PDA

View Full Version : Gil Brandt's Top 100


Iamcanadian
04-08-2010, 04:04 PM
In case you don't know, Gil Brandt was the Director of Scouting for the Dallas Cowboys during their hay days and has excellent contacts among scouts and GM's.
If you want another opinion on the draft other than Mayock or Davis's on NFL Network, then here it is.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d81764005&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

FUNBUNCHER
04-08-2010, 04:14 PM
No way Taylor Mays goes in the 2nd round.

Dang, this draft looks deep through the first 2 rounds!!.

ThePudge
04-08-2010, 04:17 PM
Bruce Campbell in the Top 10... I stopped reading.

Babylon
04-08-2010, 04:45 PM
Minor detail but anyone that has Dwyer over Gerhart has lost whatever credibilty he had back in "Dallas's hay day".

Addict
04-08-2010, 04:59 PM
is it just me or is Saffold really picking up a lot of momentum all of a sudden?

eaglesalltheway
04-08-2010, 05:35 PM
is it just me or is Saffold really picking up a lot of momentum all of a sudden?

Definitely, a few weeks ago, it was DeMaryius Thomas (I personally think that was him moving up to where he should be though), but Saffold is gaining momentum.

KLAUS
04-08-2010, 05:50 PM
always a pleasure to look at brandt's thoughts as one of the grand old men of the profession.

of course, the most striking name is campbell from maryland in the top 10. We all know campbell has the genetics, he has the movement - i saw limited film on him, but his kickslide was baryshnikov-like - reminds me in build of an athletically gifted tight end from marshall in the late 80s early 90s name eric ihnat. with campbell what you have to do is interview him - you have to understand if he is willing to work or he is not willing to work. Campbell's handpunch needs work, he needs to seal better, etc., but if he will work, brandt's projection there is not absurd.

campbell in the top 10 shows what brandt likes, the same 70s weltanschauung as al davis - the logic is that if i have 11 proles that are superior athletically then we cannot lose.

and people like to knock al davis for the bad talent evaluation - but if you look at the raiders' roster in terms of talent, i dont think its insufficient. of course, russell turned out to be a catastrophe at quarters, but that is because he doesnt want to work and thats why interviews are so crucial.

the major problem with davis is not the acquisition of talent, but that he interferes in the coaching. he doesn't give the defensive co-ordinator freedom, he doesn't want to blitz, he wants to play the same scheme they have had there for the last 30 years. al has not evolved tactically and strategically with the rest of the league. When he let gruden do what he wanted to do on offense, and also gave willie shaw some tactical freedom on defense (in i believe gruden's first year there) the improvement was marked. the general populace repeats the cliche about davis' talent acquisition problems and it is exactly that - a cliche. It doesnt help to have disgruntled employees like lombardi -who never did anything in the league as a personnel man -constantly assassinating him because of some grievance.

all this being said, a problem does exist with al davis regarding the draft - al davis doesn't like to trade on draft day. and this could seem like a very simple reason, but the fact is that it might be because he is too old. al wants to be in total control in the draft room, the raiders are his life's work - but when the raiders are on the clock, time simply moves too fast for al. by this i mean the time required to use the phones to contact teams, to set up possible trades - its too much at this point for Al to do - time moves too fast for him to make a decision when that clock is running like train smoke. He knows he could have traded down and gotten hayward-bey later, but he has it in his head before the draft that to strategically minimize complications he wont make trades and will stay in his slot. then you get situations like hayward-bey in 1a, mitchell in 2b last year - al knows he could have gotten them later, but this is a case like when Hitler took the power away from his generals towards the end of world war 2 and decided to take everything into his own hands, all the while knowing that you are fundamentally limited in an area: you roll the dice and hope it doesnt end up as train smoke.

yourfavestoner
04-08-2010, 06:32 PM
always a pleasure to look at brandt's thoughts as one of the grand old men of the profession.

of course, the most striking name is campbell from maryland in the top 10. We all know campbell has the genetics, he has the movement - i saw limited film on him, but his kickslide was baryshnikov-like - reminds me in build of an athletically gifted tight end from marshall in the late 80s early 90s name eric ihnat. with campbell what you have to do is interview him - you have to understand if he is willing to work or he is not willing to work. Campbell's handpunch needs work, he needs to seal better, etc., but if he will work, brandt's projection there is not absurd.

