Tweet
Going
[+] EnlargeStanley Brewster/Icon SMI
Ryan Clady started 37 of 39 games in three seasons at Boise State.
Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State (6-foot-6, 317 pounds, 5.15 40-yard dash)
Biggest pro: Combination of frame and feet
Biggest con: Explosive power
Draft projection: Mid-first round
Kenny Phillips, S, Miami (6-1 3/4, 203, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Combination of athleticism and toughness
Biggest con: Inconsistency
Draft projection: Mid-to-late first round
Derrick Harvey, DE, Florida (6-4 1/2, 250, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Athleticism for his frame
Biggest con: Bulk and strength versus the run
Draft projection: First round
Rashard Mendenhall, RB, Illinois (5-11, 225, 4.55 40-yard dash)
Biggest pro: Physical running style
Biggest con: Lack of elusiveness
Draft projection: Late-first round
James Hardy, WR, Indiana (6-5 1/2, 218, 4.58)
Biggest pro: Outstanding package of size and athleticism
Biggest con: Off-the-field baggage
Draft projection: First or second round
Aqib Talib, CB, Kansas (6-1 1/2, 201, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Ball skills (at CB, WR and RS)
Biggest con: Turning and running versus faster receivers
Draft projection: First or second round
Calais Campbell, DE, Miami (6-7 1/2, 279, 4.80)
Biggest pro: Frame
Biggest con: Struggles to beat the double team
Draft projection: Late-first or second round
Pat Sims, DT, Auburn (6-3 1/2, 310, 4.96)
Biggest pro: Short-area quickness/power
Biggest con: Lack of playing experience
Draft projection: Late-first or second round
Brandon Flowers, CB, Virginia Tech (5-10, 190, 4.40)
Biggest pro: Consistency in man-to-man coverage
Biggest con: Lack of ideal size
Draft projection: Second round
Ray Rice, RB, Rutgers, (5-9, 197 4.55)
Biggest pro: Natural running skills
Biggest con: Small frame for featured back
Draft projection: Second round
Anthony Collins, OT, Kansas (6-6, 310, 5.10)
Biggest pro: Feet and body control
Biggest con: Phone-booth strength
Draft projection: Second round
Jerod Mayo, OLB, Tennessee (6-2, 230, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Range versus the run when protected
Biggest con: Lacks strength to disengage when forced to play in the phone booth
Draft projection: Second round
Erin Henderson, OLB, Maryland (6-2 1/2, 240, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Range versus run and in coverage
Biggest con: Taking on blockers
Draft projection: Second round
James Davis, RB, Clemson (5-10 1/2, 210, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Tough, patient running
Biggest con: Not enough wiggle
Draft projection: Second or third round
Jamaal Charles, RB, Texas (6-1, 203, 4.35)
Biggest pro: Exceptional speed
Biggest con: Must get bigger/stronger
Draft projection: Second or third round
Devin Thomas, WR, Michigan State (6-1 3/4, 215, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Big-play potential
Biggest con: Inexperience
Draft projection: Second or third round
Martellus Bennett, TE, Texas A&M (6-6 1/2, 250, 4.75)
Biggest pro: Impressive speed for frame
Biggest con: Not as naturally athletic as straight-line speed would indicate
Draft projection: Second or third round
Cornelius Ingram, TE, Florida (6-4, 235, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Natural athleticism
Biggest con: Bulk/strength as a blocker
Draft projection: Second or third round
Jack Ikegwuonu, CB, Wisconsin (6-1, 200 4.55)
Biggest pro: Size and physical approach
Biggest con: Durability and character
Draft projection: Second or third round
Jermichael Finley, TE, Texas (6-5, 240, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Athleticism for such a big frame
Biggest con: Must add bulk and strength to frame
Draft projection: Third round
Kevin Smith, RB, UCF (6-1, 212, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Body control/fluid hips
Biggest con: Lacks elite second-gear
Draft projection: Third round
Branden Albert, OG, Virginia (6-6 1/2, 315, 5.30)
Biggest pro: Fine combination of frame, technique, mobility and versatility
Biggest con: Not overwhelmingly strong
Draft projection: Third round
Geno Hayes, ILB, Florida State (6-1 1/2, 225, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Overall range
Biggest con: Lean frame
Draft projection: Third round
Davone Bess, WR, Hawaii (5-10, 193, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Fluidity as route-runner and in open field (as WR and PR)
Biggest con: Below average height
Draft projection: Third round
Ryan Grice-Mullen, WR, Hawaii (5-11, 180, 4.55)
Biggest pro: Hands
Biggest con: Lack of second gear
