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

[B-Man]

38 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

LB isn't a big money position?

 

 It is in the middle  (no pun intended)

 

QB, LT, WR, and CB are usually more expensive.

 

.

[OldTimer1960]

11 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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.

You can see athleticism in every move Simpson makes, that’s for sure.   Do you think he could fit well in Bills’ scheme?

[TOboy]

21 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 It is in the middle  (no pun intended)

 

QB, LT, WR, and CB are usually more expensive.

 

.

DE is also an expensive position. Even DT’s get paid more on average than a LB. 

[Beck Water]

On 3/30/2023 at 7:11 AM, MrEpsYtown said:

Where did the athletic have Kaiir Elam ranked last year? Because there weren't many mocks in which Elam went in the first. 

 

I dunno about "many mocks", but Lance Zierlein on NFL.com graded him as a 1st round pick, as did Prisco and Trapasso:

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/kaiir-elam/3200454c-4155-0002-a198-92eda6859fa9

https://dknation.draftkings.com/2022/4/28/23016692/kaiir-elam-nfl-draft-scouting-reports-fantasy-football-mock-draft-cornerback-bears-chiefs-texans

 

[MrEpsYtown]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

I dunno about "many mocks", but Lance Zierlein on NFL.com graded him as a 1st round pick, as did Prisco and Trapasso:

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/kaiir-elam/3200454c-4155-0002-a198-92eda6859fa9

https://dknation.draftkings.com/2022/4/28/23016692/kaiir-elam-nfl-draft-scouting-reports-fantasy-football-mock-draft-cornerback-bears-chiefs-texans

 

I remember thinking about him as an early to mid two. I’m also curious to see where he was ranked early in the process before he “moved up boards.” I guess that was my original point in that post, that Campbell will start “moving up” as the draft gets closer. 

[Warriorspikes51]

I would rather trade up a handful of spots for Robinson than take a MLB at 27

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Here’s what I don’t understand with Campbell.

 

He’s a good athlete, good agility, great tackler, great instincts, good in coverage, elite leadership traits. 
 

What prevents him from being an unquestioned first round pick? 

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Here’s what I don’t understand with Campbell.

 

He’s a good athlete, good agility, great tackler, great instincts, good in coverage, elite leadership traits. 
 

What prevents him from being an unquestioned first round pick? 

He’s going to get outran by every RB and TE 

[JaCrispy]

Anyone else starting to wonder if Campbell may only be a two-down LB?

 

On a podcast today I heard that Campbell was ranked around 86th for MLB in pass coverage…

 

This had me wondering if Campbell could be a liability on 3rd downs in the NFL…

[TOboy]

16 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Anyone else starting to wonder if Campbell may only be a two-down LB?

 

On a podcast today I heard that Campbell was ranked around 86th for MLB in pass coverage…

 

This had me wondering if Campbell could be a liability on 3rd downs in the NFL…

That’s the debate on him. I’ve seen highlights of him making some nice plays dropping back in zone, but he doesn’t seem as fluid as Sanders or Simpson. 
 

We’ve been spoiled by Edmunds and Milano (in coverage). I’m sure we could do a lot worse than Campbell. And if he’s not good enough for McD on passing downs, perhaps we use Rapp and Milano. 

[NewEra]

5 minutes ago, TOboy said:

That’s the debate on him. I’ve seen highlights of him making some nice plays dropping back in zone, but he doesn’t seem as fluid as Sanders or Simpson. 
 

We’ve been spoiled by Edmunds and Milano (in coverage). I’m sure we could do a lot worse than Campbell. And if he’s not good enough for McD on passing downs, perhaps we use Rapp and Milano. 

Every down is a passing down 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

[Bookie Man]

I've been critical of Campbell as a prospect. But from what I've seen, zone coverage actually seems to be his strength. Didn't see much of him in man. But zone, he seemed very solid. Actually seemed like teams barely threw at him. 

[Sierra Foothills]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Home now checked board:

#16 Simpson

#27 Sanders

#30 Campbell

 

Lance Zierlein's solid (and free!!!) work on NFL.com has the order as:

 

Sanders 6.70

Simpson 6.24

Campbell 6.20

 

https://www.nfl.com/draft/tracker/prospects/lb/all-colleges/all-statuses/2023?page=1

 

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

I dunno about "many mocks", but Lance Zierlein on NFL.com graded Elam as a 1st round pick, as did Prisco and Trapasso:

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/kaiir-elam/3200454c-4155-0002-a198-92eda6859fa9

https://dknation.draftkings.com/2022/4/28/23016692/kaiir-elam-nfl-draft-scouting-reports-fantasy-football-mock-draft-cornerback-bears-chiefs-texans

 

 

1 hour ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Here’s what I don’t understand with Campbell.

 

He’s a good athlete, good agility, great tackler, great instincts, good in coverage, elite leadership traits. 
 

What prevents him from being an unquestioned first round pick? 

 

Have you watched the actual games... NOT the highlights?

 

38 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Anyone else starting to wonder if Campbell may only be a two-down LB?

 

On a podcast today I heard that Campbell was ranked around 86th for MLB in pass coverage…

 

This had me wondering if Campbell could be a liability on 3rd downs in the NFL…

 

I think he'll be fine against the pass but not elite. Campbell reminds me a lot of Jack Del Rio. Very similar size and athleticism.

