Scouting notes -- Notre Dame Off Ball LB, Jaylon Smith

[Superman]

http://draftbreakdown.com/players/jaylon-smith

 

Size: Listed at 6'2", 240 pounds, which is ideal size for an ILB. He has long limbs and a great frame, and could probably carry an additional 10 pounds in his base without sacrificing any athleticism. Looked bigger in 2015 than 2014. 4/5

 

Athleticism: Plenty athletic, straight line speed when he opens up and runs is more than adequate. He's explosive and shows burst when chasing/tracking, and has impressive closing speed, making him a rangy inside defender. Good change of direction ability, good lateral movement, converts speed to power when he chooses to. Shows some quickness in short area situations. He obviously won't workout at the Combine, but I wouldn't expect him to have overly impressive workout numbers for a LB; not Luke Kuechly kind of athleticism, but more than sufficient. 7.5/10

 

Coverage Ability:  Not impressed by his coverage work. Very little man responsibilities on film, and when he does play some one on one coverage he doesn't mirror well and he's overly grabby. Has trouble with sharp routes inside (ins, outs, angle routes, corners, posts, pretty much everything you get from backs and TEs in the NFL). Probably has the ability to flip and run, but not tested in coverage with his back to the ball, and has no work tracking the ball over his head. Good awareness in zone coverage, good lateral movement to stay on top of the receiver, breaks down well in the open field to drive on the ball and finish plays. Decent spatial awareness to stay in range of eligible receivers, and range to get involved when the ball is thrown. 5/10 (if I account for his upside, I'd give him a 7/10)

 

Run Game Ability: Not a stack and shed run defender; long arms, decent upper body strength, good feet, but doesn't consistently use these traits in concert to beat blockers and meet ball carriers straight up, and as a result is more likely falling into the hole while being blocked and trying to make an arm tackle. Once engaged with a lineman or TE, he's blocked without great difficulty, though he does stack/shed from time to time. Decent at beating blockers with quickness and agility, but not consistently able to do so, especially against man blocking. Tendency is to angle to the ball/hole, or even chase and drag down ball carriers from behind. Has all the capability and physical tools to be a run stopper, but doesn't defeat blockers straight up or with quickness with any consistency. Very productive on run blitzes, uses his burst to blow past blockers and get to the ball carrier. 6/10 (if I account for his upside, I'd give him a 9/10)

 

Pass Rushing Ability: Very good blitzer, due to athleticism and agility. Can blow past blockers with burst and has enough bend to get low and dip around the corner. Sometimes used as an edge rusher, even lining up in a three point stance occasionally, but mostly a blitzing backer. Inconsistent hand placement undermines ability to beat blockers who get their hands on him, and he has no real pass rush moves. Can come across the face of a blocker to trap/trip a pocket climbing QB, but not consistent in using this ability. 3/5

 

Play Recognition: Very good recognition in both phases. Sniffs out all kind of run plays -- options, reverses, draws, etc. -- and takes good angles to the ball, although sometimes is conservative with his angles in an attempt to avoid blockers. Takes good drops in zone coverage and positions himself well. Often blows up screen plays if he can stay clean. Freelances if he thinks he has a read on the play, and he usually does, and this is when he looks like a heat seeking missile. Made some mistakes on the edge on read option plays in 2014, typically much better in 2015. Sometimes slow-plays draw action and then gets blocked out of the play, would be better diagnosing quickly and blasting into the play. Typically plays under control to avoid giving up cutbacks, but sometimes looks like he's holding back. 8/10

 

Tackling: Form sometimes breaks down, but not often, typically a reliable tackler. Arrives at the ball with authority. Has tackling range due to his athleticism and length, will lay out to shoestring a ball carrier, and will run through a blocker to get to the ball. Destroys QBs when he comes through clean. Can be eluded by change of direction ball carriers and can be outrun on the corner. 8/10

 

Overall: 41.5/60, 69%, second round grade (with upside, 46.5/60, 78%, first round grade) (fixed)

 

Scheme fit: Could play ILB very well in the Colts' scheme, and his range and playmaking instincts would make him a dynamic part of our front, but needs work in coverage. 4/5

 

I know everyone is calling me crazy by this point, but I think Smith is overrated on account of his athletic ability and obvious upside. I think he's lacking in technique and discipline, and relies more on his athleticism and instincts than he'll be able to in the pros. He's an unbridled stallion at this point, and needs coaching and refinement to reach his true potential. That potential, however, is obviously very high. I don't think he'll ever be a guy who runs step for step with TEs and slot receivers, but he has sufficient physical ability to be dangerous in coverage. His work against the run is spotty, and if he allows blockers to swallow him up or seal him from the hole, then he won't make nearly as many plays in the pros as he did at Notre Dame.

