PDA

View Full Version : Dameion Hughes: Is he a steal now at his draft position?


bigbluedefense
04-23-2007, 08:06 PM
I was thinking about this. And today, I read a couple of scouting magazines as they did their reports and rankings precombine.

Of the 3 magazines I read, Hughes was in the top 3 of each of them. Once the combine came out, he fell, to a point now where we're talking about round 3/4.

Now, I for one believe that speed and measureables are overrated. BUT, I do believe that they are important for the CB position. CB is one of the few positions where measureables are very important.


My thing is this. While its understood now that he's not a top tier corner, is he worth a round 3/4 pick? At that point in the draft, while he may not be a shutdown guy, he could maybe pan out to be a solid starter. At that point in the draft, finding a CB of that nature is not bad at all. So is he worth the investment?

I would look at him and consider him if he was available at round 4. I don't think he's worthy of a round 3 pick right now.

The other side of me sees Corey Webster all over again so I dont know how I feel about him yet. Its so hard evaluating corners. Any thoughts?

He could be Corey Webster, but he could also maybe be Richard Marshall. Who knows...

Number 10
04-23-2007, 08:15 PM
Slow Slow Slow.

Not touching him on day one, round 4 I'd be iffy.

Forenci
04-23-2007, 08:25 PM
Slow Slow Slow.

Not touching him on day one, round 4 I'd be iffy.

I agree with this. I would consider him in round 4, but even then, I doubt it. The fact is, if we wait to round 4 to address the cornerback posistion, I would be pretty scared. Perhaps if there are no picks of value to us in the fourth and we drafted a cornerback in the 1st/2nd Round. Even then, I doubt I would consider it.

He is just way to slow for any non-Cover 2 Defense. I think Hughes might be the steal of the draft he lands in the third/fourth and he ends up on a Cover 2 scheme. Just not for us.

bigbluedefense
04-23-2007, 08:27 PM
Slow Slow Slow.

Not touching him on day one, round 4 I'd be iffy.

Im unsure how I feel about him.

I mean, could he really be THAT bad? I know he has some speed issues, but you can't be that productive in college and suck that badly as well.

I like Tanard Jackson, but he has character issues. I think the only 2 guys who might make the cut as day 2 CBs are this guy and Tanard.

Forenci
04-23-2007, 08:35 PM
Im unsure how I feel about him.

I mean, could he really be THAT bad? I know he has some speed issues, but you can't be that productive in college and suck that badly as well.

I like Tanard Jackson, but he has character issues. I think the only 2 guys who might make the cut as day 2 CBs are this guy and Tanard.

I think Scott just mentioned this in his Live chat. That Jackson was actually attempting to be the peacemaker in this situation and defend his friend and ended up being the victim of that altercation. This is based of what Scott said.

hugegmenfan
04-23-2007, 09:14 PM
ya hes just too slow and we need speed in the secondary. Im personally really high on josh wilson or mccauley 2nd round, guys with speed will bring a new dimension to our defense which can only improve and help the team especially because we have to cover guys like santana moss, owens, etc 2x a year

Damix
04-23-2007, 09:33 PM
He'll go to a cover 2 scheme and thrive and look like a steal. Thats the only place he can play though

dhoe20
04-23-2007, 11:14 PM
I remember during the Senior Bowl practices a NFL coach praising him saying that he has everything you need in a CB, forget the measurables.

bigbluedefense
04-23-2007, 11:21 PM
i dunno, im confuzzled.

I need to see tape of him, Ive seen highlights, thats it.

But I don't know if he'll be as bad as people say he would.

Jughead10
04-24-2007, 08:50 AM
Bottom line is he plays faster than his measured time. Some guys play slower than their 40 time. I don't get why they don't make these guys run in pads. They let them train for 2 months with guys who are supposed to train track stars. Most 40 times don't translate to the field. Either way he is a bit slower than a lot of CBs but he can still play. 4.65-4.7 or whatever it was, even running that time he was able to cover all the WRs in the pass happy Pac-10. Certainly there are a bunch of WRs can run in the 4.4s in that conference, but he coudl still cover him. We also know he can catch the ball. Something our DBs have had trouble with for what seems like an enternity. If we haven't taken a CB by round 3 and he is still there, I want him.