campbell in the top 10 shows what brandt likes, the same 70s weltanschauung as al davis - the logic is that if i have 11 proles that are superior athletically then we cannot lose.

and people like to knock al davis for the bad talent evaluation - but if you look at the raiders' roster in terms of talent, i dont think its insufficient. of course, russell turned out to be a catastrophe at quarters, but that is because he doesnt want to work and thats why interviews are so crucial.

the major problem with davis is not the acquisition of talent, but that he interferes in the coaching. he doesn't give the defensive co-ordinator freedom, he doesn't want to blitz, he wants to play the same scheme they have had there for the last 30 years. al has not evolved tactically and strategically with the rest of the league. When he let gruden do what he wanted to do on offense, and also gave willie shaw some tactical freedom on defense (in i believe gruden's first year there) the improvement was marked. the general populace repeats the cliche about davis' talent acquisition problems and it is exactly that - a cliche. It doesnt help to have disgruntled employees like lombardi -who never did anything in the league as a personnel man -constantly assassinating him because of some grievance.

all this being said, a problem does exist with al davis regarding the draft - al davis doesn't like to trade on draft day. and this could seem like a very simple reason, but the fact is that it might be because he is too old. al wants to be in total control in the draft room, the raiders are his life's work - but when the raiders are on the clock, time simply moves too fast for al. by this i mean the time required to use the phones to contact teams, to set up possible trades - its too much at this point for Al to do - time moves too fast for him to make a decision when that clock is running like train smoke. He knows he could have traded down and gotten hayward-bey later, but he has it in his head before the draft that to strategically minimize complications he wont make trades and will stay in his slot. then you get situations like hayward-bey in 1a, mitchell in 2b last year - al knows he could have gotten them later, but this is a case like when Hitler took the power away from his generals towards the end of world war 2 and decided to take everything into his own hands, all the while knowing that you are fundamentally limited in an area: you roll the dice and hope it doesnt end up as train smoke.

This is a really insightful post and I agree with a lot of it.

The problem in Oakland isn't necessarily Al Davis the GM. It's Al Davis trying to play owner, GM, and coach, then hiring a bunch of figurehead coaches who get undermined in less than a season because the players know that Davis is running every level of the organization and the coaches have no real authori-tay.

FUNBUNCHER
04-08-2010, 07:54 PM
Unusual post....in a good way, Klaus.

Insightful breakdown on Al Davis. Basically, dude needs to turn over the reigns to a younger team CEO.

J-Mike88
04-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Bruce Campbell in the Top 10... I stopped reading.
I spit out my beer a little bit :mad: , but had to keep reading.
Is Al Davis paying him off with that one?

derza222
04-08-2010, 08:07 PM
I'm going to steal YFS's word because I thought it was well used and say that was a really insightful post, Klaus. Glad I read it.

I found it interesting that Linval Joseph is firmly in the late first-early second discussion for Brandt. Scott recently mentioned that he really impressed him on tape and was talking about maybe the third round, Mayock said he'd be surprised if he got out of the second, and Kiper mentioned recently he could sneak into the first. Seems like he's got a lot of momentum right now, guess time will tell whether people are overestimating his rise and he'll actually go in the 3rd or 4th or if he's really going to go in that late 1-early 2 range.

J-Mike88
04-08-2010, 08:09 PM
is it just me or is Saffold really picking up a lot of momentum all of a sudden?
Yeah, on forums. Not necessarily in real life.
We always think a guy's stock is going way up or down, but until draft day, we don't know.

Ben Patrick was seemingly skyrocketing a few years ago.

FrankGore
04-08-2010, 08:16 PM
is it just me or is Saffold really picking up a lot of momentum all of a sudden?

Yeah, he's definitely done well for himself in this process, starting with the Shrine Game. But he did hold it down for over 40 games at left tackle in the Big Ten, he has upside and a good head on his shoulders, so there is a lot to like.

I'd be happy if the Niners maneuevered to get him at the end of the 1st if they can't get a tackle of value at #13/17.

Clondis
04-08-2010, 09:00 PM
This is a really insightful post and I agree with a lot of it.

