Slater over Sewell

[Nicomo Cosca]

(02-03-2021, 12:39 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And hasn’t played football since.

I’m not saying he is bad. I just don’t think he is the perfect flawless prospect he has been propped up to be though.

I would hope not. It would be a really silly take...

I think some are not quite seeing the big picture with Sewell though. It’s about his potential. He’s not leaps and bounds ahead of other top OT prospects right now, but he was dominating at a younger age (he started for Oregon at 18). With his size, athleticism (and mean streak), once he improves his technique he’s going to be insane.

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-03-2021, 01:02 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I would hope not. It would be a really silly take...

I think some are not quite seeing the big picture with Sewell though. It’s about his potential. He’s not leaps and bounds ahead of other top OT prospects right now, but he was dominating at a younger age (he started for Oregon at 18). With his size, athleticism (and mean streak), once he improves his technique he’s going to be insane.

Don't let the detractors wear you down or write revisionist history. The dude was damn good last year. He would have been OT#1 then as well. 

[Socal Bengals fan]

There is zero comparison.. one guy just over powers people the other guy just tries to put his body in between the dlinemen n runner. Slater at 603 is too short to play left tackle the only other guy that is that short is the left tackle from green bay . Being 603 he belongs inside at guard .

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-03-2021, 12:50 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Not one single person on here has said that.

Probably why I didn't say on here. Although I haven't read every post.

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-03-2021, 10:17 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Probably why I didn't say on here. Although I haven't read every post.

But...i haven't seen anyone, anywhere say it either. 

[*Synric*]

(02-01-2021, 04:59 PM)Jpoore Wrote: If you know me you know ESPECIALLY this year I’m a major proponent of trading back. But found this tidbit interesting, as more and more nfl teams and team personell have slater rated higher.

Daniel Jeremiah: we all know slater over Sewell.

Lance zerlien: he agrees with Dj

Matt Miller: multiple scouting directors and area scouts prefer slater over Sewell

They also have Patrick Surtain over Caleb Farley because he is more experienced and "technically sound" but Farley easily has the high upside.

Penei Sewell doesn't have bad technique he is just more inexperienced but the upside to his size, length, and rare athleticism is what makes him a special prospect.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-03-2021, 01:06 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: But...i haven't seen anyone, anywhere say it either. 

You have either read everything on the internet. Or do not understand exaggeration. 

[*ochocincos*]

(02-03-2021, 01:12 PM)Synric Wrote: They also have Patrick Surtain over Caleb Farley because he is more experienced and "technically sound" but Farley easily has the high upside.

Penei Sewell doesn't have bad technique he is just more inexperienced but the upside to his size, length, and rare athleticism is what makes him a special prospect.

That's always the argument when it comes to 1st round especially.
Do you draft for the elite upside, or do you draft for how ready they are?
Josh Allen probably would have been QB1 if going strictly by upside. But he went after Mayfield and Darnold because he wasn't as NFL-ready as they were.
OJ Howard would have gone probably in the Top 15 of the draft if he had shown more pass catching production in college to go along with his elite profile.

With that said, Sewell doesn't have near as low of a floor as Josh Allen or OJ Howard had. He's just not 100% the most NFL-ready OT in the draft. But he does have the most upside, which is why most consider him OT1.

[*ochocincos*]

(02-03-2021, 01:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You have either read everything on the internet. Or do not understand exaggeration. 

Never good to exaggerate. People will pick that apart on here. Heck, even if you say "good" but really just mean "solid," you'll see people critique.

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-03-2021, 01:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You have either read everything on the internet. Or do not understand exaggeration. 

I have and i do. 

[*Synric*]

The Draft Network just did an excellent write up of Penei Sewell vs Rashawn Slater.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/penei-sewell-rashawn-slater-ot1-2021-nfl-draft

My favorite quote:

Quote:This is where Slater has Sewell beat. He’s simply more technically proficient than Sewell, as so many of his reps paint the ideal picture for tackle play. But for that polish, he isn’t more effective than Sewell. Slater remains a victim of suboptimal size for bookend play. Bull-rushes will get inside of his chest and fold him back. In the rare instances in which Slater fails to frame a rusher appropriately, he has the foot speed and balance to recover, but he doesn’t have the displacement power to knock rushers off of their path or the length to re-leverage. Despite his great footwork, those weaknesses will leave him susceptible to rushes both through his chest and on his inside shoulder.

There’s little that Slater can do about this. He’s good—he’s so stinkin’ good—because of how technically proficient he is. But he’s unlikely to get longer, taller, or significantly stronger, so when he’s anything less than perfect in his reads or sets, he’s at a disadvantage. The margin for error is just so much smaller when you’re on an uphill climb against NFL athletes for 16 weeks.

[BenZoo2]

(02-02-2021, 03:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Let's talk about something Daniel Jeremiah doesn't have; Wyatt Davis in his top 50. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/daniel-jeremiah-s-top-50-2021-nfl-draft-prospect-rankings-1-0

He does have Landon Dickerson at #44, listed as IOL. 

