|
National Football League
Draft King Mailbag
June 11, 2005
Lou Pickney, DraftKing.com
Reader feedback is always welcomed here at DraftKing.com. Send your thoughts to me at LouPickney@gmail.com. Note that I have a new e-mail address from last year for this.
From: patrick@executiveparkfitness.com
To: LouPickney@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: ?
Thank you Lou for responding.
I didn't know scouts were so high on Eric Henderson, DE, Georgia Tech......
The skins have a lot of talent in my mind, but the QB spot is a mess (why have they given up on Ramsey?) and depth appears an after thought to Danny and Joe. It's also worth noting Sean Taylor could be in a different uniform in a few months.
I do look for Portis to show the NFL he is the most talented RB in the league. The OL will be much improved with Jensen back.
It's not that I disagree with you, Gibbs could very well be over his head having to play with the level field of the cap era....and QB stability is a must.
Again thank you, and for nitpicking sake I can't see any DT going ahead of Gabe Watson, if he can just get in reasonable shape....i'm not a Wright fan, thou I understand he was playing hurt LY.
Lou: I personally think this is Rodrique Wright's year to stand out at Texas. He has battled injuries, with a hip injury in 2003 and an ankle injury in 2004, but to his credit he played through them. You can take that two ways: the positive spin is that he showed toughness in playing hurt, but the negative spin is that he may be injury prone. Luckily for Texas fans, Wright decided to return to school for 2005, and if he can stay healthy and stand out, he has the chance to ditch the "injury prone" stigma and position himself as a top-half first rounder.
Now will he really go above Gabe Watson? That remains to be seen. At 333 pounds, Watson is a monster force who can stop the run and press the QB (even though he runs a 5.0 40), thanks to his quickness. What Watson will need to show this season is that he can play effectively while handling the double-team (which he can expect to see early and often in 2005) and that his final year at Michigan has lead to him learning the little things about the position even better so that he'll be more in a ready-to-go mode when the 2006 NFL season arrives.
Watson has Wright by about 15-20 or so pounds (give or take), but both are about the same speed, the heights are similar (Wright is 6'5"; Watson is 6'4"), and overall these two look to be the top two DTs going into 2005. There's a reason my initial mock has them separated by only two spots. They're both major conference guys, and if both men stay healthy in 2005, who goes first in the 2006 draft could come down to something as arbitrary as how the GM picking the first DT thinks one or the other will fit in best with his team.
As for Eric Henderson, he is projected as a second-rounder by some onlookers, but I anticipate that he's going to have a great season for Georgia Tech. He's 6'3" 265 lbs. and can run a 4.75 40. Physically he's got the goods, but the knock on him was twofold: he needed to refine his technique, and he needed to hit the gym and put on some weight. He's been working on both this off-season, and I think he's going to break through big in 2005. Plus, at the #27 spot, it's not as if he'd be a high first rounder under the current mock. And remember that defensive line is always a priority in the NFL.
With the Redskins, it will be a major boost to have Jon Jansen return, and it's entirely possible that they'll have a good season. My draft order is an arbitrary thing. But I do agree with you that Jensen's return should help Portis considerably, though Portis being gone from the Denver system has exposed him as perhaps not being deserving of the early praise/hype he received in his first two seasons. This season will be very telling on that end, in my opinion.
NFL Draft Prospect Profiles
Draft King is owned and operated by Lou Pickney. Copyright © 2003-2025, all rights reserved. Information on this website should not be used for any gambling purposes, nor does it constitute any sort of advice, financial or otherwise.
|