There are 169 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Do you agree with McCloughan's "Bigger is Better" draft philosophy?

I think we have an almost perfect example with Berry vs Mays - some people already have Mays ranked higher because of speed/size combination despite Berry being more productive.

Thoughts?
Originally posted by NinerGM:
I think we have an almost perfect example with Berry vs Mays - some people already have Mays ranked higher because of speed/size combination despite Berry being more productive.

Thoughts?

Anyone that has Mays ranked higher must work for the Raiders.
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,153
Originally posted by NinerGM:
I think we have an almost perfect example with Berry vs Mays - some people already have Mays ranked higher because of speed/size combination despite Berry being more productive.

Thoughts?

Not the same, Berry isn't considered undersized at all, Mays is just a freak, but his total lack of playmaking has to be a red flag.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
I think we have an almost perfect example with Berry vs Mays - some people already have Mays ranked higher because of speed/size combination despite Berry being more productive.

Thoughts?

A more accurate example would be Mays vs. Thomas. They are both late 1st/earl 2nd picks. Earl is undersized but is a natural ball-hawk, Mays has all the athletic gifts but he isn't as much of a natural football player.
Originally posted by foreign49er:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
I think we have an almost perfect example with Berry vs Mays - some people already have Mays ranked higher because of speed/size combination despite Berry being more productive.

Thoughts?

A more accurate example would be Mays vs. Thomas. They are both late 1st/earl 2nd picks. Earl is undersized but is a natural ball-hawk, Mays has all the athletic gifts but he isn't as much of a natural football player.

Ive heard that some people have thomas ahead of berry as well

Mayock from NFL.com

has
Thomas
Berry
Mays
as his top 3
I think with the current emphisis on passing and speed, the Ron Wolf style puts a team behind the 8-ball when applied to the skill positions. Not allowing exceptions seems too rigid in todays game.
GMs like Scot who place an emphasis on size understand that the leap from college to the pros is much greater than probably any sport because of the overall size, speed, and toughness of the entire league.

This is why GMs draft for potential rather than college production particularly in the 1st two rounds. Plus, if you're going to invest millions of dollars to an unknown, he better have the physical attributes just to compete in the NFL.

Every year, the GMs rank the Jason Pierre-Paul "freaks" higher than the Brandon Grahams' because the entire league believes in "Bigger, Faster, Stronger."

Also, the NFL believes they have the best football coaches around so if you give them an player like Taylor Mays, they're arrogant enough to believe they can turn them into the next Ronnie Lott.
I agree that big is better...but his line about picking one exceptions and having a team of exceptions is just dumb. One exception is one exception, not a bunch of them. When your team is clearly slow at skill positions than bringing a small speedy guy with a late round pick isnt a huge risk or as Scotty M would say, and "exception".
I think it's a fine philosophy because it's proven, but you have to have speed as well, particularly on offense. Our biggest problem on offense, IMO, is that we don't have a vertical threat. Crabtree and Morgan don't threaten defenses deep. Vernon has the ability to stretch the field, but he's coming up the seam. I can't remember the last player that we had who was a threat to take it to the house everytime they touched the ball. If we had a #2 WR that forced defensive secondaries to be honest against us, our running game would drastically improve. Morgan can't do that for us. About the only time defenses respected our passing game was when we went to the Shotgun, single-back set.

Scott is just following the Parcell's mold. I certainly prefer a big, physical team than a finesse team. I'd just like to see some speed at WR and RB.
Originally posted by strickac:
I think it's a fine philosophy because it's proven, but you have to have speed as well, particularly on offense. Our biggest problem on offense, IMO, is that we don't have a vertical threat. Crabtree and Morgan don't threaten defenses deep. Vernon has the ability to stretch the field, but he's coming up the seam. I can't remember the last player that we had who was a threat to take it to the house everytime they touched the ball. If we had a #2 WR that forced defensive secondaries to be honest against us, our running game would drastically improve. Morgan can't do that for us. About the only time defenses respected our passing game was when we went to the Shotgun, single-back set.

Scott is just following the Parcell's mold. I certainly prefer a big, physical team than a finesse team. I'd just like to see some speed at WR and RB.

Scouting a big, fast WR is difficult and we seemed to be able to do it routinely; TO, Mike Sherrard, even John Taylor was drafted for speed. Unfortunately I think a player like Brandon Jones didn't require a signing but could have been drafted in the 3rd or 4th round.
I just think McCloughan really doesn't want to get his hands dirty on draft day. His goal is to take the BPA of need of course but what we have not seen him do is move down when the need isn't there and get more value for players to fill a need along with decreasing the cost for us combined with increasing picks.

Walsh was great at moving in the draft to maximize our acquisitions according to value.

What does McCloughan do, pick a guy like Balmer because he doesn't want to move back and acquire a player who would be just as effective later on.

Honestly, I don't see any difference between his Bigger is Better philosophy as to Al Davis' Faster is Better philosophy. They can both hurt you if you are not prepared to do some work on Draft Day.
With smaller skill position players coming in from spread offenses more than ever, it seems fitting that McCloughan called himself a dinosaur while holding onto an outdated ideology. McCloughan's idea of a COP back is 245 LB.

[ Edited by Ronnie49Lott on Mar 3, 2010 at 13:22:02 ]
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
With smaller skill position players coming in from spread offenses more than ever, it seems fitting that McCloughan called himself a dinosaur while holding onto an outdated ideology. For McCloughan a COP back is a 245 LB back.

with RBs its dumb to think that bigger is always better but for WR's and DB's i think the more size you have the better. a good example was the CD Webster we had a while back. he was a very good coverage corner but he was too short and people would just jump ball against him.
Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
With smaller skill position players coming in from spread offenses more than ever, it seems fitting that McCloughan called himself a dinosaur while holding onto an outdated ideology. For McCloughan a COP back is a 245 LB back.

with RBs its dumb to think that bigger is always better but for WR's and DB's i think the more size you have the better. a good example was the CD Webster we had a while back. he was a very good coverage corner but he was too short and people would just jump ball against him.

IMO I think it's good to have a mix of small, quick and big, strong players to match up with almost everyone. You can't cover all the bases but going only in one direction leaves you susceptible to some teams.
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
With smaller skill position players coming in from spread offenses more than ever, it seems fitting that McCloughan called himself a dinosaur while holding onto an outdated ideology. For McCloughan a COP back is a 245 LB back.

with RBs its dumb to think that bigger is always better but for WR's and DB's i think the more size you have the better. a good example was the CD Webster we had a while back. he was a very good coverage corner but he was too short and people would just jump ball against him.

IMO I think it's good to have a mix of small, quick and big, strong players to match up with almost everyone. You can't cover all the bases but going only in one direction leaves you susceptible to some teams.

that is very true, its good to have a mix but with the WR's that have been coming out lately being over 6'-6'3" and 205-210 with 4.3-4.4 speed i would much rather have people like that at WR, and big fast corners to protect against those kinds of people. WR's are getting bigger and bigger and defenses need to adjust