Draft projection: Fourth or fifth round
Jonathan Dingle, DE, West Virginia (6-3, 270, 4.80)
Biggest pro: Interior pass rushing potential
Biggest con: Combination of age and lack of game experience
Draft projection: Fourth or fifth round
Mario Urrutia, WR, Louisville (6-5 1/2, 218, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Size
Biggest con: Separation skills
Draft projection: Fourth or fifth round
Taj Smith, WR, Syracuse (6-0 1/2, 188, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Natural athleticism
Biggest con: Unreliable hands and age (24 years old)
Draft projection: Sixth or seventh round
James Banks, WR, Carson-Newman (6-2 1/2, 212, 4.60)
Biggest pro: Combination of size and acrobatic athleticism
Biggest con: Baggage (24-year old was released by Tennessee due to academic and disciplinary issues)
Draft projection: Seventh round or free agent
Franklin Dunbar, OT, Middle Tennessee State (6-5, 325, 5.30)
Biggest pro: Tall and thick
Biggest con: Unpolished
Draft projection: Late rounds or free agent
Staying
[+] EnlargeJulie Scheidegger/US Presswire
Chase Daniel made the right decision to return to Missouri for his senior season.
Chase Daniel, QB, Missouri (5-10, 225, 4.70)
Daniel won't get any taller during the next 15 months but more experience can only help the dual-threat quarterback's chances in the NFL draft.
Travis Beckum, TE, Wisconsin (6-4, 228, 4.55)
The undersized Beckum made wise decision to return to school. He could easily become the first tight end taken in the 2009 draft by improving his bulk and strength between now and then.
Chase Coffman, TE, Missouri (6-5 7/8, 249, 4.75
With fellow TE Martin Rucker moving on to the NFL, Coffman can be the go-to-guy for Daniel next season. In order to improve his stock for the 2009 draft Coffman needs to improve his bulk and strength without sacrificing quickness.
Alex Mack, C, California (6-5, 305, 5.05)
Mack could have been the first center selected in this year's draft. Instead he's returning to school in order to make things right for a Cal program that disappointed during the second half of the 2007 season.
Rey Maualuga, ILB, USC (6-2 1/2, 251, 4.68)
Maualuga publicly stated he plans on returning to school next fall, but that was before his three-sack, one-interception outing versus Illinois in the Rose Bowl. Maualuga is the most naturally gifted of USC's trio of future first-round linebackers. He is also the least polished of the three, but Maualuga's exceptional Rose Bowl performance was a prime example of his continued development.
Brian Cushing, OLB, USC (6-4, 243, 4.60)
A versatile outside linebacker, Cushing could play on the strong side SAM in a 4-3 scheme or rush linebacker in a 3-4 at the next level. A healthy and productive senior season should land Cushing a spot in the first round of next year's draft.
Sean Lee, OLB, Penn State 6020 232 4.65
Like Paul Posluszny (Buffalo Bills) and Dan Connor (2008 draft) before him, Lee can show NFL scouts more versatility by moving to inside linebacker as a senior.
Undecided
AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt
Can Darren McFadden turn down a top-5 payday in the NFL?
Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas (6-2, 212, 4.40)
Biggest pro: Exceptional athleticism
Biggest con: Relatively slender lower body
Draft projection: Top-five selection
James Laurinaitis, ILB, Ohio State (6-2 1/2, 244, 4.55)
Biggest pro: Versatility
Biggest con: Needs to become more consistent versus the run
Draft projection: Top-15 pick
Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State (6-1, 203, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Playmaking instincts
Biggest con: Lacks ideal quickness in-and-out of cuts
Draft projection: First round
DeSean Jackson, WR, California (6-0, 179, 4.35)
Biggest pro: Open-field running
Biggest con: Bulk/durability
Draft projection: Early-to-mid first round
Malcolm Kelly, WR, Oklahoma (6-4, 217, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Strong hands
Biggest con: Disappears at times
Draft projection: Mid-to-late first round
Jonathan Stewart, RB, Oregon (5-11, 233, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Combination of burst and power
Biggest con: Durability
Draft projection: First round
Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State (6-3 5/8, 255, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Combination of power, quickness and motor
Biggest con: Smaller frame
Draft projection: First round
Felix Jones, RB, Arkansas (6-0, 202, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Speed/versatility
Biggest con: Can he handle the load?
