MLB Jack Campbell #53 in the top 100 of The Athletic... is this our guy???

[LyndonvilleBill]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I made clear it was not a diss. Good on him for taking it so seriously. But the testing at the combine is not matched by the film. I am not saying he isn't athletic or that he is slow, or anything like that. But the film does not show someone with elite explosion and elite agility. Normally when the two don't mesh you have a guy who has trained for the combine specific drills. 

 

The things that you see on tape in terms of weaknesses are his lack of twitch, his lateral movement skills and his change of direction. Everything Jack Campbell does inside 'the box' is high level - lane discipline in the run game, aggressive downhill tackler, awarness in zone drops, but once you get him outside the box - ask him to pursue on runs to the outside, recovery speed, pick up tight ends and backs in man coverage - that is where you see the limitations that make him LB3 for me. I think he has the safest floor of the 3. If someone asked me which if Simpson, Sanders and Campbell is definitely still in the league in 8 years time I'd say Campbell. I just don't think the ceiling is there the way it is with Simpson (who is a top 16 talent in this class IMO) and Sanders. 

 

GB, if you have Simpson in the top 16, where do you have Sanders and Campbell ranked?

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

GB, if you have Simpson in the top 16, where do you have Sanders and Campbell ranked?

 

I'm not right in front of my board so number rankings not sure... but Simpson is a 1st/2nd borderline grade and I have Sanders and Campbell as upper / mid 2nds.

[KingBoots8]

I love Jack Campbell as our first pick.

 

…. as long as that pick is traded back and taken between 36-48. This is not a knock on him in any way, but I think we really need to consider moving back and getting as much value as we can if there’s a willing trade partner out there.
 

There really isn’t any prospect I 100% love at 27 that we can’t trade back for and either still get, or at least get a comparable (if not as highly regarded) prospect.

[ScorpionZero]

I like Sanders as the first pick, he adds a different dynamic than Campbell. Most importantly as a pass rusher.

[Einstein's Dog]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I made clear it was not a diss. Good on him for taking it so seriously. But the testing at the combine is not matched by the film. I am not saying he isn't athletic or that he is slow, or anything like that. But the film does not show someone with elite explosion and elite agility. Normally when the two don't mesh you have a guy who has trained for the combine specific drills. 

 

The things that you see on tape in terms of weaknesses are his lack of twitch, his lateral movement skills and his change of direction. Everything Jack Campbell does inside 'the box' is high level - lane discipline in the run game, aggressive downhill tackler, awarness in zone drops, but once you get him outside the box - ask him to pursue on runs to the outside, recovery speed, pick up tight ends and backs in man coverage - that is where you see the limitations that make him LB3 for me. I think he has the safest floor of the 3. If someone asked me which if Simpson, Sanders and Campbell is definitely still in the league in 8 years time I'd say Campbell. I just don't think the ceiling is there the way it is with Simpson (who is a top 16 talent in this class IMO) and Sanders. 

 

I get it, you didn't see it on tape.  You didn't expect good results from Campbell.  And when confronted with the good results you make excuses for them to discount the data point and keep your preconceived bias.   You didn't see twitch and assumed Campbell was slow, you didn't see change of direction and assumed Campbell had poor lateral movements.   Combine results show your conclusions were wrong.

 

Most of the field is training for the combine.  So yes, it is a diss when you imply that Campbell's numbers are somehow less meaningful.

 

Often times the RAS can be used as a negative.  It can be used as indicator that a prospect doesn't have the requisite physical attributes to succeed, such as speed or agility.  Clearly these limitations are not applicable to Campbell.  It doesn't matter if he trained, he can do it.  

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I get it, you didn't see it on tape.  You didn't expect good results from Campbell.  And when confronted with the good results you make excuses for them to discount the data point and keep your preconceived bias.   You didn't see twitch and assumed Campbell was slow, you didn't see change of direction and assumed Campbell had poor lateral movements.   Combine results show your conclusions were wrong.

 

Most of the field is training for the combine.  So yes, it is a diss when you imply that Campbell's numbers are somehow less meaningful.

