College Pro Day Tracker

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-12-2021, 04:18 AM)pulses Wrote: I sent you a video for Marsette  a couple weeks back

I might need to delete a bunch more, didn't get an alert on Marsette...

(03-12-2021, 08:35 AM)Synric Wrote: Amari Rodgers with a meh pro day.

WR Amari Rodgers

Height: 5'9 1/2″
Weight: 212
Vertical: 33
Broad jump: 121
Bench: 24
40-yard: 4.51
Short shuttle: 4.36
3-cone: 7.12

You apply the Pro Day to Combine adds and it's really ugly.

No measurements for alot of the Texas prospects like Samuel Cosmi but he did run a 4.84 and put up a surprising 36 225 reps with what we believe are long arms which is impressive.

That is impressive with Cosmi. All for him in the 2nd if Sewell isn't there at 5 and we don't trade back and a get an OT.

[pulses]

(03-12-2021, 03:00 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I might need to delete a bunch more, didn't get an alert on Marsette...

I believe he was one of them I included in the Darden video? Didn't I send like 2 other links with his?

[pulses]

(03-12-2021, 03:00 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I might need to delete a bunch more, didn't get an alert on Marsette...

Here it is again !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pR7m07KLqA&t=385s

[PikesPeakUC]

Oklahoma had their pro-day today. Underwhelming for Ronnie Perkins measureables, but Creed Humphrey...wow...

Oklahoma C Creed Humphery might just be the most athletic center we've ever seen. pic.twitter.com/CsMc5QDIPo

— Marcus Mosher (@Marcus_Mosher) March 12, 2021

[pulses]

(03-12-2021, 08:01 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: Oklahoma had their pro-day today. Underwhelming for Ronnie Perkins measureables, but Creed Humphrey...wow...

Oklahoma C Creed Humphery might just be the most athletic center we've ever seen. pic.twitter.com/CsMc5QDIPo

— Marcus Mosher (@Marcus_Mosher) March 12, 2021

He'll go in late 1 or early 2 I would imagine.

[Gdale_Bengal]

Wanted Humphrey since my first mock draft. Great player

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-12-2021, 07:56 PM)pulses Wrote: Here it is again !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pR7m07KLqA&t=385s

Thanks bro.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-12-2021, 08:01 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: Oklahoma had their pro-day today. Underwhelming for Ronnie Perkins measureables, but Creed Humphrey...wow...

Oklahoma C Creed Humphery might just be the most athletic center we've ever seen. pic.twitter.com/CsMc5QDIPo

— Marcus Mosher (@Marcus_Mosher) March 12, 2021

Wanting Creed in the 2nd now if he falls. Can he play Guard is my question?

Hopkins just doesn't seem the same player at Guard as he is at Center.

[pulses]

(03-13-2021, 05:09 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Thanks bro.

anytime buddy

[*Synric*]

(03-12-2021, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was interested in the measuables of Cosmi. he hasn't released it yet but I do believe he'll be Kirwans #2 OT prospect. He seems to love Cosmi and hate Mayfield; 2 OTs i often see ranked close together 

Samuel Cosmi
Height: 6'6″ (62nd percentile)
Weight: 314 (58th)
Arm: 33 (13th)
Vertical: 30 (69th)
Broad jump: 117 (98th)
Bench: 36 (98th)
Bench: 36 reps (98th)
40-yard: 4.84 (98th)
Short shuttle: 4.39 (98th)
3-cone: 7.35 (94th)

That arm length is surprising because he looks longer. Excellent testing though matches the great body control you can see on tape.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-14-2021, 10:07 AM)Synric Wrote: Samuel Cosmi
Height: 6'6″ (62nd percentile)
Weight: 314 (58th)
Arm: 33 (13th)
Vertical: 30 (69th)
Broad jump: 117 (98th)
Bench: 36 (98th)
Bench: 36 reps (98th)
40-yard: 4.84 (98th)
Short shuttle: 4.39 (98th)
3-cone: 7.35 (94th)

That arm length is surprising because he looks longer. Excellent testing though matches the great body control you can see on tape.

Whoa there is some wow stuff there

[CJD]

Cosmi may have athleted his way into the first round. But let's talk about those Rashawn Slater numbers! The size is underwhelming, as we expected, but breaking the 33 inch arm mark is a big deal in terms of his stock, in my opinion. And pairing his technical prowess with some impressive athletic numbers really helps sell me on taking him and keeping him at tackle. Would 5 be too rich for him? Maaaybe but if he's our starting RT for the next 10 seasons I don't really think you regret the pick even if there was technically a better value player available at a lesser position of need.

[Essex Johnson]

(03-14-2021, 01:37 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Cosmi may have athleted his way into the first round. But let's talk about those Rashawn Slater numbers! The size is underwhelming, as we expected, but breaking the 33 inch arm mark is a big deal in terms of his stock, in my opinion. And pairing his technical prowess with some impressive athletic numbers really helps sell me on taking him and keeping him at tackle. Would 5 be too rich for him? Maaaybe but if he's our starting RT for the next 10 seasons I don't really think you regret the pick even if there was technically a better value player available at a lesser position of need.