 

Del Rio was 6'4" and 250 lbs with good mobility and instincts. He played collegiately at USC and was a very decorated college player (All-PAC 10 for 4 years) including being a consensus first team All-American. He was drafted in the 3rd round of the 1985 draft.

 

Del Rio played 11 years in the NFL and made the Pro Bowl in his 10th season... really good, solid NFL player.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Sierra Foothills

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

LB isn't a big money position?

 

Not comparatively, no.

6 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:

You can see athleticism in every move Simpson makes, that’s for sure.   Do you think he could fit well in Bills’ scheme?

 

I think you might have some growing pains year 1... but I think he could long term.

[Cash]

23 hours 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.  

 

I won't speak for GB or comment on whether a diss was served up or not, but I love this topic in general so I'll weigh in with my amateur take:

 

RAS is a metric I like a lot, because it's probably done the best so far at distilling "athlete" into 1 easily-comparable number.  Even then, it's far from perfect.  It's only comparable for guys who play the same position, and like every metric ever, there's error baked into it.  How much?  I have no idea.  But at a minimum, I feel confident that an 8.76 RAS guy isn't necessarily a better athlete than an 8.75 RAS guy.

 

Putting RAS aside for a second, one thing that's been reported consistently over the years is that some guys have more or better training for the combine drills, and they usually test better relative to their peers.  Which makes sense when you think about it - all of the drills have both an athleticism component and a skill component, and extra training can make a big difference on the skill side.  So it's plausible that some prospects might be able to pump up their RAS relative to the rest of the draft class.  Either by hiring better trainers, training in better facilities, or simply spending more time training.

 

Is that the case with Jack Campbell?  I dunno.  On his highlight reels, he looks like a good athlete for sure.  I'm not sure he's as explosive as one would think from his RAS, but my "tape grinding" has consisted of maybe 10 total minutes of highlights.  So I'm not exactly an expert scout over here.  I will say that I liked what I saw in the highlights, and I'll be on board if the Bills draft him.

[gobills404]

13 hours ago, NewEra said:

He’s going to get outran by every RB and TE 

If that’s true true then most LBs in the NFL must get outran by every RB and TE.

[Einstein's Dog]

27 minutes ago, Cash said:

 

I won't speak for GB or comment on whether a diss was served up or not, but I love this topic in general so I'll weigh in with my amateur take:

 

RAS is a metric I like a lot, because it's probably done the best so far at distilling "athlete" into 1 easily-comparable number.  Even then, it's far from perfect.  It's only comparable for guys who play the same position, and like every metric ever, there's error baked into it.  How much?  I have no idea.  But at a minimum, I feel confident that an 8.76 RAS guy isn't necessarily a better athlete than an 8.75 RAS guy.

 

Putting RAS aside for a second, one thing that's been reported consistently over the years is that some guys have more or better training for the combine drills, and they usually test better relative to their peers.  Which makes sense when you think about it - all of the drills have both an athleticism component and a skill component, and extra training can make a big difference on the skill side.  So it's plausible that some prospects might be able to pump up their RAS relative to the rest of the draft class.  Either by hiring better trainers, training in better facilities, or simply spending more time training.

 

Is that the case with Jack Campbell?  I dunno.  On his highlight reels, he looks like a good athlete for sure.  I'm not sure he's as explosive as one would think from his RAS, but my "tape grinding" has consisted of maybe 10 total minutes of highlights.  So I'm not exactly an expert scout over here.  I will say that I liked what I saw in the highlights, and I'll be on board if the Bills draft him.

Right, we are all saying RAS is one metric.  There are expectations you can get for a player from watching their tape.  In Campbell's case it looks like his RAS exceeded people's expectations.  So there are several ways you could reconcile the difference.   You could theorize Campbell improved his agility and quickness, or say the coaching and scheming didn't take advantage of all his attributes, or think maybe Campbell had been tentative, or you can put Campbell into the group who somehow had more and better RAS training (like he gamed the system).

 

When GB says "my guess is he did some serious combine training.....but I think that probably slightly overstates what kind of athlete you will get" we see how he is coming to terms with the unexpected difference.  He claims that he isn't discounting JC's results, but you be the judge.

 

Furthermore, as you mention, it's a relative score.  So the implication is that the mid-western, 4 yr, no-nonsense player from Iowa received more and better training than the likes of the transferring, showboating, me-first, SEC type players. 

[NewEra]

4 hours ago, gobills404 said:

If that’s true true then most LBs in the NFL must get outran by every RB and TE.

I disagree.  I think there are more starting Mikes that are faster than Campbell than not. His range is lacking imo. 
 

Going into the draft process, he was much closer to being a 3rd rd prospect than a 1st rd prospect. I still feel the same.   His high floor and lack of other prototype Mike option is what will get him drafted higher than he should.  

[Chaos]

[BigAl2526]

Hmmm #53 is just six spots ahead of Buffalo's second round pick.  #53 is 26 spots below Buffalo's first round pick.  To me, the approach to Jack Campbell is self-evident, and it does not involve picking him at #27