 

Often times the RAS can be used as a negative.  It can be used as indicator that a prospect doesn't have the requisite physical attributes to succeed, such as speed or agility.  Clearly these limitations are not applicable to Campbell.  It doesn't matter if he trained, he can do it.  

 

No. Then combine does not show that. If you think the combine trumps the tape, all power to you. I didn't assume he was slow or had poor lateral movements. What I did was assess what I saw on tape. I have no axe to grind with Jack Campbell at all. But when the combine doesn't match the tape I'd trust the tape. 

[Einstein's Dog]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No. Then combine does not show that. If you think the combine trumps the tape, all power to you. I didn't assume he was slow or had poor lateral movements. What I did was assess what I saw on tape. I have no axe to grind with Jack Campbell at all. But when the combine doesn't match the tape I'd trust the tape. 

I understand taking the tape over the combine.  You went further than that though and started to discount Campbells combine.

 

The larger point though is, I believe your ranking does not match the Bills (and probably not the Giants either).  And I'm starting to think the gulf between Campbell and the next rated mlb could be significant.  So much so that if things break in a somewhat expected way,  (like top 3 WRs gone and top OL gone and all 3 mlbs available) at #22, the Bills would be tempted to jump the Giants.

 

Most of the board would not like it, but I can see it.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I understand taking the tape over the combine.  You went further than that though and started to discount Campbells combine.

 

The larger point though is, I believe your ranking does not match the Bills (and probably not the Giants either).  And I'm starting to think the gulf between Campbell and the next rated mlb could be significant.  So much so that if things break in a somewhat expected way,  (like top 3 WRs gone and top OL gone and all 3 mlbs available) at #22, the Bills would be tempted to jump the Giants.

 

Most of the board would not like it, but I can see it.

 

Nope. I did not discount his combine. Not at all. Indeed I gave him credit for it. You took it as a diss. I told you it wasn't. You continued to interpret it as such. I can't do anything about that. 

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

GB, if you have Simpson in the top 16, where do you have Sanders and Campbell ranked?

 

Home now checked board:

#16 Simpson

#27 Sanders

#30 Campbell

[mjt328]

Even the fans pushing for Jack Campbell at #27 admit it's not really good value.

They are ONLY in favor, because they are worried he won't last until #59 and we will then be screwed.

 

To me, this is a huge indictment of Brandon Beane's roster building.  A contender should never go into a draft with a need so big, they can't go anywhere else with their picks.  At this point, the Bills MUST reach terribly for a Middle Linebacker with their first pick... or they will need to make a significant trade-up in the 2nd Round to get one.  That is a terrible situation to be in.

 

I can only hope I'm wrong, and either Sean McDermott is planning some kind of scheme change that changes the type of LB we need... or we have a backup plan with a veteran (trade or signing) if the draft doesn't fall our way.  

 

[mannc]

5 hours ago, KingBoots8 said:

I love Jack Campbell as our first pick.

 

…. as long as that pick is traded back and taken between 36-48. This is not a knock on him in any way, but I think we really need to consider moving back and getting as much value as we can if there’s a willing trade partner out there.
 

There really isn’t any prospect I 100% love at 27 that we can’t trade back for and either still get, or at least get a comparable (if not as highly regarded) prospect.

How do you know this?  You can't know who will be available at 27, much less if you could still get them in a trade back...

[KingBoots8]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

How do you know this?  You can't know who will be available at 27, much less if you could still get them in a trade back...

Maybe I worded it poorly, but my overall feeling is that we should explore whatever trade back options we have available as we have a few more holes than usual to fill and only 6 picks to do it with. I like Campbell, but I don’t think we need to rush to the podium to take him at 27. I think we could trade back to the late 30’s or early 40’s and still get him. If he was drafted before we get him, we still can get either another somewhat similar player with that pick, or use it to take the BPA as we have multiple positions of need. We can always come back around to address the LB position in the 3rd round of our top rated guys are gone.

I’d rather see if we can get an extra 3rd rounder to help fill roles for positions of need next year like WR, DT or S. No sense drafting ahead of where we can get a player if there is a trade partner willing to movie up to 27

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by KingBoots8

[Einstein's Dog]

24 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Even the fans pushing for Jack Campbell at #27 admit it's not really good value.

