Jump to content

2021 Broncos Forum College Prospects Thread


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

I still like Fields a good deal more than Wilson. 

 

12 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Fields' ceiling IMO is much higher, because he offers the dual NFL-level running threat and big play throwing ability.   The 2 drawbacks are that his windup/delivery are a hair longer than I like to see, and after 2 years (well more like 1.5), he hasn't made great advances in read progression.   But Fields also has that Dak-type of elusiveness and ability to extend the play in and outside the pocket, and he's got the raw arm talent to be a big-throw maker.   

The 2 weaknesses are ones that NFL-level D's can really exploit mercilessly.   But unlike a Daniel Jones, as a contrast - Fields' tools are that much better as a thrower (and Jones is actually a good athlete <his arm raw skills and lack of pocket awareness are what still limit him significantly>, but Fields on-field work says he's better athletically, too).   It's why he's such a tantalizing prospect, albeit one that raises concerns.   Fields' ceiling is definitely elite-level, but he doesn't come with the safe floor you'd like to see in a top 3 pick.   Then again, Wilson's level of competition and late-onset of success raise Q's - but the arm skills translate better (although I would like to see how his quicks translate - I'd think he's a better athlete than Baker Mayfield, as an example, and he has to be to succeed in the NFL - that athletic ability matters to give him the means to avoid pressure and extend plays).    Before the season started though, Fields was the clear #2 guy.   This is going to be a fascinating draft to see if Wilson or Fields go as the #2 QB.

 

5 hours ago, rcpbawler said:

I think this is all very well put, the only thing I'd like to mention is that, while, yeah, he really broke out this year, he showed a lot as a true freshman as well. Smaller sample size but he had some really good games as a 19 y/o starting quarterback. He was dealing with injuries that really hampered his ability to throw as a sophomore so I take that season with a grain of salt.

 

I had Fields and  Wilson virtually neck and neck but the more I watch, the more I gravitate towards Wilson. Watching them both back to back really shows the contrast in their delivery. Wilson has that super aesthetically pleasing, shortstop-esque delivery while Fields seems to take forever in comparison. Clearly BYU was more talented than pmuch every team they played, but Wilson still made quite a few highlight worthy throws. His WR were slower, big bodied guys who generally didn't get a lot of seperation so he had to be more accurate than not. It's not like RG3 who constantly had guys running deep with 4+ yards from the nearest defender. I dunno if it's been mentioned, but I think PFF had Wilson with the most "tight window" throws this season. While Fields played the more talented defenses far and away, he also had one of the best OL and WR corp in the country as well.

 

All this to say, I really like both of them but I think you'll have to pair Fields with a creative OC that is willing to install new concepts and get more creative to succeed. Probably matters not unless we trade up anyway.

It's fair to say that Fields' ceiling is sky high.  His arm talent and placement are that good, along with his elusiveness / threat as a runner.  That's the appeal there (along with his success vs. elite competition at a young age - but also showing his weaknesses too).   But along with a long windup, to present my other concern more concisely, I'll highlight Brugler's analysis (paysite, but this tweet captures Brugler's one area he wants to see tighten up, and can be his downfall):

Fields has only 1.5 seasons of college experience, so it's not like he's a finished product.  But that read progression issue (and his longer windup) are the 2 things that D's can exploit mercilessly, and drop his floor to failed 1st rounder.  But the ceiling is tantalizing, no doubt.  I get why there's so much appeal.    Lance has a ridiculously high ceiling as well, but given he's only got 1 year of competition (that's nowhere close to what Fields & OSU have faced), I get why he's a distant 4th in the running - his floor is outright bust, and there's a greater likelihood, just that if he hits, the ceiling is sky-high too.

Given there are no Combine-like events, I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 of the first 4 picks go to QB, and someone move up to get Lance in the 5-7 range (to jump ahead of CAR, or CAR moves up to block other teams).  The market seems uber-hot for QB early Rd1 for those 4 guys (Lawrence 1.1 the only sure thing I see).

 

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve said it before, but after watching Drew Lock the past couple seasons, I’ve really come to value QB’s who can process things quickly. I like Fields a lot, and I’d take him at 1.9 for sure, but I’ve seen Wilson diagnose things at an NFL level. I don’t think I can say the same for Fields.

Fields is more likely to be the superstar, but I’d bank on Wilson having a Stafford-type level of career. A few seasons of top 5-ish QB play, but settling in as a solid top 10 guy every year for the next decade plus.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

I’ve said it before, but after watching Drew Lock the past couple seasons, I’ve really come to value QB’s who can process things quickly. I like Fields a lot, and I’d take him at 1.9 for sure, but I’ve seen Wilson diagnose things at an NFL level. I don’t think I can say the same for Fields.