 

I'm not overly concerned about his knee injury. It's a two ligament tear, and as long as he doesn't suffer any setbacks, it's just a matter of time until he gets back to form. A recent report suggests he could be ready for Week 1, but I'm not buying. ACL/LCL is an 8-12 month recovery; with no problems, that puts him on the practice field in August, at best, but that's VERY ambitious. Gurley took 10 months to get on the field, and he only had an ACL. If you put Smith on the field at ten months, he'd be ready in November. And then the question is whether he'd be ready for a full workload. The 'recent report' is also just based on noise from the echo chamber at the Senior Bowl, not any medical checks. I think there's still a good chance he doesn't spend a lot of time on the field in 2016. He may or may not submit to medical checks at the Combine.

[SP_21]

"Unbridled Stallion" that's a great way to describe Smith. Oozes potential but still needs some time and coaching to put it all together. 

 

I don't think he's as good as the hype that has built up around him. Still a very good prospect though. 

 

IMO Myles Jack is the best linebacker in the draft. Side line to sideline guy who can stuff the run and cover almost anyone in the passing game. 

[The Peytonator]

Yeah, I'm an Irish fan and I haven't really understood his top 10 hype. He has good instincts against the run, but rarely has to actually beat somebody to make a stop. His coverage is not impressive at all. He could be coached up into being a stud, but it isn't something that I think is a given. 

 

I'd like to see you do a breakdown for Myles Jack, because like the guy above, I think he's far and away the best LB in the draft.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

I'd like to see you do a breakdown for Myles Jack, because like the guy above, I think he's far and away the best LB in the draft.

 

 

 

[krunk]

Haven't spent a lot of time watching Smith but I will. I like Jack quite a bit.

[Defjamz26]

I think this is mostly just that time of year where people start to break down top prospects and look for every flaw. Like when people started questioning Luck's arm strength.

 

Smith is #2 on a lot of the top analysts boards for a reason.

[twfish]

Thank you for saying it. I just hate how he hesitates going into tackles

[Traines]

2nd round grade?  Maybe I am a homer, but I feel like you are spending too much time down there in Trojan country, haha!  I agree with the sentiment that he is inferior to Myles Jack, but man, 2nd round...now I have to question everything I thought I knew.  Seriously though, thanks for all of these profiles and the work that is put into them.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Traines said:

2nd round grade?  Maybe I am a homer, but I feel like you are spending too much time down there in Trojan country, haha!  I agree with the sentiment that he is inferior to Myles Jack, but man, 2nd round...now I have to question everything I thought I knew.  Seriously though, thanks for all of these profiles and the work that is put into them.

 

There's absolutely no way he goes in the second round. There's nothing perfect about this evaluation method, just my subjective opinion on various aspects of his game/ability.

[Defjamz26]

1 minute ago, Traines said:

2nd round grade?  Maybe I am a homer, but I feel like you are spending too much time down there in Trojan country, haha!  I agree with the sentiment that he is inferior to Myles Jack, but man, 2nd round...now I have to question everything I thought I knew.  Seriously though, thanks for all of these profiles and the work that is put into them.

The only reason people feel he's inferior to Jack is because everyone is hungry for an athletic coverage LB.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I think this is mostly just that time of year where people start to break down top prospects and look for every flaw. Like when people started questioning Luck's arm strength.

 

Smith is #2 on a lot of the top analysts boards for a reason.

 

Meh. I would love to see Jaylon Smith truly be what everyone says he is. I just don't see it in the games I watched.

 

Tell me, what about my evaluation of him do you disagree with? What flaws am I exaggerating? What is the reason(s) Smith is #2 on everyone's board?

 

I don't mean to be defensive of my stuff. You're free to disagree with it; if you think he's better in coverage than I do, for instance, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm nitpicking him.

 

It's possible that if he were to workout at the Combine, he'd prove to be more athletic than I think he is. He might show more agility and smoother movement. That would make him an even more attractive prospect. As it stands, he obviously won't work out at all during the draft season, soo... 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

The only reason people feel he's inferior to Jack is because everyone is hungry for an athletic coverage LB.

