Each week during the buildup to the NFL Draft, we will take a look at around five prospects at a given position. The hope is to cover all of the potential candidates at what we perceive as the Cowboys’ positions of greatest need in Rounds 1-3, using about 200 snaps of the most recent college tape from each of the prospects. I am certainly not an NFL scout, but I have found over the years that much can be learned from giving each player a couple hours and really studying how he might fit at the next level. With a little luck, we will be plenty familiar with the options when the draft arrives in late April.
This edition might be a little shorter in the interest of time, for the simple reason that it wasn’t planned. It doesn’t have to be. This sort of thing – planning to do 50 and then realizing I should be doing 75 players – is an annual tradition because the deeper you dig in a draft, the more you see that there are too many solid players, and trying to identify the key selections of the first few rounds is impossible.
Advertisement
There were 10 defensive players who I think are Cowboys options in rounds two and three, and wanted to make sure we covered. Unfortunately, draft week is upon us – so we only have time for five. I talked to you, dear reader, as well as a few scouts and here were the five players who could conceivably be the next five defenders in the mix – regardless of position.
This breakdown features one more very good corner, a small-school DT, a few “tweeners” who have taken off because of absurd workouts, and local product Malik Jefferson – a linebacker who has been up and down the charts in his last 24 months but is absolutely full of potential.
This is probably a good time to bring up my evaluative philosophy. I generally use an 80/20 or even 90/10 ratio with the larger number weighted toward game tape and the smaller toward workout numbers. I realize that this has proven to be folly on some players, but there is no perfect formula. This is the one that works the best for me. Over the years, I have generally regretted the instances in which I got carried away in looking at workouts. I’m not telling anyone who relies on combine scores they’re wrong – but that data has burned me too many times. I love that a player has had a great combine or pro day, but if he did, it should be obvious on his game tape. Too many times, it isn’t. Teams that draft players based on their traits usually end up disappointed. Two of today’s players, Josh Sweat and Lorenzo Carter, were prospects who jumped a level or two because of their traits rather than their production. Perhaps they were played out of position or incorrectly in college, but there are absolutely players who are phenomenal track athletes or specimens, but they never accumulate productive plays on the field. Instincts matter. So, that is a part of the evaluation that is difficult to pin down.
With this last edition, we will close the book on the 200-snap studies. The next article will feature the big (small) board, and at that point, we just hope it looks OK in 2023 when it is cross-referenced and everyone asks what I was thinking.
Advertisement
Ah, draft season!
Let’s get down to the final 5:
Isaiah Oliver — Colorado — 6-0 — 201 – 4.50
Positives: I am not sure how/why I missed Oliver until now, but he slipped through the cracks. I’m willing to admit I made a massive error, because this is a corner who is fantastic in many areas of his game. He is a big man who’s very capable in press coverage and he has immense confidence in his ability to shut down his receiver. He is an outside corner with good strength, his man is seldom open and Oliver is comfortable playing in that trail position to sometimes bait a throw and then make a play on it with his long arms. He can play with inside or outside leverage and is faster than he is quick, but seems to generally be where he needs to be in Cover-3 looks or in man coverage. He can certainly help out in run support and can tackle when needed. Oliver’s best attribute may be his affinity for finding the ball. This is a gift few defensive backs possess.
Oliver #26 stands up well in the red zone to fades and isolation. He has great ball skills.
Concerns: He does allow receivers to get behind him too often on his tape. Now, he recovers well, but I believe that is a fire you don’t wish to play with at the next level, so I would prefer he didn’t have to demonstrate his make-up speed so often. He also is not the most physical guy going forward. He can tackle, but it doesn’t mean he enjoys it that much. I also don’t think you want to leave him in the slot against the twitchy types very long. He is an outside guy.
Overall: I profiled five corners earlier, but Oliver belongs in that group for sure. He played very well going head to head with some very nice receivers – including Colorado State’s Michael Gallup – and I was impressed with how he did. He even has a role on the punt team. I think I would be more than happy to put Oliver in the group of FIRST-SECOND Round grades that likely puts him between picks 21-40.
Oliver #26 has exceptional length and recovery speed to play trail technique with confidence.