Fields is more likely to be the superstar, but I’d bank on Wilson having a Stafford-type level of career. A few seasons of top 5-ish QB play, but settling in as a solid top 10 guy every year for the next decade plus.

That's a fair assessment.   Wilson's skills translate to NFL success far more reliably, but his toolset and athletic profile give him a far lower ceiling than Fields.    Stafford had elite level arm-skills, however, Wilson's not in that range.   But yes, if you're talking results (which were a huge function of lack of support post-Megatron), that's a decent comp.   

The only variable we don't know is if Wilson has more Baker-level tools (average physical tools, really good accuracy / timing) - in which case, even Stafford's level is too high.  That's where the level of competition really disguises how athletic he really is (and one of the few times where the Combine could have proved helpful, since game film is against such low competition).   Baker's accuracy and timing are his best traits, but he can't extend plays or make magic happen on his own because he's average athletically, and why IMO his ceiling is capped (he needs a great O around him to work, and if they get behind by 2+ scores, he can't bring them back and carry the team on his shoulders).    If Wilson is above-average athletically, then he offers a similar path to Stafford's level of production, and higher than say a Baker-level of production.

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

That's a fair assessment.   Wilson's skills translate to NFL success far more reliably, but his toolset and athletic profile give him a far lower ceiling than Fields.    Stafford had elite level arm-skills, however, Wilson's not in that range.   But yes, if you're talking results (which were a huge function of lack of support post-Megatron), that's a decent comp.   

The only variable we don't know is if Wilson has more Baker-level tools (average physical tools, really good accuracy / timing) - in which case, even Stafford's level is too high.  That's where the level of competition really disguises how athletic he really is (and one of the few times where the Combine could have proved helpful, since game film is against such low competition).   Baker's accuracy and timing are his best traits, but he can't extend plays or make magic happen on his own because he's average athletically, and why IMO his ceiling is capped (he needs a great O around him to work, and if they get behind by 2+ scores, he can't bring them back and carry the team on his shoulders).    If Wilson is above-average athletically, then he offers a similar path to Stafford's level of production, and higher than say a Baker-level of production.

Yes, results only, not style/tools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bMiller031 said:

If Jerry Jeudy the 2020 prospect were in this draft how would he grade relative to Smith and Chase?

Haven't watched enough of them but I heard people say Smith was better than Jeudy that size is concerning. Last year being loaded at tackle knocked Jeudy down I think.

Chase I heard was elite. I still take Jeudy his route running is insane very happy with that pick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bMiller031 said:

If Jerry Jeudy the 2020 prospect were in this draft how would he grade relative to Smith and Chase?

I personally think 2nd but I’m not quite as high on Smith as some. Chase I think is the best WR to come out in a long time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 5:50 PM, BroncoBruin said:

I personally think 2nd but I’m not quite as high on Smith as some. Chase I think is the best WR to come out in a long time. 

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 4:34 AM, rcpbawler said:

I really really liked both ceedee and Jeudy coming out last year and thought they were both top ten talents, but I think the top 4 (Chase, Smith, Waddle and Pitts) this year are all a tick better tbh. 

Waddle isn't a better prospect than Jeudy was. Not even close, IMO. Chase is better. I think Smith is probably on par. Pitts is a different animal altogether. It's hard to compare because Pitts is just so unique in what he can do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, broncos67 said:

Waddle isn't a better prospect than Jeudy was. Not even close, IMO. Chase is better. I think Smith is probably on par. Pitts is a different animal altogether. It's hard to compare because Pitts is just so unique in what he can do.

Waddle isn't as refined as Jeudy but he's so much more dynamic as an athlete. He's probably only slightly slower than Ruggs but a better route runner and much better with the ball in his hands. Outside of maybe Tyreek Hill, he'll be the scariest guy in the open field the second he steroid steps into the NFL and the best returner I've ever seen. It's easy to forget that he was the go to guy in Alabama's offense pre injury, even ahead of Smith. 

Again, I really like both Jeudy and Waddle as prospects and it probably depends what you're looking for. Rather have a technician ala Davante Adams, then you'd obviously prefer Jeudy while if your team needs a Tyreek Hill then you'd lean Waddle.

As for Pitts, his ceiling is just so high and he's already so good...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

BTW, for the annual BPA vs. need discussion, at least in theory, here's where Paton stands:

 

Smart move IMO. Never good to let another team have the better player. It’s up to Paton to patch holes in FA so he can afford to go BPA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're a while away from the draft but as of now (assuming no trade for Watson) This is roughly what I am hoping for:

Round 1 trade (1.9, 4.115 for CHI 1.20, 2.52 2022 2nd) 

1.20 Zaven Collins (LB)

2.40 Eric Stokes (CB)

2.52 Alim McNeill (DT)

3.71 James Hudson (RT)

5.156 Avery Williams (Special Teams All-Pro)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...