Draft projection: Late-first round
Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU (6-5, 289, 4.75)
Biggest pro: Versatility; can play power end in a 4-3 and/or 5-technique in a 3-4
Biggest con: Top-end speed
Draft projection: Late-first or second round
Mario Manningham, WR, Michigan (6-0, 188, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Vertical pass-catching ability
Biggest con: Not physical enough yet
Draft projection: First or second round
Michael Oher, OT, Mississippi (6-5, 323, 5.15)
Biggest pro: Combination of size, feet and strength
Biggest con: Unpolished technique
Draft projection: First or second round
Duke Robinson, OG, Oklahoma (6-5, 335, 5.30)
Biggest pro: Mauling run blocker
Biggest con: Range in pass protection
Draft projection: First or second round
Earl Bennett, WR, Vanderbilt (6-1, 205, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Route running skills
Biggest con: Lacks second-gear in open field
Draft projection: Second round
Phil Loadholt, OT, Oklahoma (6-7 1/2, 340, 5.25)
Biggest pro: Natural athleticism for his size
Biggest con: Inexperience as JUCO transfer in 2007
Draft projection: Second round
Steve Slaton, RB, West Virginia (5-10, 196, 4.43)
Biggest pro: Speed/versatility
Biggest con: Size/toughness
Draft projection: Second or third round
Johnson Michael, DE, Georgia Tech (6-6 1/2, 255, 4.55)
Biggest pro: Explosive closing burst, especially for his frame
Biggest con: Raw because of inexperience
Draft projection: Third round
[+] EnlargeStanley Brewster/Icon SMI
Ryan Clady started 37 of 39 games in three seasons at Boise State.
Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State (6-foot-6, 317 pounds, 5.15 40-yard dash)
Biggest pro: Combination of frame and feet
Biggest con: Explosive power
Draft projection: Mid-first round
Kenny Phillips, S, Miami (6-1 3/4, 203, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Combination of athleticism and toughness
Biggest con: Inconsistency
Draft projection: Mid-to-late first round
Derrick Harvey, DE, Florida (6-4 1/2, 250, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Athleticism for his frame
Biggest con: Bulk and strength versus the run
Draft projection: First round
Rashard Mendenhall, RB, Illinois (5-11, 225, 4.55 40-yard dash)
Biggest pro: Physical running style
Biggest con: Lack of elusiveness
Draft projection: Late-first round
James Hardy, WR, Indiana (6-5 1/2, 218, 4.58)
Biggest pro: Outstanding package of size and athleticism
Biggest con: Off-the-field baggage
Draft projection: First or second round
Aqib Talib, CB, Kansas (6-1 1/2, 201, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Ball skills (at CB, WR and RS)
Biggest con: Turning and running versus faster receivers
Draft projection: First or second round
Calais Campbell, DE, Miami (6-7 1/2, 279, 4.80)
Biggest pro: Frame
Biggest con: Struggles to beat the double team
Draft projection: Late-first or second round
Pat Sims, DT, Auburn (6-3 1/2, 310, 4.96)
Biggest pro: Short-area quickness/power
Biggest con: Lack of playing experience
Draft projection: Late-first or second round
Brandon Flowers, CB, Virginia Tech (5-10, 190, 4.40)
Biggest pro: Consistency in man-to-man coverage
Biggest con: Lack of ideal size
Draft projection: Second round
Ray Rice, RB, Rutgers, (5-9, 197 4.55)
Biggest pro: Natural running skills
Biggest con: Small frame for featured back
Draft projection: Second round
Anthony Collins, OT, Kansas (6-6, 310, 5.10)
Biggest pro: Feet and body control
Biggest con: Phone-booth strength
Draft projection: Second round
Jerod Mayo, OLB, Tennessee (6-2, 230, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Range versus the run when protected
Biggest con: Lacks strength to disengage when forced to play in the phone booth
Draft projection: Second round
Erin Henderson, OLB, Maryland (6-2 1/2, 240, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Range versus run and in coverage
Biggest con: Taking on blockers
Draft projection: Second round