 

Can't be honest evaluation...? 

[Traines]

Just now, Superman said:

 

There's absolutely no way he goes in the second round. There's nothing perfect about this evaluation method, just my subjective opinion on various aspects of his game/ability.

I know, I was just giving you a hard time because I know you're close to LA.  I am high on Smith, but I am also an ND fan who has watched all of his games and none of his tape, so yeah.

 

3 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

The only reason people feel he's inferior to Jack is because everyone is hungry for an athletic coverage LB.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't blame them for that either.  I think the league is trending in that direction and those types of guys are valuable weapons who can be productive in a lot of defenses.  I wanted Kendricks last year, and I would love to have Jack this year.  I would take Jaylon at 18 over a lot of guys who are healthy, but not all...don't get me wrong, huge fan, love him, think he will be just fine at the next level (but I am far from an expert).

[Defjamz26]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Meh. I would love to see Jaylon Smith truly be what everyone says he is. I just don't see it in the games I watched.

 

Tell me, what about my evaluation of him do you disagree with? What flaws am I exaggerating? What is the reason(s) Smith is #2 on everyone's board?

 

I don't mean to be defensive of my stuff. You're free to disagree with it; if you think he's better in coverage than I do, for instance, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm nitpicking him.

 

It's possible that if he were to workout at the Combine, he'd prove to be more athletic than I think he is. He might show more agility and smoother movement. That would make him an even more attractive prospect. As it stands, he obviously won't work out at all during the draft season, soo... 

 

I just personally feel you were overly critical of someone who is easily a blue chip prospect. For example size is 4/5. At 6'2", 240 his size is everything you would want. You should only lose points for size If it's going to be an issue in certain schemes. Although I'm not sure what your criteria was in that category. But what's the point off for? For not being 6'4"? Few LBs are

 

And Run game ability at 6/10 (ignoring the 9/10 potential) seems harsh when that's the best aspect of his game. He doesn't make every tackle or shed every block but what player does? I just think you should look at what happens majority of the time rather than deducting points for small flaws. 

 

I'm not saying he should have 10s and 5s across the board but it seems like his only real flaw is that like every player, he's not perfect. He doesn't shed every blocker, make every tackle, or read every play right. But the reason Kiper has him so high on his board, as does everyone else is that like Luck, there are no OBVIOUS flaws in his game.

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Can't be honest evaluation...? 

You said in this evaluation that Smith is overrated for his athleticism. How isn't the guy who is more athletic and can cover, but is smaller and a questionable scheme fit outside of a 4-3 not overrated but Smith is? Smith has less flaws IMO.

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

I just personally feel you were overly critical of someone who is easily a blue chip prospect. For example size is 4/5. At 6'2", 240 his size is everything you would want. You should only lose points for size If it's going to be an issue in certain schemes. Although I'm not sure what your criteria was in that category. But what's the point off for? For not being 6'4"? Few LBs are

 

And Run game ability at 6/10 (ignoring the 9/10 potential) seems harsh when that's the best aspect of his game. He doesn't make every tackle or shed every block but what player does? I just think you should look at what happens majority of the time rather than deducting points for small flaws. 

 

I'm not saying he should have 10s and 5s across the board but it seems like his only real flaw is that like every player, he's not perfect. He doesn't shed every blocker, make every tackle, or read every play right. But the reason Kiper has him so high on his board, as does everyone else is that like Luck, there are no OBVIOUS flaws in his game.

You said in this evaluation that Smith is overrated for his athleticism. How isn't the guy who is more athletic and can cover, but is smaller and a questionable scheme fit outside of a 4-3 not overrated but Smith is? Smith has less flaws IMO.

 

I don't see how leaving room for a bigger and more filled out LB is being overly critical. If he were 6'4", 250, he'd be a 5/5. That's a matter of perspective, and yours might be entirely different. His size isn't debatable, everyone knows how big he is. I gave Myles Jack a 2/5.

 

Run game ability, I watched everything I could on him. I've been watching him for two months. The majority of the time, he plays with poor technique and doesn't make the play. He typically does NOT stack and shed. He typically does NOT beat blockers with quickness. He has all the ability in the world to do so, but does that mean the times he doesn't are less relevant than the times he does? And I didn't ignore his potential, I clearly pointed it out. Technique isn't a small flaw.

