Page 1 of 1
Q: Jamaal Anderson Falling?
Posted: Wed Apr 4, 2007 2:27 am
by J.Kim
Icness, or any other up-to-date Draft people...
Are there any reports or any news of why Jamaal Anderson would be falling? I was just looking over at Fox Sports' Mock Draft, they had Anderson falling to the Titans at 19, and over at Jamie Dukes' Mock Draft on NFL.com, and he didn't even have Anderson in it!...
Posted: Wed Apr 4, 2007 2:42 am
by Next Coming
Some people thought Anderson was going to surpass Adams or Branch as the top DL in the draft but as of now Adam Carriker might've lapped him.
Don't see him dropping all the way to 19 and I wouldn't put too much stock into what Jamie Dukes has to say.
Posted: Wed Apr 4, 2007 12:53 pm
by Icness
Anderson is seen as more one-dimensional than some of the other comparable DEs; he's the best pass rusher in the draft but he needs some work and some lower-body strength against the run. A scout I know who loves him even admits that he plays too upright and relies too heavily on his superior speed. That worked in the SEC but it's not going to work as well against NFL tackles. His inexperience (I believe he was a WR as a freshman) is an issue too. But his deficiencies are fixable and he's shown steady improvement vs. the run and in his technique.
I actually have him going to Washington at #6 right now, but that's in pencil. If he doesn't go there, he's going to fall to at least #15; the Vikings are looking elsewhere and the teams in between there have more pressing needs that can be met with value with those picks. That's barring trades of course...
Posted: Wed Apr 4, 2007 1:15 pm
by Ruzious
Icness wrote:I actually have him going to Washington at #6 right now, but that's in pencil. If he doesn't go there, he's going to fall to at least #15; the Vikings are looking elsewhere and the teams in between there have more pressing needs that can be met with value with those picks. That's barring trades of course...
Yeah, speaking from a Skins' fan pov, if Washington doesn't trade their pick, he makes the most sense. They need a pass-rushing DE to play opposite Andre Carter, and Anderson certainly has the size to do it. I don't think they go for a small DE. But what they should do is trade down and draft Charles Johnson and a DT.
Posted: Thu Apr 5, 2007 7:56 am
by Shzm13
Adams' experience is the only thing he has better than Anderson.
Anderson is bigger, stronger, faster, and overall more athletic than Adams. I don't see him going past 12.
Posted: Thu Apr 5, 2007 9:47 pm
by gswhoops
I think that for sure the Niners would take him at #11 if he was still there. He's exactly what we need for a 3-4 DE.
Posted: Fri Apr 6, 2007 2:00 pm
by lpsevier
Kiper has him to the Falcons at 8.
Posted: Fri Apr 6, 2007 5:25 pm
by ReasonablySober
Shzm13 wrote:Adams' experience is the only thing he has better than Anderson.
Anderson is bigger, stronger, faster, and overall more athletic than Adams. I don't see him going past 12.
He's neither stronger nor faster than Adams.
I'm a bit wary of Anderson. He lined up over RT all season and missed out on going up against the superior LT competition. In his bowl game against the Badgers, he didn't line up against Joe Thomas once. Thomas stonewalled everything on the left side, while Anderson took advantage of the Badgers weak right side.
I like him and I think he could be a good one, but I think he's become pretty overrated. He plays pretty high, he doesn't have an amazing first step or reliable move to shed blockers, and his numbers are obviously inflated.
Posted: Fri Apr 6, 2007 9:30 pm
by Shzm13
DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
He's neither stronger nor faster than Adams.
Anderson (284 pounds) ran the 40-yard dash in 4.75 and 4.80. He also had a 9-foot-8 long jump, 32
Posted: Fri Apr 6, 2007 10:10 pm
by Ruzious
DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
He's neither stronger nor faster than Adams.
I'm a bit wary of Anderson. He lined up over RT all season and missed out on going up against the superior LT competition. In his bowl game against the Badgers, he didn't line up against Joe Thomas once. Thomas stonewalled everything on the left side, while Anderson took advantage of the Badgers weak right side.
I like him and I think he could be a good one, but I think he's become pretty overrated. He plays pretty high, he doesn't have an amazing first step or reliable move to shed blockers, and his numbers are obviously inflated.
Is Adams big enough to play on the other side. I get the impression that he's strictly an RDE. I wouldn't call that an advantage. I'd rather find an LDE that can get sacks and is still big enough to hold up against the run.
Posted: Sun Apr 8, 2007 5:14 pm
by ReasonablySober
Shzm13 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Anderson (284 pounds) ran the 40-yard dash in 4.75 and 4.80. He also had a 9-foot-8 long jump, 32
Posted: Sun Apr 8, 2007 6:49 pm
by gswhoops
I don't see any justification to take Carriker over Anderson.
Posted: Sun Apr 8, 2007 7:29 pm
by ReasonablySober
gswhoops wrote:I don't see any justification to take Carriker over Anderson.
He's bigger, faster, stronger and while Anderson came on this season, AK has put up two very nice seasons despite playing in a 3-4 that killed his stats. Carriker has been on the rise since the Senior Bowl, while Anderson has been falling.