Carl Bradford Thread

[TJV]

With the 121st pick in the 4th round of the draft the Packers selected OLB Carl Bradford from Arizona State. He’s 6’1” and 250 pounds.
From http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/carl-bradford?id=2543552:
Overview
2013: Started in all 14 games. Was second-team All-Pac-12 pick. Was on watch list for Bednarik Award. Led team with 8.5 sacks. 2012: Started in all 13 games. Was an honorable mention All-Pac-12 pick. 2011: Played in 13 games and started in one. Played linebacker, defensive end and special teams. 2010: Redshirted. Misc.: Benched in second half of win over Oregon State after sideline altercation with teammates.

Analysis
Strengths
Plays with urgency and beelines to the ball. Explosive -- can power-clean 400 pounds and hits on the rise with power. Is effective stunting and looping. Flashes playmaking ability (see UCLA). Explosive tackler. Can play on his feet off the ball and times up the blitz well. Good hands. Athletic enough to fold back into coverage. Solid instincts and diagnose -- sniffs out screens and has a feel for locating the ball quickly.
Weaknesses
Has a short, compact frame with average arm length and gets hung on blocks. Gets locked down by big-bodied blockers when they get their hands on him. Spins in place and lacks variety of pass-rush moves. Cannot convert speed to power. Needs to improve his hand use.
Bottom Line
An undersized college defensive end, Bradford projects to outside linebacker in a 3-4 front in the pros, where his physical dimensions and rush ability are best suited. Would profile best in an aggressive, one-gapping odd front such as the Colts, Jets, Ravens or Steelers.

In spite of what this analysis says I'll bet he's the newest addition to the ILB group.

 

[PackerFlatLander]

His highlights look nice - definitely plays with a high motor and level of intensity. No problem at all with this pick, considering the need for the middle of the defense to get better. But, the lack of any offensive line pick so far (especially at center) is starting to worry me. I sure hope Ted doesn't think that group is "set" for the future, because while they're decent and far from terrible ... the stupid Bears' o-line was better than ours last season and that is troublesome.

 

[Dylan Hoppe]

Maybe an ILB in our scheme


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wood Chipper]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[easyk83]

Kid is used on the Line an awful lot. But with his bulk and toughness I could see him as an ideal 34 Buck linebacker. Unlike AJ Hawk this kid has a genuinely big body type. Maybe we eventually insert this kid into the lineup and then let AJ slim down even more.

 

[Einstein McFly]

the stupid Bears' o-line was better than ours last season and that is troublesome.

No, it absolutely wasn't. Not the year before either. People get hung up on stupid stats like "total sacks" without looking at how many drop backs there were, how long the QB holds the ball and MOST importantly, whether or not the team cries uncle and starts running the ball or throwing three step drops because of the horrible line play. All of that happened with the bears two years ago and last year was only somewhat better. Rodgers holds that damned ball longer than anyone and a lot of our sacks are 100% on him. Also, we ran the ball a better than the bears did last year.

 

[Einstein McFly]

Anyway, this guy projecting at an ILB sounds great except that he seems a little slow for it. 4.71 is a lot slower than Hawk's 4.59 and Jones' 4.49, so if we're looking for someone to add speed to our defense then this guy may not be it. Sounds like a hell of a special teamer though.

 

[easyk83]

Anyway, this guy projecting at an ILB sounds great except that he seems a little slow for it. 4.71 is a lot slower than Hawk's 4.59 and Jones' 4.49, so if we're looking for someone to add speed to our defense then this guy may not be it. Sounds like a hell of a special teamer though.

4.59 is what Hawk ran as a 236 pounder, and Jones was about that same weight when he ran his time. No way either player is that fast now a days. I think he has enough speed to be a Buck linebacker.

 

[PackerFlatLander]

No, it absolutely wasn't. Not the year before either. People get hung up on stupid stats like "total sacks" without looking at how many drop backs there were, how long the QB holds the ball and MOST importantly, whether or not the team cries uncle and starts running the ball or throwing three step drops because of the horrible line play. All of that happened with the bears two years ago and last year was only somewhat better. Rodgers holds that damned ball longer than anyone and a lot of our sacks are 100% on him. Also, we ran the ball a better than the bears did last year.

Right. Wear green and gold goggles much? Evidently. Pay any attention at all to a career journeyman like Josh McCown having all day to throw last year, allowing Marshall and Jeffery to become a dangerous duo? Perhaps you did not. They sent a rookie guard to the Pro Bowl. I hate the Bears, but you can slice it any way you want to - their line was tremendously improved. This has nothing to do with stats - I'm going by what I saw happen. Regardless, I'm not here to argue with you. I would just like to see Ted fare better (or have better luck) with his o-line draft picks. You can't sit there and tell me that he's done great in that department. He finally picked a true center and this guy needs to pan out. Period.