The problem in Oakland isn't necessarily Al Davis the GM. It's Al Davis trying to play owner, GM, and coach, then hiring a bunch of figurehead coaches who get undermined in less than a season because the players know that Davis is running every level of the organization and the coaches have no real authori-tay.

Yes, quite an insightful load of hogwash.

Personnel decisions are predicated by the scheme that one runs, unless a team has no plan or direction. Davis' decisions to continuosly draft players ill suited for the modern game is just another byproduct of his inability to "get with the times". And....his personnel decisions have been atrocious. Russell, McFadden and Heyward-Bey are going to be considered bust irregardless of where they were picked in the first round. You mentioned how important interviews are in evaluating talent, yet Davis failed to recognize Russell kindergarten work ethic. He failed to realize that McFadden's lack of lower body strength and running style were ill suited for the pro game, and i'm sure Heyward-Bay evocked memories of Cliff Branch streaking past the secondary for a deep touchdown, but naturally he failed to notice his lack of hands and toughness. Drafting a quarterback who loves to throw the deep ball and a receiver that loves to track it isn't a sin, those sorts have plays have become the new vogue in the new "hands free" NFL. The sin is not being capable of identifying NFL calibre players.

Texas Homer
04-08-2010, 09:22 PM
I like seeing LB Roddrick Muckelroy in the top 100. He is a under rated LB in my opinion.

Rosebud
04-08-2010, 09:25 PM
I'm going to steal YFS's word because I thought it was well used and say that was a really insightful post, Klaus. Glad I read it.

I found it interesting that Linval Joseph is firmly in the late first-early second discussion for Brandt. Scott recently mentioned that he really impressed him on tape and was talking about maybe the third round, Mayock said he'd be surprised if he got out of the second, and Kiper mentioned recently he could sneak into the first. Seems like he's got a lot of momentum right now, guess time will tell whether people are overestimating his rise and he'll actually go in the 3rd or 4th or if he's really going to go in that late 1-early 2 range.

He's this year's Jarron Gilbert, a Defensive lineman who played against trash competition but is a high caliber athlete with great size and upside who ends up rising slowly and steadily through the offseason before getting a head of steam that leaves him going in the second round come draft day.

LizardState
04-08-2010, 09:34 PM
Unusual post....in a good way, Klaus.

Insightful breakdown on Al Davis. Basically, dude needs to turn over the reigns to a younger team CEO.

There's his son Mark, heir apparent waiting in the wings. But like they say here in the Bay Area, they'll get Al's ownership certificate when they pry his cold dead fingers from it ....

I like seeing LB Roddrick Muckelroy in the top 100. He is a under rated LB in my opinion.

good call on Muckelroy, he's in my value picks after the 2nd rd. thread. He's a gamer you want on your STs & pushing a starting LB for a job in camp. If he stays healthy he could be a fixture for yrs, like Ulbrich with the 9ers.

keylime_5
04-08-2010, 09:35 PM
it finally happened. someone finally likened Al Davis to Hitler.

derza222
04-08-2010, 11:47 PM
He's this year's Jarron Gilbert, a Defensive lineman who played against trash competition but is a high caliber athlete with great size and upside who ends up rising slowly and steadily through the offseason before getting a head of steam that leaves him going in the second round come draft day.

Only Gilbert went in the third...think Joseph offers more schematic versatility as well, better fit in the 4-3 with his superior size. I just think it will be interesting to see where he goes because Gilbert got some late 1 early 2 talk and then really fell past where most people thought, and Joseph has similar level of competition questions as you mentioned. That was a weaker draft as well.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 12:51 AM
...Al Davis...

God, somewhere Mike Godwin is flogging himself silly.

Anyway, on the trading thing, Al Davis trades in the draft all the time. He just rarely trades down (although, since you brought up the 2009 draft, he did trade down in the 2nd round before taking Mitchell). I'm not really sure trading inflexibility can be counted as that big of a negative for Davis (I'm not even sure it's a factual statement based on the past decade of drafts).

But you absolutely hit the coaching thing on the head. Al's run through almost every decent coaching candidate and scared away all the rest trying to find a guy who is half tenacious and a good player's coach and half completely subservient to him. I'm not sure a guy exists nor am I sure Al has realized that yet (although it appears he's willing to let Tom Cable act the role for the time being). I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that eventually being a Raider fan will kill my love of football, but it hasn't happened yet.

