2020 Positional Draft Talk - WR

[Pckfn23]

Some bits from McGinn's WR Draft piece:

My polling of 17 executives in personnel took place in the last 2 ½ weeks. Each scout was asked to rank the wide receivers on a 1 to 6 basis, with a first-place vote worth 6 points, a second worth 5 and so on.

CeeDee Lamb, with 87 points and 10 first-place votes, nosed out Jerry Jeudy, who had 86 and five. Following, in order, were Henry Ruggs (66, one), Justin Jefferson (28 ½), Tee Higgins (25 ½, one), Bryan Edwards (13), Brandon Aiyuk (12), Laviska Shenault (11), Jalen Reagor (10), KJ Hamler (4 ½), Denzel Mims (four), Lynn Bowden (three), Quez Watkins (three), Van Jefferson (two), Gabriel Davis (one) and Michael Pittman (one-half).

Then the personnel men were asked who among the top 10 or 12 players had the best chance to bust. Shenault led the way with eight votes followed by Mims with four, Higgins with two and Hamler, Reagor and Ruggs, each one.

He classifies Claypool as a TE, which I think is silly.

[NCF]

He classifies Claypool as a TE, which I think is silly.

I don't know about silly... I just don't think we should pay attention to that so much anymore. I think Evan Engram when I see Claypool. TE? WR? Who cares. He's good.

[Pckfn23]

He classifies Claypool as a TE, which I think is silly.

I don't know about silly... I just don't think we should pay attention to that so much anymore. I think Evan Engram when I see Claypool. TE? WR? Who cares. He's good.

I get what you are saying, but then he is comparing them to the TEs and all that comes into play there, namely blocking. Not sure the need to do it. He is 6-4, 229, runs a 4.42 40, jumped over 40 inches, and longer than 10.5 feet. I don't see a need to try and shoehorn him into TE.

[NCF]

Not sure the need to do it. He is 6-4, 229, runs a 4.42 40, jumped over 40 inches, and longer than 10.5 feet. I don't see a need to try and shoehorn him into TE.

Agree completely, there.

[Yoop]

He classifies Claypool as a TE, which I think is silly.

I don't know about silly... I just don't think we should pay attention to that so much anymore. I think Evan Engram when I see Claypool. TE? WR? Who cares. He's good.

I get what you are saying, but then he is comparing them to the TEs and all that comes into play there, namely blocking. Not sure the need to do it. He is 6-4, 229, runs a 4.42 40, jumped over 40 inches, and longer than 10.5 feet. I don't see a need to try and shoehorn him into TE.

Is he doing that, or are the scouts saying it?

Isn't McGinn now a payed for site? I always liked his stuff because he used actual scouts to help form his opinion, I think some of these big receivers will run some of the TE routes, didn't we do that with Lazard, or plan to do so with Funchess, my point is we don't plan to use them like in line TE's, but still expect them to block on run options? that would be my impression of Bob and his scouts take on Claypool.

I'd be interested in more of what McGinn and his scouts have to say if I didn't have to pay for it.

[Pckfn23]

McGinn put Claypool in as a TE when he talked to Scouts. As NCF pointed out, it doesn't really matter what they are classified as when they get to the NFL. Right now though, it would make more sense to put Claypool in the WR category to compare with the other WRs. What do you call a TE that never plays inline or in the backfield... A WR.

[YoHoChecko]

My polling of 17 executives in personnel took place in the last 2 ½ weeks. Each scout was asked to rank the wide receivers on a 1 to 6 basis, with a first-place vote worth 6 points, a second worth 5 and so on.

CeeDee Lamb, with 87 points and 10 first-place votes, nosed out Jerry Jeudy, who had 86 and five. Following, in order, were Henry Ruggs (66, one), Justin Jefferson (28 ½), Tee Higgins (25 ½, one), Bryan Edwards (13), Brandon Aiyuk (12), Laviska Shenault (11), Jalen Reagor (10), KJ Hamler (4 ½), Denzel Mims (four), Lynn Bowden (three), Quez Watkins (three), Van Jefferson (two), Gabriel Davis (one) and Michael Pittman (one-half).

Then the personnel men were asked who among the top 10 or 12 players had the best chance to bust. Shenault led the way with eight votes followed by Mims with four, Higgins with two and Hamler, Reagor and Ruggs, each one.