I mean, can he be any worse than Corey Webster? At least Hughes has more than a very vague understanding of where the ball is on most plays.

Number 10
04-24-2007, 09:03 AM
Bottom line is he plays faster than his measured time. Some guys play slower than their 40 time. I don't get why they don't make these guys run in pads. They let them train for 2 months with guys who are supposed to train track stars. Most 40 times don't translate to the field. Either way he is a bit slower than a lot of CBs but he can still play. 4.65-4.7 or whatever it was, even running that time he was able to cover all the WRs in the pass happy Pac-10. Certainly there are a bunch of WRs can run in the 4.4s in that conference, but he coudl still cover him. We also know he can catch the ball. Something our DBs have had trouble with for what seems like an enternity. If we haven't taken a CB by round 3 and he is still there, I want him.

I mean, can he be any worse than Corey Webster? At least Hughes has more than a very vague understanding of where the ball is on most plays.

Thats directly where I disagree. He really doesn't seem to play faster than his 40 time by much, if at all. I just don't think he is fit to play in any scheme outside of the Cover 2 where his deep cover ability isn't a big issue. And yes, I have compared him to Corey Webster in the sense that he mightily struggles in man coverage in the short and intermediate routes but I will say that Hughes would be much more effective in zone.

In man coverage though, I think Hughes would be worse than Webster.

Jughead10
04-24-2007, 09:10 AM
As of right now Webster isn't good in any coverage. He is good at playing the Cover 0. A no coverage scheme.

Number 10
04-24-2007, 09:31 AM
As of right now Webster isn't good in any coverage. He is good at playing the Cover 0. A no coverage scheme.

I agree he has been downright awful and I don't see much upside there, but the one thing he does do well is cover man on man downfield. He can run with WRs and when he recognizes the fly route, he usually can break up an attempted downfield pass. Not saying he deserves a spot any higher than #4 on the depth chart, I just think he could improve with the new scheme.

bigbluedefense
04-24-2007, 09:58 AM
As of right now Webster isn't good in any coverage. He is good at playing the Cover 0. A no coverage scheme.

Thats going in the sig, lol.

I dunno, Im sort of with you on this. I mean, can he really be THAT bad?

How can you be that bad but play so well in a pass happy conference? It doesn't add up.

Im not saying he's gonna be a shutdown corner, but in round 4, he might be great value if he can pan out. Thats all Im saying. I do need to see more tape though. I haven't seen enough of him play.

Go_Eli
04-24-2007, 11:30 AM
Its a damn shame that Tim Lewis has basically ruined Corey Webster's image.

scottyboy
04-24-2007, 02:35 PM
Its a damn shame that Tim Lewis has basically ruined Corey Webster's image.

its also a shame that tim lewis ruined the whole giants D. i mean Strahan in coverage against the colts? now thats a game plan

Geo
04-24-2007, 02:40 PM
I'll concur with the thought that Hughes is a steal at his current draft position. Being able to watch just about every Cal game this past year, I loved watching him play as well as any corner in college football, pre-draft measurables be damned.

Fellow Golden Bears CB Tim Mixon is also an excellent prospect imo who is going to make some team happy after they select him in Day Two. I don't think the Colts have a chance at Hughes, but I'm hoping they select Mixon.

As of right now Webster isn't good in any coverage. He is good at playing the Cover 0. A no coverage scheme.
LOL

BaLLiN
04-24-2007, 04:23 PM
I'd take him in the 3rd if we traded down, but mostly likely not so 4th is when we should start looking at him. He's more of a zone corner, it will take time for him to adapt, (Corey Webster did the same) and he might just be used as a nickle or dime back because of the speed issue, but he is a ballhawk, just needs to learn to go for the sure tackle or bat down before allowing a big gain like what happened to him in Tennessee game. Also I completely agree with the webster thing, when rex grossman can pick you apart and throws to your guy or coverage, that must mean you are pretty bad. But he came from a zone coverage and bumping scheme, once you get to the NFL that sort of thing doesn't work very well for a rookie.