 

You say there are no obvious flaws in his game, and I disagree. He plays with inconsistent technique, and that's a serious consideration. He has first round traits without a doubt; I don't think he has first round tape.

 

Maybe 'overrated' is the wrong way to say it. I think people are less concerned about his technique issues because they are so obviously coachable and because he has the athleticism to make plays while he refines his technique. There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

As for Myles Jack, he doesn't really have technique issues. He is actually good in coverage. I dinged him for being grabby, but he's still a better coverage backer than Smith, and it's not really close. He is not a stack and shed backer, he'll beat you with quickness and still make the play. Stephone Anthony was the same way. Jack doesn't have the physical tools to be a stack and shed backer like Smith does, but he uses what he has, and that's fine.

 

As for scheme fit, what does that have to do with anything? For the record, I called Jack a 4/5 and Smith a 5/5, but that's not part of my actual evaluation leading to my draft grade. I don't have any problem with Jack in a 3-4 to begin with, but his lack of stack and shed ability makes him slightly lower than Smith.

 

I'm no professional scout, but I'm not really that interested in groupthink. Just because Kiper loves a guy doesn't mean I can't point out what I think the player is lacking. Everyone loved Arik Armstead and Malcom Brown last year, and I think they're both overrated. I at least see it with Jaylon Smith, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some issues.

 

TL;DR, I'm not just being contrarian. I watched everything I could of Jaylon Smith. My notes are my sincere thoughts, not an effort to undermine a player everyone else loves.

[Defjamz26]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't see how leaving room for a bigger and more filled out LB is being overly critical. If he were 6'4", 250, he'd be a 5/5. That's a matter of perspective, and yours might be entirely different. His size isn't debatable, everyone knows how big he is. I gave Myles Jack a 2/5.

 

Run game ability, I watched everything I could on him. I've been watching him for two months. The majority of the time, he plays with poor technique and doesn't make the play. He typically does NOT stack and shed. He typically does NOT beat blockers with quickness. He has all the ability in the world to do so, but does that mean the times he doesn't are less relevant than the times he does? And I didn't ignore his potential, I clearly pointed it out. Technique isn't a small flaw.

 

You say there are no obvious flaws in his game, and I disagree. He plays with inconsistent technique, and that's a serious consideration. He has first round traits without a doubt; I don't think he has first round tape.

 

Maybe 'overrated' is the wrong way to say it. I think people are less concerned about his technique issues because they are so obviously coachable and because he has the athleticism to make plays while he refines his technique. There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

As for Myles Jack, he doesn't really have technique issues. He is actually good in coverage. I dinged him for being grabby, but he's still a better coverage backer than Smith, and it's not really close. He is not a stack and shed backer, he'll beat you with quickness and still make the play. Stephone Anthony was the same way. Jack doesn't have the physical tools to be a stack and shed backer like Smith does, but he uses what he has, and that's fine.

 

As for scheme fit, what does that have to do with anything? For the record, I called Jack a 4/5 and Smith a 5/5, but that's not part of my actual evaluation leading to my draft grade. I don't have any problem with Jack in a 3-4 to begin with, but his lack of stack and shed ability makes him slightly lower than Smith.

 

I'm no professional scout, but I'm not really that interested in groupthink. Just because Kiper loves a guy doesn't mean I can't point out what I think the player is lacking. Everyone loved Arik Armstead and Malcom Brown last year, and I think they're both overrated. I at least see it with Jaylon Smith, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some issues.

 

TL;DR, I'm not just being contrarian. I watched everything I could of Jaylon Smith. My notes are my sincere thoughts, not an effort to undermine a player everyone else loves.

To the bolded: That's just not realistic or fair. If you look at some successful ILB/MLBs of now and recent years aren't close to that height

-Wagner is 6'0

-Ray Lewis was 6'1

-NaVarro Bowman is 6'0

-Patrick Willis was 6'1"

-Mychal and Erik Kendricks both 6'0"

 

6'4" is the exception to the rule, not the rule. Keuchly and Urlacher being 6'4" are anomalies, not the standard. So saying "well he could be bigger" is pointless because current trends so his size is actually better than the norm. I know you said it's your perspective but I don't think it's a reasonable one to have. 