They are ONLY in favor, because they are worried he won't last until #59 and we will then be screwed.

 

To me, this is a huge indictment of Brandon Beane's roster building.  A contender should never go into a draft with a need so big, they can't go anywhere else with their picks.  At this point, the Bills MUST reach terribly for a Middle Linebacker with their first pick... or they will need to make a significant trade-up in the 2nd Round to get one.  That is a terrible situation to be in.

 

What?  Some fans think Jack Campbell would be an excellent choice.

 

Why is Jack Campbell (JC) bad value at #27 and D Sanders is not, if the Bills have Campbell rated higher?  Many mocks have Sanders going before our pick, and GB above ranks Simpson at #16.   I could see Beane valuing JC at $4M on a one year deal if he were a free agent, certainly above the slotted $2.5M they would pay.  That's immediate value.  Outside of the top 3 WRs, they are not worth over $2.5M for the year, you are paying on the hope of rise in future value (and JC's value would rise also).

 

I've suggested that Jack Campbell may have separated himself as the top candidate with the combine.  I've tried my best to give forewarning to the board that if Beane sees it way, not only would JC be the first pick, Beane might move up to do it.

 

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

What?  Some fans think Jack Campbell would be an excellent choice.

 

Why is Jack Campbell (JC) bad value at #27 and D Sanders is not, if the Bills have Campbell rated higher?  Many mocks have Sanders going before our pick, and GB above ranks Simpson at #16.   I could see Beane valuing JC at $4M on a one year deal if he were a free agent, certainly above the slotted $2.5M they would pay.  That's immediate value.  Outside of the top 3 WRs, they are not worth over $2.5M for the year, you are paying on the hope of rise in future value (and JC's value would rise also).

 

I've suggested that Jack Campbell may have separated himself as the top candidate with the combine.  I've tried my best to give forewarning to the board that if Beane sees it way, not only would JC be the first pick, Beane might move up to do it.

 

Pretty sure you have repeated your narrative with the logic behind it enough that anyone who is more than a casual reader of this board is aware of it. We'll see if it works out that way.

[LyndonvilleBill]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Home now checked board:

#16 Simpson

#27 Sanders

#30 Campbell

Thank You. So, far from a "reach" if the Bills took him at 27 based on your board and a realistic option based upon our needs in your opinion?

 

 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Thank You. So, far from a "reach" if the Bills took him at 27 based on your board and a realistic option based upon our needs in your opinion?

 

No I don't think in this class it would be fair to call him a reach at the end of round 1. N a lot of other classes he would be. But you can only draft the players who are in this class.

 

I think the issue some are pondering is whether there is a lot of difference between the 27th player and the 40th player and whether you might maximise your value trading back a few spots. 

[LyndonvilleBill]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No I don't think in this class it would be fair to call him a reach at the end of round 1. N a lot of other classes he would be. But you can only draft the players who are in this class.

 

I think the issue some are pondering is whether there is a lot of difference between the 27th player and the 40th player and whether you might maximise your value trading back a few spots. 

Again thank You.

 

With that being said, where does the cutoff begin for a 5th year option on value? Is it worth trading down 5-10 spots or is the 5th yr option better?

[NewEra]

I’d SOOOOOOO much rather have Simpson over Campbell.  

3 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Again thank You.

 

With that being said, where does the cutoff begin for a 5th year option on value? Is it worth trading down 5-10 spots or is the 5th yr option better?

I’d rather have 2 top 80 players for 4 years than 1 for 5 years. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Again thank You.

 

With that being said, where does the cutoff begin for a 5th year option on value? Is it worth trading down 5-10 spots or is the 5th yr option better?

 

I think it is if you are drafting a big money position. If you are moving back 4 or 5 spots and still planning to take a linebacker at 34 or 35 or wherever not sure it makes that much difference. 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think it is if you are drafting a big money position. If you are moving back 4 or 5 spots and still planning to take a linebacker at 34 or 35 or wherever not sure it makes that much difference. 

 

LB isn't a big money position?