement, that Willis is the best ILB to come around in five years. As long as you read that as best ILB prospect (because that's the only thing you can fairly compare at this point) I think it's an interesting question.

I'm not even the biggest Willis booster on the board, but I'm hard pressed to think of a recent ILB with a better combination of size, speed, athleticism, character and on-field production coming out of college. Who would you name?

AJ Hawk - No contest. And yes, I would put him at ILB. That makes Willis the best ILB prospect to come along in 1 year.

 

[patchick]

AJ Hawk - No contest. And yes, I would put him at ILB. That makes Willis the best ILB prospect to come along in 1 year.

Holy smokes, I completely forgot about Hawk. Must be an aftereffect of spending the entire draft season trying hard not to think of him, because I knew the Pats didn't have a shot at him!

Yes, I would take Hawk straight out of school over Willis straight out of school.

 

[sebman2112]

Funny thing is, Hawk was 6'1" & 240lbs coming out. He was also slower than Willis. This is not a knock on Hawk though, I'm just pointing out his size. I should also note that Hawk current weighs in at 247lbs, so he is about the same size as Bruschi. I think Willis has the frame to play even bigger, and still be faster than Hawk.

 

[everlong]

It strikes me that one guy in this draft fits that entire description: David Harris.

How funny would it be if Willis and Nelson were still on the board at 24 and the Pats trade out to the second round where they take Harris and also pick up a first rounder in 08?

I wouldn't be shocked.

 

[patchick]

Funny thing is, Hawk was 6'1" & 240lbs coming out. He was also slower than Willis. This is not a knock on Hawk though, I'm just pointing out his size. I should also note that Hawk current weighs in at 247lbs, so he is about the same size as Bruschi. I think Willis has the frame to play even bigger, and still be faster than Hawk.

Are we looking at different numbers? Hawk weighed in at 248 at the combine, and while his sprints were a smidgen slower than Willis his quickness/change of direction numbers were MUCH faster. Hawk ran a 3.96 shuttle, 6.82 cone...great numbers for a cornerback! Willis ran 4.46, 7.23 on the same surface.

Of course, it's not like we actually have the choice between the two. But I believe Hawk was the heavier, stronger and more athletic prospect, better suited to the Pats 3-4.

 

[sebman2112]

Are we looking at different numbers? Hawk weighed in at 248 at the combine, and while his sprints were a smidgen slower than Willis his quickness/change of direction numbers were MUCH faster. Hawk ran a 3.96 shuttle, 6.82 cone...great numbers for a cornerback! Willis ran 4.46, 7.23 on the same surface.

Of course, it's not like we actually have the choice between the two. But I believe Hawk was the heavier, stronger and more athletic prospect, better suited to the Pats 3-4.

I don't really care about Combine and Pro Day weight. Hawk played at 238-240lbs in college. Check the OSU website, or Scout.com.

Willis started to gain weight (242 at the combine), but lost a few pounds so he could post those 4.37/4.38 - 40 times, great times for a WR!

I would also say that Hawk's 4.65/4.68 - 40 time is a little bit more than a smidgen slower than Willis' 4.51(combine), or Willis' 4.37 Pro Day 40 time

At his Pro Day Willis also ran a 4.37 shuttle, and a 7.10 three cone.

That initial post was more in response to the people who think Willis is to small, not at your liking Hawk. I like Hawk too.

 

[patchick]

That initial post was more in response to the people who think Willis is to small, not at your liking Hawk. I like Hawk too.

Fair enough!

but psst...Hawk ran 4.59 at the combine vs. 4.51 for Willis. heck, we could do this all day!

 

[pats63]

That is such a ******ed question, I'm going to let my personal assistant Bill Belichick answer it!

Brother I agree with you 100%....WTF is that the most stupid question posted today

 

[sebman2112]

Fair enough!

but psst...Hawk ran 4.59 at the combine vs. 4.51 for Willis. heck, we could do this all day!

No, he ran a 4.65, and a 4.68
http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=122&p=2&c=506664
http://forum.ninercaphell.com/archive/index.php?t-503.html

Now he did run fast at his Pro Day, but every one of OSU's prospects ran extremely fast that day Willis' 4.37 was still faster though

Also, the initial Combine 40 for Willis was reported as 4.49, and 4.50, but the adjusted time was 4.51.