Draftstravaganza Bracket 1C: (#3) Clayborn vs. (#5) Watkins

[Lurker64]

In our mock second draft ( http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...k-second-draft ) we decided that rather than a free for all poll, we would try a bracket. Since there are three rounds to go through, we have to move quickly. As such polling for Round 1 close two days from the time of posting. If you're wondering why someone isn't in our bracket, it's probably because someone already picked him, or he got edged out of the top eight.

Let's meet the prospects (All Scouting reports are shamelessly cribbed from Wes Bunting at the excellent National Football Post).

Adrian Clayborn DE, Iowa
6'2 5/8, 281 lbs.

A thick, well-built defensive lineman with a strong lower half who has the ability to consistently anchor vs. blocks when run at. Is very balanced and coordinated on the move, extending his arms into contact and consistently playing off opposing linemen. Is a real stack and shed guy who displays a powerful punch at the point. Is really tough to get into off the line, extends his arms well into opposing linemen while maintaining his balance and working his way toward the ball carrier.

Isn't the most explosive guy initially off the snap as a pass rusher and isn't going to threaten the edge at the next level. However, for such a big defensive end, he exhibits impressive nimbleness and lateral agility to break off a sudden inside move off his initial outside pass rush. Exhibits a quick arm over with the ability to cleanly change directions and gain a step inside. However, allows his pad level to rise and will lose balance, giving athletic offensive tackles a chance to push him past the play. But has a powerful base and can really generate a jolt on contact as a bull rusher. However, it's his balance, body control and ability to gain leverage on contact that allows him to be so effective disengaging in the pass game. Isn't simply a push/pull guy as his lateral quickness paired with his power allow him to consistently shed on contact.

Impression: Isn't your prototypical speed rusher. However, he's a guy who can win on first, second and third down for you at the next level at either defensive end spots.Looks like a potential ten-year vet.

Danny Watkins, OT, Baylor
6'3 3/8", 310 lbs.

A 26-year-old Canadian who has a background playing hockey and is a former firefighter. Made the move to football only three years ago and has drastically improved his game during that time period. Has started two years in a row on the blindside at Baylor and has matured into one of the most impressive offensive linemen in the country in a very short amount of time. Possesses a compact build and seems to lack ideal length. However, exhibits good body control and a strong lower half when asked to get his feet around the target and anchor defensive ends away from the inside run. Plays with natural leverage in the run game, has the ability to sink his hips, maintain balance and create a bit of a jolt on contact. Gets his hands a bit too low at times, but works his feet hard, sticks to blocks and can win at the point of attack as an in-line guy or when asked to reach block. And although he isn't real long armed, exhibits a quick punch, allowing him to control blocks initially on contact in the run game.

Has really improved his pad level as well in the pass game, consistently is able to sit into his base on his kick slide, takes compact, balanced steps off the edge and possesses good range vs. speed off the edge. Exhibits good change-of-direction skills to quickly redirect and mirror in tighter quarters. At times will get a bit overextended, but has the fluidity and body control to quickly catch himself, make up for a false step and mirror in space. Doesn't ever really give up much penetration in the pass game and has the balance, body control, range and flexibility to consistently mirror and hold his own in space. Was one of the best offensive tackles I saw in college football all season.

Impression: If he were two inches taller and three years younger the guy is a first-round pick. However, I worry about his length as a left tackle and there is a concern about his age. However, he is a mature kid whose best football is still ahead of him and I think he's a guy who can come in and start from day one as a guard in the NFL and will give a team four-to-six very good years as a starting NFL guard.

[RashanGary]

Watkins for me.

[Bretsky]

Love the write up on Watkins; just wish he was a few yrs younger though

[Bretsky]

Claybourne was a dominant beast his junior year; he'd be top fifteen hands down if he just had that year.
Immense talent
Inconsistent last year and his numbers really went down from his junior season...not sure why

[Lurker64]

Claybourne was a dominant beast his junior year; he'd be top fifteen hands down if he just had that year.
Immense talent
Inconsistent last year and his numbers really went down from his junior season...not sure why

I think it was conditioning. He was a player much more effective early in games than late (when it mattered), and he was obviously gassed in a number of games. For whatever reason he was better conditioned in his Jr. year. I'm not sure how much of a concern this is. Iowa had a great 2009 campaign, but for whatever reason a lot of guys got complacent in 2010.

Full disclosure, Iowa is my team in the Big 10+2.

[Bretsky]

I think it was conditioning. He was a player much more effective early in games than late (when it mattered), and he was obviously gassed in a number of games. For whatever reason he was better conditioned in his Jr. year. I'm not sure how much of a concern this is. Iowa had a great 2009 campaign, but for whatever reason a lot of guys got complacent in 2010.

Full disclosure, Iowa is my team in the Big 10+2.

Hey, that's a fair disclosure. True or not, I feel like in general I have a deeper knowledge of the Badgers players because I'm a WI Badger fanatic. You'd be that guy with Iowa.

How good will Clayborn be in the pros ? Would he be a good or bad fit in GB ? The other Iowa guy....he's a round two to three guy, right ?

Of the Big Ten players last year, the guy I really feared game planning against was Kerrigan from Purdue.