Josh Sweat — Florida State — 6-5 – 251 – 4.53
Positives: There are certain things you cannot teach and Josh Sweat has those things in high volume. The defensive end set the world on fire with traits that are all insane for his positional group. In particular, his wingspan, 40-yard, vertical leap, and broad jump all suggest that he is incredibly explosive and toolsy. He is a very strong man who has a solid motor and was likely played out of position at FSU where he was the “Buck” DE who 2-gapped straight up on tackles. This certainly limited his ability to make splash plays with regularity and therefore his best form could very likely be at the next level. That said, he had 36 explosive plays in his last two years at FSU when he finally got healthy, and that includes 24 TFLs and 12.5 sacks. Those are productive numbers you can count on and perhaps he can be unleashed in a more impactful situation on Sundays.
Sweat #9 certainly has shown flashes where rushing off the edge looks natural and devastating.
Concerns: Sweat might have a limited ability to get a good jump at the snap and his arsenal of pass rush moves is limited in variety. He does get hung up at times with blockers – a product of being undersized at times – and also turns pretty wide when headed to the QB around the corner. He may not have elite bend. But, most of all, he has had some severe knee injuries in his past that have really been a problem. In 2014, he had an absolute knee disaster but has rallied nicely.
Overall: This is the type of player you absolutely don’t mind betting on because there is a fine combination of traits and production. Also, there are good explanations about where he is and why he is there. You’d like to see some better instincts and his size could be an issue, but with a little bit of finishing, Sweat could absolutely make evaluators wonder why they didn’t like him more. For now, I put him in the SECOND round group, but I wanted to push him higher.
Sweat #9 played a lot of 5-technique which gave him plenty of work against the run.
Nathan Shepherd— Fort Hays State — 6’3 – 315 – 5.09
Positives: In a draft where the high-end penetrating defensive tackle seems in rather short supply, Shepherd entered the mix with a unique backstory and turned heads at the Senior Bowl with plenty of attributes teams love to see. He is very big, very strong, and also has the quickness and the fluidity in his athleticism to fire through gaps and cause havoc in the backfield. He loves the interior spin move and also has a motor that doesn’t seem to quit. He interviews extremely well and got plenty of support from those who visited him. Shepherd seems to have a good football IQ and while there are significant questions about his level of competition, we should be willing to expand the mind in the possibility that he seemed fine against the “big school” products when pitted against them in Mobile.
Shepherd #97 was just too powerful for his level of play, destroying plays like this with routine.
Concerns: Where do we start? He will be 25 years old in October and played his last high school season in 2010. He took an astounding odyssey through Canada, factory employment and then DII Fort Hays on his way to the 2017 All American team. He is pretty raw for a player of his size, including standing straight up at the snap quite a bit and losing a lot of that leverage that is natural for the wrestlers that play DT. He mostly uses his upper body and at that level can still be destructive. Anytime you hear a player is 25 years old and extremely raw, you begin to ask questions about how much value lies in the investment. But he is a very interesting prospect that has generated buzz.
Overall: This is a league that needs difference-making defensive tackles who can get in the backfield and cause issues against the run and the pass. Shepherd definitely has some issues with the age and the unrefined nature of his skill set, but a good team who believes in motor and traits first will take him and consider him, as the Cowboys once did with David Irving (as an undrafted free agent Kansas City didn’t keep.) Of course, Irving had other issues off the field that made him untouchable in the draft. This guy seems to have nothing but positives off the field, so maybe his story will go differently. Shepherd is a SECOND round player who might be a first if he was at a bigger school and 4 years younger.
Advertisement
.
Shepherd #97 can play the 3-technique and isolate his man before charging through with power.
Lorenzo Carter — Georgia — 6-5 – 250 – 4.46
Positives: Carter is a good example of why we want to watch more than one game to make an evaluation. If you watch his Notre Dame tape, you wonder why he isn’t a first-rounder, but after watching some others later in the year, you are left spinning in place. He is a very impressive athlete whose workout says he is an elite athlete with a 40-time and a broad jump that are as good as it gets for his spot. But, what is he? What is his best position? He has very long arms and covers ground so well, but he also was lost in coverage so often as an outside LB. Is he better as a DE? He is an active player and when he has a proper pass rush, it is eye-popping. He can be very physical and can really set the edge on a run. He also has some impressive A-Gap blitzes when he is between the tackles. There is plenty to like here.
Carter #7 is able to use his long arms to seal the edge and then make a play on the ball.