James Davis, RB, Clemson (5-10 1/2, 210, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Tough, patient running
Biggest con: Not enough wiggle
Draft projection: Second or third round
Jamaal Charles, RB, Texas (6-1, 203, 4.35)
Biggest pro: Exceptional speed
Biggest con: Must get bigger/stronger
Draft projection: Second or third round
Devin Thomas, WR, Michigan State (6-1 3/4, 215, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Big-play potential
Biggest con: Inexperience
Draft projection: Second or third round
Martellus Bennett, TE, Texas A&M (6-6 1/2, 250, 4.75)
Biggest pro: Impressive speed for frame
Biggest con: Not as naturally athletic as straight-line speed would indicate
Draft projection: Second or third round
Cornelius Ingram, TE, Florida (6-4, 235, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Natural athleticism
Biggest con: Bulk/strength as a blocker
Draft projection: Second or third round
Jack Ikegwuonu, CB, Wisconsin (6-1, 200 4.55)
Biggest pro: Size and physical approach
Biggest con: Durability and character
Draft projection: Second or third round
Jermichael Finley, TE, Texas (6-5, 240, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Athleticism for such a big frame
Biggest con: Must add bulk and strength to frame
Draft projection: Third round
Kevin Smith, RB, UCF (6-1, 212, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Body control/fluid hips
Biggest con: Lacks elite second-gear
Draft projection: Third round
Branden Albert, OG, Virginia (6-6 1/2, 315, 5.30)
Biggest pro: Fine combination of frame, technique, mobility and versatility
Biggest con: Not overwhelmingly strong
Draft projection: Third round
Geno Hayes, ILB, Florida State (6-1 1/2, 225, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Overall range
Biggest con: Lean frame
Draft projection: Third round
Davone Bess, WR, Hawaii (5-10, 193, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Fluidity as route-runner and in open field (as WR and PR)
Biggest con: Below average height
Draft projection: Third round
Ryan Grice-Mullen, WR, Hawaii (5-11, 180, 4.55)
Biggest pro: Hands
Biggest con: Lack of second gear
Draft projection: Fourth or fifth round
Jonathan Dingle, DE, West Virginia (6-3, 270, 4.80)
Biggest pro: Interior pass rushing potential
Biggest con: Combination of age and lack of game experience
Draft projection: Fourth or fifth round
Mario Urrutia, WR, Louisville (6-5 1/2, 218, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Size
Biggest con: Separation skills
Draft projection: Fourth or fifth round
Taj Smith, WR, Syracuse (6-0 1/2, 188, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Natural athleticism
Biggest con: Unreliable hands and age (24 years old)
Draft projection: Sixth or seventh round
James Banks, WR, Carson-Newman (6-2 1/2, 212, 4.60)
Biggest pro: Combination of size and acrobatic athleticism
Biggest con: Baggage (24-year old was released by Tennessee due to academic and disciplinary issues)
Draft projection: Seventh round or free agent
Franklin Dunbar, OT, Middle Tennessee State (6-5, 325, 5.30)
Biggest pro: Tall and thick
Biggest con: Unpolished
Draft projection: Late rounds or free agent
Staying
[+] EnlargeJulie Scheidegger/US Presswire
Chase Daniel made the right decision to return to Missouri for his senior season.
Chase Daniel, QB, Missouri (5-10, 225, 4.70)
Daniel won't get any taller during the next 15 months but more experience can only help the dual-threat quarterback's chances in the NFL draft.
Travis Beckum, TE, Wisconsin (6-4, 228, 4.55)
The undersized Beckum made wise decision to return to school. He could easily become the first tight end taken in the 2009 draft by improving his bulk and strength between now and then.
Chase Coffman, TE, Missouri (6-5 7/8, 249, 4.75
With fellow TE Martin Rucker moving on to the NFL, Coffman can be the go-to-guy for Daniel next season. In order to improve his stock for the 2009 draft Coffman needs to improve his bulk and strength without sacrificing quickness.
