Arik Armstead: Could he be our guy?

was considered raw as well

not in the top 10. no way

Did you see the Championship game? Oregon's defensive line was awful. Totally and completely manhandled. Where was Armistead? It made a bad impression...

I can't find it..Perhaps Eric has it archived

Best fit is as a 3-4 end.

and a "quick twitch" athlete...which is extremely rare.
I've seen reports that's he's a top 10 guy....and then other reports that says he's an early 2nd round guy. The combine is HUGE for him....the agility drills and football drills in particular.

His actual production on the field wasn't overly impressive for a guy his size.

In comment 12141076 Andy in Boston said:

Quote:

and a "quick twitch" athlete...which is extremely rare. I've seen reports that's he's a top 10 guy....and then other reports that says he's an early 2nd round guy. The combine is HUGE for him....the agility drills and football drills in particular.

How early in 2nd? We pick 8th

athletic potential. He just didn't make a lot of plays. If you ever thought that JPP could be invisible for games at a time, Armstead would be 10 times worse, imo.

than he does as a 4-3 end. An intriguing developmental guy because of his physical gifts but he didn't really jump off the screen on a sometimes shaky Oregon defense and intriguing developmental guys with limited tape probably should not be Top 10 picks.

JPP's production wasn't there in college either.
These scouts have a way of telling in some cases....I certainly have no clue. But they'll look at his tape and determine if the potential is there to be football productive. And if he has the "desire" to be great....that's part of it. I remember Coughlin raving about JPP's "desire" to be great out of college...that was a huge factor.

of untapped potential. Had an ankle injury that hampered him all year. Might be a top 5 pick if he had gone back to school and had a good year.

Reese is a "measureables" guy, but he's been burned by that a lot, with Robinson, Brewer, and Austin as good examples. You don't want to be the Dave Kingman of GMs when it comes to drafting. A five hundred foot HR, followed by a lot of KOs. I could see him using the #9 pick on AA, but it would be a real surprise. #40 is much more likely, but I think he'll be gone by then.

Another "measureables" guy is Clemmings from Pitt. He could be the pick at #40. Clemmings has only been playing OT for two years, and still has a lot of technique problems, especially in pass protection. He struggled at the SB, but that wasn't unexpected given his lack of experience. I've seen a lot of Pitt games, and there are plays where he looks tremendous. He is also dedicated and articulate. I think he's a low second/early third pick, but I could see Reese taking him at #40. Here's a good article and video of him:

Clemmings at #40?

in college? does anyone know?

In comment 12141109 AcidTest said:

Quote:

of untapped potential. Had an ankle injury that hampered him all year. Might be a top 5 pick if he had gone back to school and had a good year. Reese is a "measureables" guy, but he's been burned by that a lot, with Robinson, Brewer, and Austin as good examples. You don't want to be the Dave Kingman of GMs when it comes to drafting. A five hundred foot HR, followed by a lot of KOs. I could see him using the #9 pick on AA, but it would be a real surprise. #40 is much more likely, but I think he'll be gone by then. Another "measureables" guy is Clemmings from Pitt. He could be the pick at #40. Clemmings has only been playing OT for two years, and still has a lot of technique problems, especially in pass protection. He struggled at the SB, but that wasn't unexpected given his lack of experience. I've seen a lot of Pitt games, and there are plays where he looks tremendous. He is also dedicated and articulate. I think he's a low second/early third pick, but I could see Reese taking him at #40. Here's a good article and video of him: Clemmings at #40?

Reese really hasn't taken a "measurables guy" in the first though. Wilson had plenty of tape, even JPP had enough to go with his athleticism that you could see where he might end up. His gambles have been 2nd and 3rd rounders, JPP perhaps excepted.

In comment 12141109 AcidTest said:

Quote:

of untapped potential. Had an ankle injury that hampered him all year. Might be a top 5 pick if he had gone back to school and had a good year. Reese is a "measureables" guy, but he's been burned by that a lot, with Robinson, Brewer, and Austin as good examples. You don't want to be the Dave Kingman of GMs when it comes to drafting. A five hundred foot HR, followed by a lot of KOs. I could see him using the #9 pick on AA, but it would be a real surprise. #40 is much more likely, but I think he'll be gone by then. Another "measureables" guy is Clemmings from Pitt. He could be the pick at #40. Clemmings has only been playing OT for two years, and still has a lot of technique problems, especially in pass protection. He struggled at the SB, but that wasn't unexpected given his lack of experience. I've seen a lot of Pitt games, and there are plays where he looks tremendous. He is also dedicated and articulate. I think he's a low second/early third pick, but I could see Reese taking him at #40. Here's a good article and video of him: Clemmings at #40?

I've seen him projected in the second round

In comment 12141121 Andy in Boston said:

Quote:

in college? does anyone know?