 

And consistent technique issues are a problem that every prospect has. Rodgers didn't have consistency in his throws at Cal, Clay Matthews wasn't even that good coming out of college, Tyron Smith didn't have consistent hand placement,etc.... When I look at flaws, I look at things that aren't fixable and might always plague a player's skill set and limit their success (whether minimum or tremendously) at the next level. Johnny Manziel's arm strength was a flaw. Sammie Coates' lack of hands was a flaw. Griff Whalen's lack of speed, RGIII's ability to read the field,etc....

 

So with Smith, I meant that there were no game breaking flaws that'll cause him trouble at the next level, which is how I look at prospects. "Okay 45% of the time this WR catches with his body instead of his hands. Does he show he can pluck the ball out of the air and catch away from his body? Yes. Then I'd give his catching 8/10 (assuming said WR had tape the caliber of a Laquan Treadwell or Jarvis Landry)". That might be inconsistent technique but I wouldn't put it as a "flaw" per say. You won't find a college player that plays with consistent, top tier technique.

 

But again, perhaps it's perspective. I think you put more stock into Exactly what you see, where as I put more stock into what a prospect is capable of. So for you, Smith has obvious flaws that you see on tape, but for me he doesn't have any obvious flaws because the tape shows a blue chip prospect with room to grow.

 

But personally I think he's farther along than Jack. JacK has the edge in coverage, but I think Smith is a more complete football player.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

To the bolded: That's just not realistic or fair. If you look at some successful ILB/MLBs of now and recent years aren't close to that height

-Wagner is 6'0

-Ray Lewis was 6'1

-NaVarro Bowman is 6'0

-Patrick Willis was 6'1"

-Mychal and Erik Kendricks both 6'0"

 

6'4" is the exception to the rule, not the rule. Keuchly and Urlacher being 6'4" are anomalies, not the standard. So saying "well he could be bigger" is pointless because current trends so his size is actually better than the norm. I know you said it's your perspective but I don't think it's a reasonable one to have. 

 

I never thought anyone would be offended by a 4/5 rating for someone's size. I think he could be a little more built in his lower body. I don't think that's a ridiculous analysis. A 4/5 is really good.

 

Quote

And consistent technique issues are a problem that every prospect has. Rodgers didn't have consistency in his throws at Cal, Clay Matthews wasn't even that good coming out of college, Tyron Smith didn't have consistent hand placement,etc.... 

 

What's wrong with pointing any of that out? Rodgers dropped, Matthews went #26. Smith consistently dominated his competition, despite any questions about hand placement.

 

Quote

So with Smith, I meant that there were no game breaking flaws that'll cause him trouble at the next level, which is how I look at prospects. 

 

I didn't say he had game breaking flaws. But how do you grade a player if you're not allowed to grade his play? Like I said, what about his coverage or run game ability did I say that isn't accurate? If he doesn't play with better technique, the issues I mentioned will definitely cause him trouble. He can't just be an athletic wrecking ball in the NFL. I don't need him to consistently play with top tier technique. He consistently plays with poor technique.

 

His traits are obvious. I never undersold them.

 

Quote

But personally I think he's farther along than Jack. JacK has the edge in coverage, but I think Smith is a more complete football player.

 

Disagree. Jack makes more plays in both phases right now, and he beats blockers more effectively despite not being as big as Smith.

 

[DougDew]

Good write-up.  I never understood the hype.  Especially the idea of still being a mid-first round pick after an ACL tear.

[Superman]

Great stack/shed: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=259636&gif=WellinformedVastBighornedsheep

Destroys a blocker straight up: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258306&gif=WelltodoIcyJay

Excellent lateral movement, change of direction and playmaking range: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258306&gif=OilyReflectingCuscus

Doesn't square up with blocker and gets sealed off: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258306&gif=MeanSpiritedAlaskanhusky

Reads the pass and explodes to the receiver: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258306&gif=EagerWatchfulCormorant

Sealed by a back, hands down: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258029&gif=VariableThickLangur

Easily blocked: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258029&gif=UntidyMagnificentFlounder

Doesn't stack, gets blocked: http://www.draftbreakdown.com/gif-embed/?clip=258029&gif=VibrantPhonyHellbender

 

[Defjamz26]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I never thought anyone would be offended by a 4/5 rating for someone's size. I think he could be a little more built in his lower body. I don't think that's a ridiculous analysis. A 4/5 is really good.