Pitt
04-09-2010, 01:29 AM
No way Taylor Mays goes in the 2nd round.

Dang, this draft looks deep through the first 2 rounds!!.

Yeah I know. There is "no way" Rey Maualuga goes in the 2nd round either.

Oh wait...

Caulibflower
04-09-2010, 02:40 AM
Every time I read about how deep this draft class is, I am pained by remembering that we traded down 20 spots to land Charlie Whitehurst.

...CHARLIE ******* WHITEHURST?!?!?!

Also, I'm wondering what you guys would think of a team taking a full backfield in one draft. In this age of committee backfields, would it really be unwise for, say, Seattle to draft one of the OTs (Okung, Williams, Bulaga) at 6, take Spiller at 14, and then Gerhart at 60? I think everyone's initial reaction would be "Hey, they already took a running back at 14! They can't draft what they NEED anymore! They're screwed!"

But really, might that not be a great way to set up an effective ground game for the next 6 or 7 years? Especially with this "super-deep draft," we can grab DBs or D-linemen in the later rounds to develop; the 'Hawks are basically in re-building mode anyways. The Raiders took McFadden and Bush in the same draft, although I think Bush was in the 4th round...but obviously they've got something that could work there, and ironically it depends on how the 1st-rounder pans out. The Redskins spent two 2nd-rounders in receivers a couple of years ago, but we haven't seen much come from that yet. I guess I'm just asking who thinks it would be really imprudent to take running backs of different styles with back-to-back picks in a situation where there isn't much in the backfield at the moment. (Although I do like Justin Forsett. I say the 'Hawks should keep him and ditch the rest of their runners.)

Caulibflower
04-09-2010, 02:50 AM
Bruce Campbell in the Top 10... I stopped reading.

Gil's quote:

"Has outstanding size, speed and athletic ability, though he did not play well at Maryland."

It still baffles me how someone can take a player that simply wasn't very good at one level of competition and project him as a cornerstone player at a level of competition which is much more difficult. Low production is one thing; having mediocre stats may not be indicative of how much talent or potential a player has at the next level, but when a player just isn't very good...

Again, Brandt's own words, just for emphasis:

"...did not play well at Maryland."

So...the fantastic athleticism that's driving him up draft boards wasn't very helpful in college, but when he's ONLY playing against fantastic athletes, he ought to be pretty great. Maybe those other NFL-ers are going to bring out the best in him. Right? That's gotta be it.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 04:19 AM
Bruce Campbell is a guy I could see being a primary backup for a team as a rookie because he has yet to perfect the technique aspects of playing LT.

I still believe drafting him in the top 10 could burn a team if they expect him to come in and from Day One and be a beast on the Oline.

And if Seattle drafted Best/Gerhart, that would be a devastating rookie RB combo, including a starting OT in the 1st.

AntoinCD
04-09-2010, 05:06 AM
Coaching in the NFL in general is also much better. If a guy has the tools to be a very good player but is not very good in college there can be numerous reasons. He could be lazy, he may not care about football, he just may not be that good etc etc. However it could also be a coaching issue. It is not unheard of the read scouting reports and read the phrase "may be a better pro than college player". Some guys take longer to develop than others. Now if you're asking would I take Bruce Campbell in the top 10 I would say no in a heartbeat. However he is probably worth the risk at the end of the first. Overall though I wouldn't have him in the top 40 or so prospects

Scott Wright
04-09-2010, 05:09 AM
Coaching in the NFL in general is also much better. If a guy has the tools to be a very good player but is not very good in college there can be numerous reasons. He could be lazy, he may not care about football, he just may not be that good etc etc. However it could also be a coaching issue. It is not unheard of the read scouting reports and read the phrase "may be a better pro than college player". Some guys take longer to develop than others. Now if you're asking would I take Bruce Campbell in the top 10 I would say no in a heartbeat. However he is probably worth the risk at the end of the first. Overall though I wouldn't have him in the top 40 or so prospects

I disagree with that. In the NFL the gameplanning is better but professional coaches don't have the time to dink around teaching players technique, etc.

AntoinCD
04-09-2010, 05:38 AM
I disagree with that. In the NFL the gameplanning is better but professional coaches don't have the time to dink around teaching players technique, etc.