10 TFL and 4 sacks in 39 games.

who didn't really standout against stronger competition. Very raw athlete, coming from a program not reknowned for developing pro talent on the DL. You're taking a huge risk on him in the early first round, I expect that projection would be a huge reach. At #40, perhaps the risk is mitigated enough to pick him. We shall see.

Bud Dupree is really the only 4-3 DE that fits the usual NYG paradigm. The question is will he test well enough to warrant selection, and will another edge rusher(s) projected early be an NYG fit.

The intangibles are huge. If he has an insane work ethic and strong desire...that is half the battle. But if he's a big teddy bear and only so-so on football, than he's a huge risk.

but unless they add a young DE with potential in FA (in addition to keeping JPP), I'd be stunned if they don't go DE in the first 3 rounds.

In comment 12141122 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12141109 AcidTest said: Quote: of untapped potential. Had an ankle injury that hampered him all year. Might be a top 5 pick if he had gone back to school and had a good year. Reese is a "measureables" guy, but he's been burned by that a lot, with Robinson, Brewer, and Austin as good examples. You don't want to be the Dave Kingman of GMs when it comes to drafting. A five hundred foot HR, followed by a lot of KOs. I could see him using the #9 pick on AA, but it would be a real surprise. #40 is much more likely, but I think he'll be gone by then. Another "measureables" guy is Clemmings from Pitt. He could be the pick at #40. Clemmings has only been playing OT for two years, and still has a lot of technique problems, especially in pass protection. He struggled at the SB, but that wasn't unexpected given his lack of experience. I've seen a lot of Pitt games, and there are plays where he looks tremendous. He is also dedicated and articulate. I think he's a low second/early third pick, but I could see Reese taking him at #40. Here's a good article and video of him: Clemmings at #40? Reese really hasn't taken a "measurables guy" in the first though. Wilson had plenty of tape, even JPP had enough to go with his athleticism that you could see where he might end up. His gambles have been 2nd and 3rd rounders, JPP perhaps excepted.

I thought JPP was a "measureables" guy, but I agree that he's been more conservative in that regard in the first round. That's why I tend to think he wouldn't use the #9 pick on AA, especially given the lousy record of this team the last two years. But I could easily see him taking AA or Clemmings at #40.

But what some people forget is that he was still very productive. He was a man amongst boys in college. People confuse a high ceiling with a low floor. JPP had a high ceiling but his floor wasn't that low. He had a lot to learn but his ability showed up in college.

In comment 12141101 Andy in Boston said:

Quote:

JPP's production wasn't there in college either. These scouts have a way of telling in some cases....I certainly have no clue. But they'll look at his tape and determine if the potential is there to be football productive. And if he has the "desire" to be great....that's part of it. I remember Coughlin raving about JPP's "desire" to be great out of college...that was a huge factor.

JPP had 6.5 sacks and 16.5 TFL in 13 games at South Florida.

only have 6-8 sacks in college.
But I agree there was enough on tape to predict he would be really good.

also, JPP didn't test off the charts at the Combines etc, his strongest measurables were actually his college productivity. And, of course, the backflips.

how about his #'s at his previous college to South Florida?
I think he transferred twice. I don't recall his #'s necessarily being warranted of a #14 pick in the draft.

I thought he was considered "raw" due to the competition faced, not due to a lack of production despite tons of AA as is often the case.

He was as unimpressive as he could have been the few games I watched. His biggest issue to me is that he stands straight up too often at the snap and in the NFL that will get him tossed around no matter how big he is.

He doesn't appear to have a lot of drive, it looks conditioning based at times and he tends to play lazy then try to turn it on when it's time to pass rush. His run technique is lacking most of the time, he doesn't use his long arms to keep blockers off his body and tends to not stay square at the LOS which makes him an easier guy to move or get past in the running game. He lacks suddenness and looks to be diagnosing more than attacking some times.

If he has a future in the NFL, it's inside at DT where his height alone will give him an advantage in the pass happy NFL. He has all the God given talent and size you can ask for it just doesn't show up often enough.

play just 7 games in college? I seem to recall that number, though could be way off

In comment 12141153 Andy in Boston said:

Quote:

how about his #'s at his previous college to South Florida? I think he transferred twice. I don't recall his #'s necessarily being warranted of a #14 pick in the draft.

I think he played at a Junior College for 2 years.

He's got a good first step but his hands need a lot of work as does his ability to stay square and keep plays in front of him in the running game.

In comment 12141148 jeff57 said:

Quote:

In comment 12141101 Andy in Boston said: Quote: JPP's production wasn't there in college either. These scouts have a way of telling in some cases....I certainly have no clue. But they'll look at his tape and determine if the potential is there to be football productive. And if he has the "desire" to be great....that's part of it. I remember Coughlin raving about JPP's "desire" to be great out of college...that was a huge factor. JPP had 6.5 sacks and 16.5 TFL in 13 games at South Florida.