 

 

What's wrong with pointing any of that out? Rodgers dropped, Matthews went #26. Smith consistently dominated his competition, despite any questions about hand placement.

 

 

I didn't say he had game breaking flaws. But how do you grade a player if you're not allowed to grade his play? Like I said, what about his coverage or run game ability did I say that isn't accurate? If he doesn't play with better technique, the issues I mentioned will definitely cause him trouble. He can't just be an athletic wrecking ball in the NFL. I don't need him to consistently play with top tier technique. He consistently plays with poor technique.

 

His traits are obvious. I never undersold them.

 

 

Disagree. Jack makes more plays in both phases right now, and he beats blockers more effectively despite not being as big as Smith.

 

Well I can accept saying that maybe he needs more strength in his lower body than saying "he's big but could be bigger". I just wanted to figure out what the basis for 4/5 instead of 5/5 was. But I can let it go even though it's ticky tacky IMO.

 

And I'm not saying don't judge him by his play. What I'm saying is if you're going to knock him, knock him for what he can't do not something that he doesn't do great now but will be better at eventually. While your analysis was in depth (your breakdowns are my most respected) I just felt a lot of it with Smith was nit-picky.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

knock him for what he can't do not something that he doesn't do great now but will be better at eventually

 

There have been a lot of guys who had the ability to do something, but never consistently did it. Traits don't always translate to success.

 

Most issues I have with him are coaching related. Again, his potential is obvious. I don't think I'm being nit-picky, I think those issues are noteworthy. It's very easy to project him overcoming those issues and being a standout player, but that doesn't mean you close your eyes to them.

[Slick12]

 Great scouting report Superman. I do still think Smith will be taken in the middle of the first round, there are a few teams there that I think could wait for him to be ready to play by the middle of the season. If Dr's think he will be out all season, then he will drop. I would be ok with Jack(who I don't think will be there) or Smith(if Dr's think he will play in 2016). Our new DC is know for his work in developing LB talent, so I'm sure he could round either into a very good players.

[OffensivelyPC]

 

On 2/1/2016 at 11:30 PM, Superman said:

I know everyone is calling me crazy by this point, but I think Smith is overrated on account of his athletic ability and obvious upside. I think he's lacking in technique and discipline, and relies more on his athleticism and instincts than he'll be able to in the pros. He's an unbridled stallion at this point, and needs coaching and refinement to reach his true potential. That potential, however, is obviously very high. I don't think he'll ever be a guy who runs step for step with TEs and slot receivers, but he has sufficient physical ability to be dangerous in coverage. His work against the run is spotty, and if he allows blockers to swallow him up or seal him from the hole, then he won't make nearly as many plays in the pros as he did at Notre Dame.

 

 

You're math is a bit off on the "accounting for upside" bit.  Should be a point higher.  Your base grade of 61.5 is good, but you add 4 points in the upside grade when the upside points total 5 additional points on top of the base score (i.e. Coverage Ability is +2 and Run Game Ability is +3).

 

I watched the OSU game and USC game.  I had made a few mental notes but nothing in depth.  Things I recalled was that I think that while you don't see a ton of man coverage, he does have the ability to run with the guy.  At one point I think he matched step for step on a route with JuJu Smith (short in route if memory serves).  I can't remember if it was zone though, so could be wrong there.  One of the reasons I think he doesn't mirror well when he is following a guy is he spends a too much time looking into the backfield.  

 

It's hard to disagree with you on the run game ability (at least based off the USC game, anyway).  He might be able to shed better if he had better hand use, but he spends a lot of time trying to run around and fake out his blocker, sometimes taking himself out of the play.  Against TE's especially, he will jolt and can pop them into a dead stop.  I think you might have graded a bit too harshly there (giving points for potential is a fair recognition of the ability, because the tools are there).  But regardless, its' clear he won't be taking on any OL and if he's playing inside in a 3-4 front with great success unless he changes his approach.  By most accounts, he's a hard working athlete, so I think he's got a high floor; most of critiques are technique and consistency as it seems has been discussed enough I can leave it at that.  

 

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

You're math is a bit off on the "accounting for upside" bit.  Should be a point higher.  Your base grade of 61.5 is good, but you add 4 points in the upside grade when the upside points total 5 additional points on top of the base score (i.e. Coverage Ability is +2 and Run Game Ability is +3).

 

You're right. Fixed.