Alex Mack, C, California (6-5, 305, 5.05)
Mack could have been the first center selected in this year's draft. Instead he's returning to school in order to make things right for a Cal program that disappointed during the second half of the 2007 season.
Rey Maualuga, ILB, USC (6-2 1/2, 251, 4.68)
Maualuga publicly stated he plans on returning to school next fall, but that was before his three-sack, one-interception outing versus Illinois in the Rose Bowl. Maualuga is the most naturally gifted of USC's trio of future first-round linebackers. He is also the least polished of the three, but Maualuga's exceptional Rose Bowl performance was a prime example of his continued development.
Brian Cushing, OLB, USC (6-4, 243, 4.60)
A versatile outside linebacker, Cushing could play on the strong side SAM in a 4-3 scheme or rush linebacker in a 3-4 at the next level. A healthy and productive senior season should land Cushing a spot in the first round of next year's draft.
Sean Lee, OLB, Penn State 6020 232 4.65
Like Paul Posluszny (Buffalo Bills) and Dan Connor (2008 draft) before him, Lee can show NFL scouts more versatility by moving to inside linebacker as a senior.
Undecided
AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt
Can Darren McFadden turn down a top-5 payday in the NFL?
Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas (6-2, 212, 4.40)
Biggest pro: Exceptional athleticism
Biggest con: Relatively slender lower body
Draft projection: Top-five selection
James Laurinaitis, ILB, Ohio State (6-2 1/2, 244, 4.55)
Biggest pro: Versatility
Biggest con: Needs to become more consistent versus the run
Draft projection: Top-15 pick
Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State (6-1, 203, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Playmaking instincts
Biggest con: Lacks ideal quickness in-and-out of cuts
Draft projection: First round
DeSean Jackson, WR, California (6-0, 179, 4.35)
Biggest pro: Open-field running
Biggest con: Bulk/durability
Draft projection: Early-to-mid first round
Malcolm Kelly, WR, Oklahoma (6-4, 217, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Strong hands
Biggest con: Disappears at times
Draft projection: Mid-to-late first round
Jonathan Stewart, RB, Oregon (5-11, 233, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Combination of burst and power
Biggest con: Durability
Draft projection: First round
Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State (6-3 5/8, 255, 4.65)
Biggest pro: Combination of power, quickness and motor
Biggest con: Smaller frame
Draft projection: First round
Felix Jones, RB, Arkansas (6-0, 202, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Speed/versatility
Biggest con: Can he handle the load?
Draft projection: Late-first round
Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU (6-5, 289, 4.75)
Biggest pro: Versatility; can play power end in a 4-3 and/or 5-technique in a 3-4
Biggest con: Top-end speed
Draft projection: Late-first or second round
Mario Manningham, WR, Michigan (6-0, 188, 4.45)
Biggest pro: Vertical pass-catching ability
Biggest con: Not physical enough yet
Draft projection: First or second round
Michael Oher, OT, Mississippi (6-5, 323, 5.15)
Biggest pro: Combination of size, feet and strength
Biggest con: Unpolished technique
Draft projection: First or second round
Duke Robinson, OG, Oklahoma (6-5, 335, 5.30)
Biggest pro: Mauling run blocker
Biggest con: Range in pass protection
Draft projection: First or second round
Earl Bennett, WR, Vanderbilt (6-1, 205, 4.50)
Biggest pro: Route running skills
Biggest con: Lacks second-gear in open field
Draft projection: Second round
Phil Loadholt, OT, Oklahoma (6-7 1/2, 340, 5.25)
Biggest pro: Natural athleticism for his size
Biggest con: Inexperience as JUCO transfer in 2007
Draft projection: Second round
Steve Slaton, RB, West Virginia (5-10, 196, 4.43)
Biggest pro: Speed/versatility
Biggest con: Size/toughness
Draft projection: Second or third round
Johnson Michael, DE, Georgia Tech (6-6 1/2, 255, 4.55)
Biggest pro: Explosive closing burst, especially for his frame
Biggest con: Raw because of inexperience
Draft projection: Third round
Comment