And he was a non-factor until Week 4 and didn't really hit his stride until Week 9.
Link - ( New Window )

that one season, he was collapsing his edge and wreaking havoc. Generating consistent TFLs, chasing down runners from the backside ala Strahan, pursuing to the far boundary and downfield, he was everywhere and indeed a man amongst boys even if the sacks came late.

or want-to.

.

Has always been a guy who hustles, despite some contrary reports that have no merit. His hustle alone has saved us in 3 games I can think of.

At this point I would be much more comfortable with Dupree than Armstead and I am not 100% sold on Dupree that high yet either.

In comment 12141172 Joey in VA said:

Quote:

Has always been a guy who hustles, despite some contrary reports that have no merit. His hustle alone has saved us in 3 games I can think of.

I think the bigger concern by some is his commitment in the weight room (which none of us really can speak of knowledgeably).

be available for us at rd 2.

In comment 12141156 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

play just 7 games in college? I seem to recall that number, though could be way off

BB56, I think that is a far point, but I also think there is a difference between picking at #9 and picking at #15. Also, stop me if I am wrong but I think the difference with JPP was he showed some potential even in his limited playing time. In 14 games, with 7 starts, JPP had 45 tackles, 6.5 for a loss, 6.5 sacks, one interception for a TD, three passes defended and two forced fumbles.

In contrast, Armstead has 4 sacks in 3 seasons. I will say he appears to be the same physical freak that JPP was coming out and there is potential here, but #9 is a tough sell. Some scouts project him at DT, but he doesn't look like a DT to me. I do think he can be a 3-4 or a 4-3 DE, but in a 4-3 he probably plays the left side.

What do I know though, some GMs think he is a first rounder.
GM Thnks Armstead is a first round talent - ( New Window )

over production. The last two drafts, they have given more weight to high production, smart, high quality/team captain type of players.

I highly doubt that they go back to the raw/high ceiling/high potential type of player in the 1st round... maybe not even in the second. I can see them trying for that type of player starting in the 3rd.

Reese and the Giants are starting to value production more and more. 2015 will be more of the same.

that's where I got the 7 from..7 starts

or a team like the Giants or Steelers. =)

for the record, I would pass on AA at #9 and #40. Too much risk too high. You can make a better case for Clemmings at #40, but I'd probably pass as well. I'd really like to stay away from players with question marks on the first two days, whether that involves character problems, an injury history, or late position switchers.

In comment 12141176 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

In comment 12141172 Joey in VA said: Quote: Has always been a guy who hustles, despite some contrary reports that have no merit. His hustle alone has saved us in 3 games I can think of. I think the bigger concern by some is his commitment in the weight room (which none of us really can speak of knowledgeably).

I've never seen questions about his weight room commitment (doesn't mean there weren't any). I thought the JPP concerns were about his commitment in the film room?

Agreed, and I'd like to avoid the risky pick in the second round as well. Even Mara recognizes they're actively trying to recover from poor drafting and risky picks in rounds 2-4.

This thread came to mind when I made my comment.
Thread from 2013 - ( New Window )

.

Not that you're wrong about the film study. It could be both.

Joey is right about his on the field hustle, though.

have been deemed suspect in the past, and he apparently improved upon both in 2014. Now, he'll have to demonstrate it wasn't just due to the circumstances of being his contract year.

In comment 12141288 JonC said:

Quote:

have been deemed suspect in the past, and he apparently improved upon both in 2014. Now, he'll have to demonstrate it wasn't just due to the circumstances of being his contract year.

One of my fears outside of any back issues

In comment 12141226 JonC said:

Quote:

Agreed, and I'd like to avoid the risky pick in the second round as well. Even Mara recognizes they're actively trying to recover from poor drafting and risky picks in rounds 2-4.

Bingo. I'll take a pass on "measurable/project" guys as well.

We need impact players as much as possible in days 1& 2.

That have the measurements and intangibles the Giants prefer but I do like one and it's not Bud Dupree. It's Owamagbe Odighizuwa from ucla. I'd like to see his real measurements at the combine but he's a player to keep an eye on imo.

until the reports of hip surgeries. His medical needs serious review.

In comment 12141330 jayg5 said:

Quote:

That have the measurements and intangibles the Giants prefer but I do like one and it's not Bud Dupree. It's Owamagbe Odighizuwa from ucla. I'd like to see his real measurements at the combine but he's a player to keep an eye on imo.

Agree. Really like him.

Your right, I forgot. Wasn't he out the entire year in 2013? If so he's probably not a great choice at 40.

I like Odighizuwa but the injuries might scare me away at 40 and I think someone else rolls the dice on him in round 2. I like Preston Smith at 40.