That’s gonna leave a mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Burreaux]

Sewell is young but has the size, strength, and athletic ability to become one of the best tackles in the NFL. Slater is more polished but is limited by size. If I’m the Bengals I would take Sewell and develop him. They could bring Sewell in and put him at LG worst case scenario and allow him to develop with intentions of moving him outside when he improves. If they feel he’s ready they could start him at tackle day 1.

[Bmore Birds]

(02-03-2021, 01:34 PM)ochocincos Wrote: That's always the argument when it comes to 1st round especially.
Do you draft for the elite upside, or do you draft for how ready they are?
Josh Allen probably would have been QB1 if going strictly by upside. But he went after Mayfield and Darnold because he wasn't as NFL-ready as they were.
OJ Howard would have gone probably in the Top 15 of the draft if he had shown more pass catching production in college to go along with his elite profile.

With that said, Sewell doesn't have near as low of a floor as Josh Allen or OJ Howard had. He's just not 100% the most NFL-ready OT in the draft. But he does have the most upside, which is why most consider him OT1.

Exactly. I tend to want the sure thing in round one and go for upside later. Haven't been happy with the Queen & Hollywood picks for that reason. We passed on AJ Brown and others to go for speed and upside. You can find fast guys or strong guys later in the draft who can be situational players or play on ST. 

But at the Bengals spot at pick 5, I believe you should pick a potential superstar. If they're not sold on Sewell and can't trade back, pick Pitts or Chase or Smith imo. Don't reach for Slater who will be good but never 'great'.

[Hammerstripes]

(02-05-2021, 10:15 PM)Burreaux Wrote: Sewell is young but has the size, strength, and athletic ability to become one of the best tackles in the NFL. Slater is more polished but is limited by size. If I’m the Bengals I would take Sewell and develop him. They could bring Sewell in and put him at LG worst case scenario and allow him to develop with intentions of moving him outside when he improves. If they feel he’s ready they could start him at tackle day 1.

Hard to develop a guy as a tackle when you play him at guard.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-06-2021, 05:35 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Hard to develop a guy as a tackle when you play him at guard.

I'm not so sure about that.  It worked out rather well with Andrew Whitworth.

[Burreaux]

(02-06-2021, 05:35 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Hard to develop a guy as a tackle when you play him at guard.

It's also hard to protect Joe Burrow with a 20 year old tackle known to be raw in pass protection in space. He's a immediate upgrade at guard. I'd let the kid get acclimated to the speed of the game and teach him technique in practice until he's a liable option on the outside.

[*ochocincos*]

(02-05-2021, 10:45 PM)Bmore Birds Wrote: Exactly. I tend to want the sure thing in round one and go for upside later. Haven't been happy with the Queen & Hollywood picks for that reason. We passed on AJ Brown and others to go for speed and upside. You can find fast guys or strong guys later in the draft who can be situational players or play on ST. 

But at the Bengals spot at pick 5, I believe you should pick a potential superstar. If they're not sold on Sewell and can't trade back, pick Pitts or Chase or Smith imo. Don't reach for Slater who will be good but never 'great'.

Slater's arm length and wingspan needs to be measured, honestly.
I collected metrics in another thread and found about 9 of the Top 30 OTs on PFF based on 2020 performance have shorter than 34" arms, but only 1 has shorter than 33" arms. I know measurements aren't everything, but they do matter some.

Sewell, on the other hand, isn't 100% refined, but he's proven to be a beast for at least one season and he has All-Pro potential. As you said, when picking Top 5, it's probably better to go after a guy with superstar potential. 

I'd also consider Darrisaw at 5 honestly. He has ideal size and length, plus he was PFF's top-rated Power 5 OT in 2020 against both the run and pass. He was just 0.2 pts off Sewell's 2019.

[sandwedge]

(02-08-2021, 11:37 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Slater's arm length and wingspan needs to be measured, honestly.
I collected metrics in another thread and found about 9 of the Top 30 OTs on PFF based on 2020 performance have shorter than 34" arms, but only 1 has shorter than 33" arms. I know measurements aren't everything, but they do matter some.

Sewell, on the other hand, isn't 100% refined, but he's proven to be a beast for at least one season and he has All-Pro potential. As you said, when picking Top 5, it's probably better to go after a guy with superstar potential. 

I'd also consider Darrisaw at 5 honestly. He has ideal size and length, plus he was PFF's top-rated Power 5 OT in 2020 against both the run and pass. He was just 0.2 pts off Sewell's 2019.

I like Dasrrisaw more than Slater. I think NY will take Sewell and if somehow we can trade down a couple of spots, I'd be writing Darrisaw's name on my card.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(02-08-2021, 10:46 PM)sandwedge Wrote: I like Dasrrisaw more than Slater. I think NY will take Sewell and if somehow we can trade down a couple of spots, I'd be writing Darrisaw's name on my card.

Yeah, Darrisaw is growing on me. Him and Pitts if Sewell is not there is where I am leaning.