True but in almost all cases positional and assistant coaches in the NFL are of a higher standard than college coaches plus NFL players are now full time players and don't have to worry about classes etc. I realise that for most big time college athletes going to class may not detract from their play but in the NFL all time can be dedicated to their job

Addict
04-09-2010, 05:51 AM
True but in almost all cases positional and assistant coaches in the NFL are of a higher standard than college coaches plus NFL players are now full time players and don't have to worry about classes etc. I realise that for most big time college athletes going to class may not detract from their play but in the NFL all time can be dedicated to their job

I'm not sure you can safely state that in this area of coaching, develloping talent, NFL coaches are better. All things considered college coaches have a heck of a lot more experience teaching guys a system and tapping previously untapped talent.

AntoinCD
04-09-2010, 06:05 AM
I'm not sure you can safely state that in this area of coaching, develloping talent, NFL coaches are better. All things considered college coaches have a heck of a lot more experience teaching guys a system and tapping previously untapped talent.

True but the system in college doesn't necessarily help. For instance, an OT who plays his whole college career in a 2 point stance will receive better caoaching in the NFL to play in the NFL. Teams draft players to fit their scheme and coach them that way.

Another example would be Tim Tebow. He will receive much better coaching to be an NFL QB in the NFL than he did in Florida.

Addict
04-09-2010, 06:27 AM
True but the system in college doesn't necessarily help. For instance, an OT who plays his whole college career in a 2 point stance will receive better caoaching in the NFL to play in the NFL. Teams draft players to fit their scheme and coach them that way.

Another example would be Tim Tebow. He will receive much better coaching to be an NFL QB in the NFL than he did in Florida.

well yes they're not NFL coaches so why would they train them to play in the NFL when they play in the NCAA? That does not mean that the skills of whatever position coach Tebow will have in the NFL are greater than his florida QB coach. Yes it'll be better coaching for the NFL, but purely as a coach and when it comes to actual coaching skill, the Florida guy could be better.

AntoinCD
04-09-2010, 07:51 AM
well yes they're not NFL coaches so why would they train them to play in the NFL when they play in the NCAA? That does not mean that the skills of whatever position coach Tebow will have in the NFL are greater than his florida QB coach. Yes it'll be better coaching for the NFL, but purely as a coach and when it comes to actual coaching skill, the Florida guy could be better.

Yeah I should have clarified. What I meant was the coaching he would get in the NFL would be better for playing in the NFL. Only a few assistant college coaches such as Monte Kiffin etc will do as good if not better a job than pro coaches when developing players for the NFL

Addict
04-09-2010, 08:10 AM
Yeah I should have clarified. What I meant was the coaching he would get in the NFL would be better for playing in the NFL. Only a few assistant college coaches such as Monte Kiffin etc will do as good if not better a job than pro coaches when developing players for the NFL

that's a statement I can get behind. For NFL prep, NFL coaches are better than NCAA coaches.

Iamcanadian
04-09-2010, 04:05 PM
Gil's quote:

"Has outstanding size, speed and athletic ability, though he did not play well at Maryland."

It still baffles me how someone can take a player that simply wasn't very good at one level of competition and project him as a cornerstone player at a level of competition which is much more difficult. Low production is one thing; having mediocre stats may not be indicative of how much talent or potential a player has at the next level, but when a player just isn't very good...

Again, Brandt's own words, just for emphasis:

"...did not play well at Maryland."

So...the fantastic athleticism that's driving him up draft boards wasn't very helpful in college, but when he's ONLY playing against fantastic athletes, he ought to be pretty great. Maybe those other NFL-ers are going to bring out the best in him. Right? That's gotta be it.

Say what you want, a lot of reliable people have Campbell going #8 overall to Oakland. It may be a huge reach but that is how Al Davis operates.

Iamcanadian
04-09-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm not sure you can safely state that in this area of coaching, develloping talent, NFL coaches are better. All things considered college coaches have a heck of a lot more experience teaching guys a system and tapping previously untapped talent.