[Lurker64]

How good will Clayborn be in the pros ? Would he be a good or bad fit in GB ? The other Iowa guy....he's a round two to three guy, right ?

Clayborn's a really tough guy to project. The problem is that he's a right side only player due to his arm issue. If he didn't have that problem he'd be a great fit for a 4-3 team playing base (left) end since his game is more about power than speed. In Green Bay I think he'd do fine, it all depends on his ability to bulk up as he'd have to add about 15 lbs of power to really play 5-tech. But he's a borderline 3-4 player and would do better in a 4-3 scheme where they don't need their RDE to be a speed merchant.

Ballard I think would be a better schematic pick in Green Bay, and he's one of those 5-techs that I'd be really happy about grabbing in the second if we didn't get one in the first. He's about even with Allen Bailey as a 2nd round 5-tech, and I like Ballard better. Ballard's got ideal length, a great motor, good power, and he's surprisingly light on his feet... he just needs to work on his hand use and he doesn't anchor especially well (though, really, the only 5-tech in this draft whose anchor I don't worry much about in his rookie campaign is Wilkerson).

[Bretsky]

Clayborn's a really tough guy to project. The problem is that he's a right side only player due to his arm issue. If he didn't have that problem he'd be a great fit for a 4-3 team playing base (left) end since his game is more about power than speed. In Green Bay I think he'd do fine, it all depends on his ability to bulk up as he'd have to add about 15 lbs of power to really play 5-tech. But he's a borderline 3-4 player and would do better in a 4-3 scheme where they don't need their RDE to be a speed merchant.

Ballard I think would be a better schematic pick in Green Bay, and he's one of those 5-techs that I'd be really happy about grabbing in the second if we didn't get one in the first. He's about even with Allen Bailey as a 2nd round 5-tech, and I like Ballard better. Ballard's got ideal length, a great motor, good power, and he's surprisingly light on his feet... he just needs to work on his hand use and he doesn't anchor especially well (though, really, the only 5-tech in this draft whose anchor I don't worry much about in his rookie campaign is Wilkerson).

It's interesting to make these position to position comparison by rounds. You are saying you'd rather have Ballard in the second vs Clayborn in the first

I'm watching Path to the Draft and Casserly just noted he's rather draft LeShoure in the second over Ingram in the first

This just seems like a deep but unspectacular draft; I bet a lot of teams will be looking to trade back and pick up more round two to four picks

[red]

both these guys could be good additions.

watkins sounds exactly like a TT pick. he is old, but but you're still looking at getting 10 years from him, and if he can bump colledge out of the starting lineup the awesome

clayborn has a nerve disorder that hasn't effected him yet, but could at any time, so you don't know what kind of career he could have. he could last a few years, or he could play 15. he's a bit more of a gamble IMO

my pick is watkins to play left OG

[get louder at lambeau]

he is old, but but you're still looking at getting 10 years from him,

You are? Clifton is 34. Tauscher is 33. The only guy on the team who is as old as he'd be at that point is Driver.

[red]

You are? Clifton is 34. Tauscher is 33. The only guy on the team who is as old as he'd be at that point is Driver.

its all about the wear on the tires. at 26 he probably has less football wear then clifton and tauscher had when they were 22. besides those two are tackles, who need to move more, watkins will be a guard in the nfl

[get louder at lambeau]

its all about the wear on the tires. at 26 he probably has less football wear then clifton and tauscher had when they were 22. besides those two are tackles, who need to move more, watkins will be a guard in the nfl

He's old because he's Canadian and he's been playing hockey. He probably has some wear and tear.

[Guiness]

Your joints and noggin don't take the abuse the hockey that they do in football. Plus, in hockey, he was likely the biggest guy out there by far, so he'd be dishing it out, not taking it. Still, expecting a guy to be able to play to 36 is a bit of a reach.

I wish this matchup happened later, I think these are my two favorite guys of the 8 we picked.

Claybourne is available a lot later than he should be. I'd get him medically checked out to make sure his disorder isn't affecting him yet, and if everything's ok, I take him.

Any possibility of Watkins being there at the end of the 2nd?

[RashanGary]

Love the write up on Watkins; just wish he was a few yrs younger though

I know. If Watkins was 24 even, he'd be long out of our reach. I'd be OK if we drafted a 6 year starter at RT with our first pick. Teams have gotten far less.

I'm sort of hoping for James Carpenter if it's an OT though. I can't believe a guy who played at Alabama, earned all SEC honors, then tore it up at the SR bowl and then had a good combine isn't a first round pick.

Great college player
Played against the best in the SEC
Excellent athlete
Hard worker, good guy, all that jazz

[Bretsky]

I know. If Watkins was 24 even, he'd be long out of our reach. I'd be OK if we drafted a 6 year starter at RT with our first pick. Teams have gotten far less.

I'm sort of hoping for James Carpenter if it's an OT though. I can't believe a guy who played at Alabama, earned all SEC honors, then tore it up at the SR bowl and then had a good combine isn't a first round pick.

Great college player
Played against the best in the SEC
Excellent athlete
Hard worker, good guy, all that jazz

When you were hyping him the other day I read up quite a bit on him; most sites had him rated as a mid 2nd to mid 3rd round. I'm going to have to go find the reason why now. I thought reason was he's an average athlete but I may be wrong.