Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Cockrell the Free Safety


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

Looks like he may grab the starting FS spot since Gaulden isn't looking too great.

 

How are you feeling about that ?

 

I could not find any mention of him ever playing safety previously. But he is a Duke guy, have to think he has the smarts to put it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Looks like he may grab the starting FS spot since Gaulden isn't looking too great.

 

How are you feeling about that ?

 

I could not find any mention of him ever playing safety previously. But he is a Duke guy, have to think he has the smarts to put it together.

He was a very good zone corner, maybe we will use him in a lot of zone as a safety. He may thrive playing center field as a FS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. I just like that we're exploring all of our current options. Why not?

I will say though that I don't put too much stock into being a *insert particular elite academic college* guy. The reality is that unless we're talking Ivy League, if you can pass the NCAA minimums you can probably get admitted just about anywhere as a revenue sport athlete. And even the Ivy League bends the rules. A buddy of mine played TE for Brown. He was a good student but he freely admits he would've had ZERO chance of getting into an Ivy League school without playing football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daeavorn said:

What about Gaulden made them think he was a good player when hes extremely unathletic.

Athleticism isn't everything, but we draft too many athletic outliers IMO. Funchess ran a 4.7 40 as a WR. Little had a 25" vertical and poor agility drill showings. Gaulden tested as one of if not the poorest athlete among his DB class. I get it, you get a feeling for a particular guy every now and then and take a chance, but IMO we do it too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke stopped having different admission requirements from the rest of the ACC when they hired Cutcliffe. Cockrell might be a smart guy but it wouldn't have anything to do with where he went to play college football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Athleticism isn't everything, but we draft too many athletic outliers IMO. Funchess ran a 4.7 40 as a WR. Little had a 25" vertical and poor agility drill showings. Gaulden tested as one of if not the poorest athlete among his DB class. I get it, you get a feeling for a particular guy every now and then and take a chance, but IMO we do it too often.

I completely agree, we do this wayyy to often.

My issue with drafting non-athletes is they often have zero room for error.

Im not too keen on drafting guys that have to play perfectly in order to be successful.

 I was unaware of Little having bad agility and vert jump scores. That definitely shakes my confidence in him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

If Cockrell is better, then fine. But Rivera and the FO has had plenty of opportunities to upgrade there but have refused to do so. If the position becomes a hindrance to the team, it's all on them

if the FS position becomes that much of a hindrance, then I would be putting more blame on our front 7 than Cockrell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Looks like he may grab the starting FS spot since Gaulden isn't looking too great.

 

How are you feeling about that ?

 

I could not find any mention of him ever playing safety previously. But he is a Duke guy, have to think he has the smarts to put it together.

I feel like we need a couple vets signed soon for depth if that is the case. We also need to sign Cockrell now to a cheaper 2-3 year deal so he can be a valuable depth piece in the future before he becomes a free agent and his price goes up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

if the FS position becomes that much of a hindrance, then I would be putting more blame on our front 7 than Cockrell.

Unfortunately, that's Ron's mentality too. His mentality is that if a deep safety has to make a play then everyone else failed. The thing is though that sometimes everyone else does fail and that's why you have that guy back there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • His footwork has been discussed at length, just like Cam's was--no argument from me there. What I'm asking for is a statistical indicator that supports the idea that Bryce's footwork is creating meaningful issues. With Cam, we could clearly correlate occasional high passes to footwork problems. With Bryce, there are occasional misfires as well, but we aren't seeing it surface with the frequency of severity you'd expect if it were such a persistent issue. That's why when concerns about his footwork and height are paired together, there should be some measurable statistical impact. That's what I keep coming back to. That same inconsistency shows up in the deep ball critique. Saying "he misses guys outright" suggests he either isn't seeing them or can't hit them downfield... yet, as we've already seen, he was top-10 in catchable passes over 20+ yards. If accuracy were truly the issue, it should reflect in the data. It's also worth pointing out that deep-ball concerns largely became the next talking point after he made it through the season without the durability disaster some were predicting (despite being sacked for what was then the second-most times ever for a rookie QB). As for those sideline throws you mentioned: what specific throws are you referring to? If you can identify them, I'd be happy to pull up the PFF premium grades or grab All-22 clips from NFL Pro to look at those sequences and assess how real that concern is. For my part, I'd actually like to see improvement in the intermediate game. That was a strength his rookie year, but he seemed to trade it for a stronger deep game this past season. Could that shift relate to height and footwork? Maybe! But again... we'd need data or film trends to verify that rather than assume it. On the "top-10" classification front: I know that it's a moving target for most people. That's why I've been asking for specifics. Without a shared definition, it's hard to engage meaningfully. So with you moving away from raw yardage, does that mean your preferred KPIs are now height, weight, red zone efficiency, and point differential? If so, that's totally fine (just being clear about it helps). That said... red zone success and point differential depend heavily on OL play, WR execution, coaching decisions, defense (for point differential), etc. They're influenced by the QB but not exclusively determined by him... which, like passing yards, makes them more difficult to isolate for analysis of Bryce's performance.
    • I think "amazing" is basically relating to his prior performances, which is a very low bar. Even at his peak(so far), he hasn't consistently been an elite performer either by the simple eye test nor statistically. Regardless, we have seen the flashes of WHY we drafted him #1 overall and he is visibility significantly more confident. Hopefully he has spent an inordinate amount of time this offseason getting that footwork better and more consistent. That's going to be a massive factor in his continuing improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...