College coaches have one intertest, winning games. Teaching a player pro technique simply isn't considered a necessity if that player is effective at the college level. Tim Tebow is a perfect example. Florida made no attempt to change his throwing motion because Tebow was already effective at the college level. The same goes for pretty well every position.
Many times pro coaches have to spend a great deal of time correcting bad habits that were never worked on at the college level. It isn't always bad coaches but simply different priorities.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 04:13 PM
I feel like I explain this every year, but Brandt treats his top 100 as a predicative tool. This ranking of his has usually been quite a good indicator of the first 100 players drafted and if he has Campbell in the top 10 then it's likely because he feel he will be drafted there (in other words, he thinks Oakland will draft the kid).

JoeJoeBrown
04-09-2010, 11:14 PM
Not only is Bruce Campbell athletically gifted, he is also a fine actor. He was awesome as Elvis in Bubba Ho-Tep, but his true genius was displayed when he was acting as Ash in the Evil Dead movies.

If Campbell could incorporate Ash's chainsaw for a hand into his on-field repertoire, he would be deadly.

JoeJoeBrown
04-10-2010, 09:14 AM
I disagree with that. In the NFL the gameplanning is better but professional coaches don't have the time to dink around teaching players technique, etc.

I agree.

Also, how does this relate to Tim Tebow who needs a ton of "dinking"?

rfc17
04-11-2010, 10:20 AM
I disagree with that. In the NFL the gameplanning is better but professional coaches don't have the time to dink around teaching players technique, etc.

Im surprised you would say this. what exactly do position coaches do then? these coaches have 365 days a year to improve their players. What exactly does a RB coach do? If one of his backs isnt great in pass protection, is the coach not teaching the guy the proper way to block?

**to further expand, im a jags fan so ill use them as an example. I remember hearing about Mike Shula coming in and working with Garrard on his footwork and tightening his delivery and there was dramatic improvement with his ability to throw. is that not working on technique? also, the Jags have 18 coaches on their roster. 18!!! if they arent teaching players technique, then what in the world are they doing all year long? honestly? If you are right and these coaches are just too busy that they just cant get around to teaching technique, then why not hire one or two more coaches who do have the time and can teach technique? its not like these players are all that busy in the offseason.

you would probably know better than i would but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

JoeJoeBrown
04-12-2010, 11:48 PM
Im surprised you would say this. what exactly do position coaches do then? these coaches have 365 days a year to improve their players. What exactly does a RB coach do? If one of his backs isnt great in pass protection, is the coach not teaching the guy the proper way to block?

**to further expand, im a jags fan so ill use them as an example. I remember hearing about Mike Shula coming in and working with Garrard on his footwork and tightening his delivery and there was dramatic improvement with his ability to throw. is that not working on technique? also, the Jags have 18 coaches on their roster. 18!!! if they arent teaching players technique, then what in the world are they doing all year long? honestly? If you are right and these coaches are just too busy that they just cant get around to teaching technique, then why not hire one or two more coaches who do have the time and can teach technique? its not like these players are all that busy in the offseason.

you would probably know better than i would but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I was being facetious when I responded to Scott. I think if you have a great, but raw player, that the team has also spent big money on, they will develop them at all costs.

I've seen tons of excuses being made for Tebow (and he may be end up being great) but that possibility of him being great comes with the huge caveat of TONS of coaching him up. I think this applies to any player that the team has invested a ton of money into. As you move down in wage, you are more on your own to work on your flaws and bug the coaches for that extra help.

Iamcanadian
04-13-2010, 03:52 PM
The draft will not be the same after the 2010 season if the NFL goes to only 2 exibition games and expands to an 18 game schedule. The ability to develop players will be severely diminished with teams completely forced to be ready for the season opener and rookies and UDFA's will be getting far less attention. The rookies won't likely get much of an opportunity to play in exhibition games and it is bound to slow down their development.

FlyingElvis
04-13-2010, 04:14 PM
I'm not quite sure why everyone is making such a fuss over Cambell in the top 10. The title is "Hot 100" . . . HOT, which I assume is based on insider info and where the rumors have players going rather than a listing of "Best Prospects" or something along those lines.

golota
04-14-2010, 04:39 PM
I'm not quite sure why everyone is making such a fuss over Cambell in the top 10. The title is "Hot 100" . . . HOT, which I assume is based on insider info and where the rumors have players going rather than a listing of "Best Prospects" or something along those lines.


Didnt notice what tier he rated Gerhart. Or maybe he didnt.