Guard play seems to be increasing in value so I could see taking him at #5 or maybe move back 1/2 spots and still take him.. he is the top guard for sure but could slide to tackle.. not a bad combo to have

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-14-2021, 10:07 AM)Synric Wrote: Samuel Cosmi
Height: 6'6″ (62nd percentile)
Weight: 314 (58th)
Arm: 33 (13th)
Vertical: 30 (69th)
Broad jump: 117 (98th)
Bench: 36 (98th)
Bench: 36 reps (98th)
40-yard: 4.84 (98th)
Short shuttle: 4.39 (98th)
3-cone: 7.35 (94th)

That arm length is surprising because he looks longer. Excellent testing though matches the great body control you can see on tape.

Impressive. Liking Cosmi in the 2nd if he falls to us and Sewell isn't there. Same with Creed, Eichenberg or Carman.

[Whatever]

(03-14-2021, 01:37 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Cosmi may have athleted his way into the first round. But let's talk about those Rashawn Slater numbers! The size is underwhelming, as we expected, but breaking the 33 inch arm mark is a big deal in terms of his stock, in my opinion. And pairing his technical prowess with some impressive athletic numbers really helps sell me on taking him and keeping him at tackle. Would 5 be too rich for him? Maaaybe but if he's our starting RT for the next 10 seasons I don't really think you regret the pick even if there was technically a better value player available at a lesser position of need.

The problem with Slater's Pro Day numbers is that he should excel at the 40, 3 cone, and bench due to his size limitations.  The fact that he's undersized for a T makes all those drills much easier for him.  

I'm also not seeing why RT would be considered a bigger need than other positions that would have top prospects available at 5.  We have several positions where we have basically nothing but backup quality players.  RG, LG, X WR, Edge, and CB all have gaping holes in the top of the depth chart.  RT falls into the second tier of needs where we have mediocre starters that we could stand to upgrade, along with C, TE, UT, and stack LB.  I would prioritize it higher than the other second tier needs due to Hart's contract status and the need to protect Burrow, but it's currently not even a Top 5 need.

If you're picking at 5, it needs to be someone who has All Pro/perennial Pro Bowler type potential.  It shouldn't be a T that should be good/not great if he can overcome his size limitations.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-14-2021, 01:37 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Cosmi may have athleted his way into the first round. But let's talk about those Rashawn Slater numbers! The size is underwhelming, as we expected, but breaking the 33 inch arm mark is a big deal in terms of his stock, in my opinion. And pairing his technical prowess with some impressive athletic numbers really helps sell me on taking him and keeping him at tackle. Would 5 be too rich for him? Maaaybe but if he's our starting RT for the next 10 seasons I don't really think you regret the pick even if there was technically a better value player available at a lesser position of need.

I tried to get on board with slater after that impressive pro day. From what I watched it’s still a no go for me.

[CJD]

(03-14-2021, 08:01 PM)Whatever Wrote: The problem with Slater's Pro Day numbers is that he should excel at the 40, 3 cone, and bench due to his size limitations.  The fact that he's undersized for a T makes all those drills much easier for him.  

I'm also not seeing why RT would be considered a bigger need than other positions that would have top prospects available at 5.  We have several positions where we have basically nothing but backup quality players.  RG, LG, X WR, Edge, and CB all have gaping holes in the top of the depth chart.  RT falls into the second tier of needs where we have mediocre starters that we could stand to upgrade, along with C, TE, UT, and stack LB.  I would prioritize it higher than the other second tier needs due to Hart's contract status and the need to protect Burrow, but it's currently not even a Top 5 need.

If you're picking at 5, it needs to be someone who has All Pro/perennial Pro Bowler type potential.  It shouldn't be a T that should be good/not great if he can overcome his size limitations.  

I think this is an overly uncharitable depiction of his prospect status. I think a more accurate way of putting it would be "a tackle that will be good if he does not overcome his size limitations, but great if he does." The size limitations are what keep him from being an elite prospect, not from him being a good prospect. He's already a really good prospect.

[Whatever]

(03-14-2021, 10:18 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think this is an overly uncharitable depiction of his prospect status. I think a more accurate way of putting it would be "a tackle that will be good if he does not overcome his size limitations, but great if he does." The size limitations are what keep him from being an elite prospect, not from him being a good prospect. He's already a really good prospect.

If we're splitting hairs, you cannot say he will be good if he can't overcome his size limitations or great if he does.  You can say he can or he should, but not that he will.  If he can't overcome his size limitations and can't get movement in the run game or gets beat because defenders can consistently get into his chest, he won't even be good though, so that's still not really an accurate statement.  

That aside, we both agree that he's not an elite prospect.  Why would we take him at 5, then?

[CJD]

(03-15-2021, 12:57 AM)Whatever Wrote: If we're splitting hairs, you cannot say he will be good if he can't overcome his size limitations or great if he does.  You can say he can or he should, but not that he will.  If he can't overcome his size limitations and can't get movement in the run game or gets beat because defenders can consistently get into his chest, he won't even be good though, so that's still not really an accurate statement.  

That aside, we both agree that he's not an elite prospect.  Why would we take him at 5, then?

Because we need to protect the knees of an elite prospect.

[Whatever]

(03-15-2021, 08:44 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Because we need to protect the knees of an elite prospect.

How often do you see a QB sustain an injury like Burrow's because of a hit coming off RT?  In Burrow's case, as well as similar injuries sustained by Palmer and Brady, it's guys coming up the middle and diving low at the QB's plant leg.