Q: Jamaal Anderson Falling?

Moderator: studcrackers

J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 23
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

Q: Jamaal Anderson Falling? 

Post#1 » by J.Kim » Wed Apr 4, 2007 2:27 am

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!...
User avatar
Next Coming
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,956
And1: 1,625
Joined: Aug 17, 2004
Location: War Room

 

Post#2 » by Next Coming » Wed Apr 4, 2007 2:42 am

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.
Icness
NFL Analyst
Posts: 16,964
And1: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2001
Location: Back in the 616
Contact:
   

 

Post#3 » by Icness » Wed Apr 4, 2007 12:53 pm

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...
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,579
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

 

Post#4 » by Ruzious » Wed Apr 4, 2007 1:15 pm

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.
User avatar
Shzm13
Banned User
Posts: 4,554
And1: 6
Joined: Dec 11, 2006

 

Post#5 » by Shzm13 » Thu Apr 5, 2007 7:56 am

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.
gswhoops
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 32,446
And1: 3,852
Joined: Apr 27, 2005
   

 

Post#6 » by gswhoops » Thu Apr 5, 2007 9:47 pm

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.
User avatar
lpsevier
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 4,367
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 28, 2005

 

Post#7 » by lpsevier » Fri Apr 6, 2007 2:00 pm

Kiper has him to the Falcons at 8.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 99,045
And1: 35,263
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:

 

Post#8 » by ReasonablySober » Fri Apr 6, 2007 5:25 pm

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.
User avatar
Shzm13
Banned User
Posts: 4,554
And1: 6
Joined: Dec 11, 2006

 

Post#9 » by Shzm13 » Fri Apr 6, 2007 9:30 pm

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
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,579
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

 

Post#10 » by Ruzious » Fri Apr 6, 2007 10:10 pm

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.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 99,045
And1: 35,263
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:

 

Post#11 » by ReasonablySober » Sun Apr 8, 2007 5:14 pm

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
gswhoops
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 32,446
And1: 3,852
Joined: Apr 27, 2005
   

 

Post#12 » by gswhoops » Sun Apr 8, 2007 6:49 pm

I don't see any justification to take Carriker over Anderson.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 99,045
And1: 35,263
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:

 

Post#13 » by ReasonablySober » Sun Apr 8, 2007 7:29 pm

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.

Return to NFL Draft