Concerns: Where is the elite production? Why isn’t he more consistent and why does a guy with Carter’s absurd athletic scores lose his man in coverage so often? Why are there games where he loses his pop and games where it looks like he is just gassed in the third quarter? He seems to not fully grasp what is in front of him sometimes and that moment of hesitation leaves him behind the play. He also has the traits to be a terror out there, and that only is seen in spurts. He is capable of so much more, in my opinion.
Overall: If the object of the game was to show his best 20 plays of the season, you would argue you might prefer him over Roquan Smith – who he played next to all year. But, in this league you only need one team to believe you can be their monster at the next level and you can’t teach his traits. Like Sweat, I anticipate he will be picked higher than he should because of what he can become. Then, it will be up to his team to find it in him. I like him. I wish I loved him more. I will put him in that ever-expanding SECOND-THIRD round grouping.
Here Carter spies on Mayfield before finally striking forward for the sack.
Malik Jefferson — Texas— 6’2 – 236 – 4.52
Positives: There are very few athletes who go to college with as much buzz as Jefferson had when he committed to Texas. He was seen as a transformative player who would help raise the program back to the top. He was plenty productive and has definitely done some very nice things, but because the bar was so high, actually left school as a relative disappointment for some. He can really move and when he is on his game, is destructive both behind the line of scrimmage and from sideline to sideline. He can bring speed to his game but can also win with power. He is said to be an amazing leader and a QB on the field, but that part seems questionable considering his missed reads. He charges hard north and is always active.
Jefferson can get on his horse and go sideline to sideline to make sure a run isn’t getting the corner.
Concerns: Unfortunately, he has built a reputation of “eating the cheese” which is shorthand for a guy who falls for your fakes and play-action. Trusting keys and your film study help slow the game down, but for some reason, Jefferson doesn’t seem to see it at the same level as some others in this regard. When he gets in the backfield plays still elude his grasp and big plays became disappointing. I think you can bet on him getting better at both of these issues in time, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. He will get “lost in the wash” a bit too often for a difference-making Mike LB.
Overall: Jefferson can play with elite speed and power. He can make big plays. Everyone who crosses paths with him likes him. So, why is he not rated higher than he currently is? Because the belief was that he could be so much better than he was at Austin. Jefferson was too easy to block sometimes and too easy to fool with offensive tactics that exploited his guessing mentality for a big play the other direction. He has everything you want but doesn’t always deliver it. This is yet another player that someone will believe they can fix. I grade him as a SECOND-THIRD round grade and assume that the 21-year-old has a chance to be special when he is 24.
Jefferson has no issues lining up his man in open space and closing down the play right there.
Next up: You can expect the “Sturm 60” by Tuesday morning. That’s where I will rank the 60 players profiled in order of my personal preference. And then, finally, we draft!
PREVIOUS DIGESTS:
VOLUME 1 – WIDE RECEIVERS: Calvin Ridley, Christian Kirk, Anthony Miller, Courtland Sutton, and James Washington
VOLUME 2 – WIDE RECEIVERS: Michael Gallup, DJ Moore, Marcell Ateman, Dante Pettis, Daesean Hamilton
VOLUME 3 – DEFENSIVE TACKLES: Vita Vea, Maurice Hurst, Taven Bryan, Da’Ron Payne, Harrison Phillips
Advertisement
VOLUME 4 – EDGE RUSHERS: Bradley Chubb, Harold Landry, Marcus Davenport, Sam Hubbard, Arden Key
VOLUME 5 – LINEBACKERS: Duke Ejiofor, Ogbonnia Okoronkwo, Roquan Smith, Tremaine Edmunds, Rashaan Evans
VOLUME 6 – SAFETIES & MORE: Derwin James, Ronnie Harrison, Hercules Mata’afa, Josey Jewell, Leighton Vander Esch
VOLUME 7 – CORNERBACKS: Denzel Ward, Jaire Alexander, Josh Jackson, Mike Hughes, Minkah Fitzpatrick
VOLUME 8 – OFFENSIVE LINE: Quenton Nelson, Isaiah Wynn, Will Hernandez, Billy Price, James Daniels
VOLUME 9 – RUNNING BACKS: Saquon Barkley, Derrius Guice, Ronald Jones, Rashaad Penny, Sony Michel
VOLUME 10 – QUARTERBACKS: Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen
VOLUME 11 – TACKLES AND TIGHT ENDS: Mike McGlinchey, Connor Williams, Hayden Hurst, Dallas Goedert, Mike Gesicki