Jonathan Bullard, DT, Florida

[kearly]

There was a report that he ran a 1.52 at his pro-day, IIRC. But I always take pro-day stuff with a grain of salt.

That said, Bullard looks more explosive on tape than his official 1.66 split would suggest.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

There was a report that he ran a 1.52 at his pro-day, IIRC. But I always take pro-day stuff with a grain of salt.

That said, Bullard looks more explosive on tape than his official 1.66 split would suggest.

He didn't run a forty at his pro-day -- he sat on his combine number. I also saw that bogus report.

This is why pro-day numbers are so unreliable. Earlier today info was going around that Laquon Treadwell ran a 6.83 three-cone when actually it was in the 7.00's.

I think I'm right in saying the computer at the combine can immediately generate the split times which make them spot on accurate. 1.66 isn't too bad at all for a guy at 285lbs but it's not Aaron Donald's 1.59 that's for sure.

 

[kearly]

There was a report that he ran a 1.52 at his pro-day, IIRC. But I always take pro-day stuff with a grain of salt.

That said, Bullard looks more explosive on tape than his official 1.66 split would suggest.

He didn't run a forty at his pro-day -- he sat on his combine number. I also saw that bogus report.

This is why pro-day numbers are so unreliable. Earlier today info was going around that Laquon Treadwell ran a 6.83 three-cone when actually it was in the 7.00's.

I think I'm right in saying the computer at the combine can immediately generate the split times which make them spot on accurate. 1.66 isn't too bad at all for a guy at 285lbs but it's not Aaron Donald's 1.59 that's for sure.

It still amazes me that nobody traded up for Aaron Donald. He was so obviously special.

 

[two dog]

There was a report that he ran a 1.52 at his pro-day, IIRC. But I always take pro-day stuff with a grain of salt.

That said, Bullard looks more explosive on tape than his official 1.66 split would suggest.

He didn't run a forty at his pro-day -- he sat on his combine number. I also saw that bogus report.

This is why pro-day numbers are so unreliable. Earlier today info was going around that Laquon Treadwell ran a 6.83 three-cone when actually it was in the 7.00's.

I think I'm right in saying the computer at the combine can immediately generate the split times which make them spot on accurate. 1.66 isn't too bad at all for a guy at 285lbs but it's not Aaron Donald's 1.59 that's for sure.

It still amazes me that nobody traded up for Aaron Donald. He was so obviously special.

It still amazes me that WE didn't trade up for Aaron Donald. That was an agonizing day and it
would not have taken a Mike Ditka type trade to have gotten it done. Our one, our two and probably
a lower round throw-in. Certainly not a Lawrence Welk that Curt Warner cost us. A one, a two and a three.

 

[Largent80]

And now we need OL to scheme around Donald.

 

[ivotuk]

On the down side, he seems to overrun plays sometimes. Pushed right past the play and out of contention. Alabama seems to devote a lot of attention to him, even tackling him a couple of times.

Kelly stands him up pretty well, but he gets help too. I think he's a play hard type of guy, just shy of first round talent.

 

[penihawk]

I'm luke warm on Bullard at best, especially at 26. He really appears to run hot & cold and takes himself out of plays alot. He seemed like just a guy in this game even tho he was doubled at times.

After watching the Alabama clip heres what I came away with.

1) Vernon Hargreaves III is really good.

2) Ryan Kelly is really good and by far Bamas best lineman. He is very good at getting position on guys and then getting to the 2nd level. I saw many plays where he was able to get Morrison after an initial combo block inside. Had to watch it twice since my eye kept going to 70 instead of 90. I really wish we could get him somehow.

3) Derrick Henry might be better in the NFL than I think.

 

[purpleneer]

Kearly, I hear what you are saying, but I think one of the mistakes we fans often make, and I am as guilty of it as anyone, is comparing prospects in THIS draft to prospects in previous drafts. I understand why we do it, and its helpful to get rough approximations of relative talent, but its not really helpful for determining where a prospects should be drafted.

Just because Bullard (or any other prospect) may be equivalent to THIS year's 4th round prospects, doesn't mean its a reach to draft him with THIS year's first. All that matters is how a prospect ranks in the current draft pool. How he ranks relative to the players immediately around him in the current class.

This is a really weak draft class. Really, across the board it's pretty bad, even at positions of strength within the class. But its the group we have to pick from. You really do draft in a vacuum.

The only other recourse, and its probably a pretty decent plan, is to draft this year's picks for future picks in the reasonable expectation that next year will be better. Because this year is pretty bad.

I think it's more the other way around overall. Yes, the class as a whole limits the value you can get at a pick, but teams get into major trouble when they evaluate, within a position group at least, by just that draft class. You do draft in somewhat of a vacuum, but the draft (particularly a single draft) is just one part of putting together the product. Every player comes in and competes against the entire league and status within a draft class becomes meaningless. If a draft doesn't have a Manning or Luck, it's a mistake to treat the class's top QB like he is one of them no matter the state of your QB situation. The same goes for other positions, though some mistakes are less damaging than others. The Hawks needed an OT from the 2014 draft and there have been guys who ranked about where Britt did in his class that have done well, but that didn't help Britt play as well as early as some have.
The variation in what each class brings should lead to more variation in the trade value of picks, but that Jimmy Johnson chart gained traction way too quickly for something developed with so little input. The Hawks seem to have considered these variations with their trades involving Harvin, Graham, and Lockett. I agree with considering all options, including the "punt" into the future but also flexibility in plans and expectations. The possible influence on the team's success is what matters most here.

 

[McGruff]

Oh I definitely think you have to project future classes and include them in the equation, and I know for a fact that Seattle does just that.

I just don't think its helpful to say "so and so would've been a 3rd round pick in last year's draft." Last year's draft is dead and buried, and what matters is how they rank relative to this year's talent pool.

That doesn't mean you reach for a 3rd round prospect at a position of need just because he's the best left at that position. What it does mean is that if he is a top 32 player on this year's draft board for your team, he's a first round pick, even if he isn't as talented as last year's 64th rated player.

 

[purpleneer]

Oh I definitely think you have to project future classes and include them in the equation, and I know for a fact that Seattle does just that.

I just don't think its helpful to say "so and so would've been a 3rd round pick in last year's draft." Last year's draft is dead and buried, and what matters is how they rank relative to this year's talent pool.

That doesn't mean you reach for a 3rd round prospect at a position of need just because he's the best left at that position. What it does mean is that if he is a top 32 player on this year's draft board for your team, he's a first round pick, even if he isn't as talented as last year's 64th rated player.

This is probably semantics, but I think it's still helpful. If there's only players who would rank much lower in some other draft(s), it tells you the pick is less valuable than a similar pick in those drafts and that should be accounted for in the decision on what to do with it. Other teams are (or at least should be) using its depressed value in deciding about trading for the pick, so it should also influence the decision on trading it away.
Now my mind is going further and thinking it also makes sense to consider the depressed value on the risk aspect if you do use the pick. Not a big deal on this thought process though; just my mind overthinking.