I guess the big surprise here is Bryan Edwards in the 6 slot, as well as Mims being further down (which doesn't surprise me a ton, but defies media reports). I am surprised Tee Higgins is so solidly in 5th place.

[Pckfn23]

Ya, that one was weird.

[BF004]

Yeah, I am not at all a Higgens guy, might be one of my least favorite guys at the tops.

Bowden getting any votes is surprising.

Pittman only getting ½ is also surprising.

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah, I am not at all a Higgens guy, might be one of my least favorite guys at the tops.

Bowden getting any votes is surprising.

Pittman only getting ½ is also surprising.

Strongly agree on all counts. I wonder if the Bowden was one random scout putting in as the #4 WR or three scouts putting him 6th. Based on my one-time experience at the combine, individual scouts' opinions have a HUGE variance (like Adrian McPhereson being the best QB in the 2005 draft and Jason Campbell being second huge variance). So one guy loving Bowden would be less surprising than 3 liking him more than expected. Also makes you wonder if there's enough regional scout variety to his sample. Looks like a very SEC-heavy ranking

[Yoop]

McGinn put Claypool in as a TE when he talked to Scouts. As NCF pointed out, it doesn't really matter what they are classified as when they get to the NFL. Right now though, it would make more sense to put Claypool in the WR category to compare with the other WRs. What do you call a TE that never plays inline or in the backfield... A WR.

ya that doesn't make a lot of sense, and he is with the Athletic now and they will charge ya 50 bucks after the 3 month trial offer, the cancel at anytime is I expect after that 3 months and they got your 50 bucks lol. it really limits your info grabbing ability when so many sites now require membership dues, I always liked McGinn because he was pretty consistent with player evals and grades.

he probably should have a position group for H- Backs split out TE's, or as you said just group Claypool with WR's, I'am sure GM's know what he is, or how they'll use him.

big drop off after Ruggs to Jefferson and that they like Aiyuk more then Shenault or Reagor, then another big drop to the 3rd tier, I'd love to see Jefferson drop to us, I might even move up to get him a little, or Aiyuk would be my next choice.

[YoHoChecko]

I am so sold on either trading up from 30 to 18ish to get Ruggs (costing a 2nd round pick) or trading back to picks 35-42ish and picking up a pick in the 90-110 range and grabbing the best of Ayiuk, Reagor, and Shenault... with Mims and Pittman in the mix as a backup plan with that pick, also. This is my new dream.

[NCF]

I am so sold on either trading up from 30 to 18ish to get Ruggs (costing a 2nd round pick) or trading back to picks 35-42ish and picking up a pick in the 90-110 range and grabbing the best of Ayiuk, Reagor, and Shenault... with Mims and Pittman in the mix as a backup plan with that pick, also. This is my new dream.

I'd give up our 2nd for Ruggs. Would hate not having a pick in Round 2, but it would be worth it in my book.

[YoHoChecko]

I'd give up our 2nd for Ruggs. Would hate not having a pick in Round 2, but it would be worth it in my book.

Yeah, for me the only reason to hold back is that he likely won't fall to the point where even our second could get us. But if he IS there at 17/18 before the Raiders' second pick, I'd jump right up and go for it.

[NCF]

I'd give up our 2nd for Ruggs. Would hate not having a pick in Round 2, but it would be worth it in my book.

Yeah, for me the only reason to hold back is that he likely won't fall to the point where even our second could get us. But if he IS there at 17/18 before the Raiders' second pick, I'd jump right up and go for it.

There's plenty of scenarios. Raiders get Lamb or Jeudy first and then we have a run on OT's... some of which I do think are undervalued and anything is possible. I legitimately think Josh Jones is gone in the teens.

[BF004]

I’m not positive I’d take Ruggs at 30.

[NCF]

I’m not positive I’d take Ruggs at 30.

I'd like to hear your critiques against him.

[Pckfn23]

I’m not positive I’d take Ruggs at 30.

I don't want to give up a 2nd for him, that's for sure!

Consensus Big Board has him at 16. Scouts Inc. has him at 11, Walterfootball at 29.

[Pckfn23]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/new ... prospects/

Super interesting article.

[Pckfn23]

Article on Ruggs, if you didn't see it already:
https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/by-t ... enry-ruggs