In comment 12141368 LakeGeorgeGiant said:

Quote:

I like Odighizuwa but the injuries might scare me away at 40 and I think someone else rolls the dice on him in round 2. I like Preston Smith at 40.

Smith would be a very good pick at #40.

I'd like him at 40. He's strong and stout but not much of a pass rusher imo.

might be in the mix at #40 too.

You lazy bastids!

but with the draft there are no absolutes. It only takes one GM/owner/front office to make it a reality. I'd prefer both Fowler Jr. or Dupree at this point if we go pass rusher.

I like him. Big dude. Watching him on draftbreakdown he seems relentless and uses his size to advantage. I read during senior bowl practices he was lost playing de in 4-3. That doesn't surprise me since he's only played in 3-4 at stanford.

He is getting noise because he is big, but as many games as I have seen of Oregon he rarely is causing issues. He is tall and built nicely, but he would have made a much better OT by far. He is nothing special and I pray we don't take him until the 4th round at best... Please someone else grab him!

For Outside the first round:

Quote:

They've been known to take risks on athletes with marginal production. This guy has an upside that CANNOT be ignored.

There's too much talent with production to match that figures to be available at #40.

ok with the risk in the third.

We can't take a project at #9. This guy may be an athletic freak, but with that college production, he is most definitely a project.

NFL.com has the Giants selecting Arik in one of their mocks that was just updated.
Arik at #9 - ( New Window )

..

Carl Davis, DT Iowa in Round 2?

In comment 12141694 ZogZerg said:

Quote:

NFL.com has the Giants selecting Arik in one of their mocks that was just updated. Arik at #9 - ( New Window )

:)

Has Armstead to the Giants at #9 in his latest mock. (Link below)

I usually like what Jeremiah puts out, but I have questions. (surprise).
- He lists him as a DT. What is this guy exactly? If he is a DT he might be the most athletic DT in 20 years
- How do you account for the severe lack of production. Is it scheme? I don't know what Oregon runs as a defensive philosophy, but they are certainly not a defensive powerhouse and I don't think their defensive players have a good track record in the NFL. Other Ngata of course
- Even if he blows up the combine (which he might) are the Giants going to draft a DT in round 1 after taking Bromley and Hankins in the 3rd and 2nd, respectively, in the past two years. (personally I think they'll taje the best player regardless of position)

Looking at the mock draft, it looks like the perfect example of a situation where the Giants could swap picks with the Browns. With the WRs White and Parker still on the board and the Rams and Vikings in prime position to take two of the top 3 WRs in the draft, the Browns could be looking to move up and get their man. It might only be a matter of a few spots, but I would sleep easier with Armstead at #12 or #19 than at #9. The extra picks would cushion the blow if he bombed.
Jeremiah Mock 2.0 - ( New Window )

advocating strongly for bigger defensive ends.

HOWEVER, at 9? are you kidding? please draft football players who have proven toughness and proven that they make a variety of types of plays.

Not sure, depending on how the draft falls, that I wouldn't take a number of other defensive linesmen before this guy.

then again, not seen any 'tape' at all so....

In comment 12142107 Emil said:

Quote:

Has Armstead to the Giants at #9 in his latest mock. (Link below) I usually like what Jeremiah puts out, but I have questions. (surprise). - He lists him as a DT. What is this guy exactly? If he is a DT he might be the most athletic DT in 20 years - How do you account for the severe lack of production. Is it scheme? I don't know what Oregon runs as a defensive philosophy, but they are certainly not a defensive powerhouse and I don't think their defensive players have a good track record in the NFL. Other Ngata of course - Even if he blows up the combine (which he might) are the Giants going to draft a DT in round 1 after taking Bromley and Hankins in the 3rd and 2nd, respectively, in the past two years. (personally I think they'll taje the best player regardless of position) Looking at the mock draft, it looks like the perfect example of a situation where the Giants could swap picks with the Browns. With the WRs White and Parker still on the board and the Rams and Vikings in prime position to take two of the top 3 WRs in the draft, the Browns could be looking to move up and get their man. It might only be a matter of a few spots, but I would sleep easier with Armstead at #12 or #19 than at #9. The extra picks would cushion the blow if he bombed. Jeremiah Mock 2.0 - ( New Window )

Emil, I can see him at 9 IF the Gmen see as a DT. I don't think he's sudden enough to play DE and be effective as an every down player. His height though and his bulk could make him a solid 4-3 DT if he can learn the spot. At DE he's not anywhere near what this defense needs in an end, but at DT he could be. We beat Brady with length up front and speed on the edge and AA fits that bill at DT but I'm not sure at #9. He's a potential guy like Daryl Gardner was many moons ago, big, athletic, tests well but doesn't play to his measurables all the time. A guy that rangy inside at a 1.5 gap type DT that Spags prefers may work but I'm not sure the immediate value is there at such a high slot. In the 20s, sure but top 10, you can't swing and miss anymore.