 

[Carl]

Right. Wear green and gold goggles much? Evidently. Pay any attention at all to a career journeyman like Josh McCown having all day to throw last year, allowing Marshall and Jeffery to become a dangerous duo? Perhaps you did not. They sent a rookie guard to the Pro Bowl. I hate the Bears, but you can slice it any way you want to - their line was tremendously improved. This has nothing to do with stats - I'm going by what I saw happen. Regardless, I'm not here to argue with you. I would just like to see Ted fare better (or have better luck) with his o-line draft picks. You can't sit there and tell me that he's done great in that department. He finally picked a true center and this guy needs to pan out. Period.

I really don't think the o line was bad last year. The run blocking was fantastic.

They ended up giving up 45 sacks with was 24th in the league, but the difference to the top ten was only their one bad game at Detroit.

Plus, Bakhtiari will get better and Bulaga will be back. The o line will be fine.

 

[PackerFlatLander]

I really don't think the o line was bad last year. The run blocking was fantastic.

They ended up giving up 45 sacks with was 24th in the league, but the difference to the top ten was only their one bad game at Detroit.

Plus, Bakhtiari will get better and Bulaga will be back. The o line will be fine.

Agreed - I didn't say the o-line was bad last year. I'm merely pointing out that for as great as Ted has been with drafting offensive skill position players, he has not been as good overall with the o-line. Some of that is due to injuries, which is not his fault, but just speaking of results. Bahktiari was great, especially for a rookie.

 

[Carl]

Agreed - I didn't say the o-line was bad last year. I'm merely pointing out that for as great as Ted has been with drafting offensive skill position players, he has not been as good overall with the o-line. Some of that is due to injuries, which is not his fault, but just speaking of results. Bahktiari was great, especially for a rookie.

O my bad. Misunderstanding about last season. Agreed with your drafting assessment.

 

[jaybadger82]

In spite of what this analysis says I'll bet he's the newest addition to the ILB group.

I hope we give him a look there.

Both Thompson and our director of collegiate scouting described using Bradford outside, which doesn't correspond with transitioning him to ILB. Had me a bit disappointed.

 

[Einstein McFly]

Right. Wear green and gold goggles much? Evidently. Pay any attention at all to a career journeyman like Josh McCown having all day to throw last year, allowing Marshall and Jeffery to become a dangerous duo? Perhaps you did not. They sent a rookie guard to the Pro Bowl. I hate the Bears, but you can slice it any way you want to - their line was tremendously improved. This has nothing to do with stats - I'm going by what I saw happen.

They were a million times better last year than the year before when they had jWebb out there. Still, having a great backup out keeps the defense on their heals a lot better than a horrible/inexperienced/weak-armed one. Apart from maybe Long being better than Lang, which other of their guys would you rather have over Bahk, Sitton, and EDS? Maybe Britton is better than Barclay, but he's not better than Bulaga and his backup sure isn't better than Barclay.

Regardless, I'm not here to argue with you. I would just like to see Ted fare better (or have better luck) with his o-line draft picks. You can't sit there and tell me that he's done great in that department. He finally picked a true center and this guy needs to pan out. Period.

Well, Sitton worked out great, and Lang is a pretty solid guard. Bulaga was near one of the best RTs around before all those injuries. Sherrod, we may never know what would have become of him. Also, Bahktiari looked decent as a LT and pretty good for a rookie LT. We'll also have to see what they get out of Tretter. He was, after all, a 4th round pick who is bigger and a better athlete than EDS. TT hasn't had the hits on the OL that he's had with WRs or DBs, but his "grade" in this department has nothing to do with how some 5th round center does. My honest hope is that Tretter blows it out of the water, is our center for the next ten years and we never talk about this again.

 

[PackerFlatLander]

They were a million times better last year than the year before when they had jWebb out there. Still, having a great backup out keeps the defense on their heals a lot better than a horrible/inexperienced/weak-armed one. Apart from maybe Long being better than Lang, which other of their guys would you rather have over Bahk, Sitton, and EDS? Maybe Britton is better than Barclay, but he's not better than Bulaga and his backup sure isn't better than Barclay.


Well, Sitton worked out great, and Lang is a pretty solid guard. Bulaga was near one of the best RTs around before all those injuries. Sherrod, we may never know what would have become of him. Also, Bahktiari looked decent as a LT and pretty good for a rookie LT. We'll also have to see what they get out of Tretter. He was, after all, a 4th round pick who is bigger and a better athlete than EDS. TT hasn't had the hits on the OL that he's had with WRs or DBs, but his "grade" in this department has nothing to do with how some 5th round center does. My honest hope is that Tretter blows it out of the water, is our center for the next ten years and we never talk about this again.

I agree with you on all counts, all the way around. Yes - Sitton is a franchise player, no doubt. The names you mentioned there, are all of the good ones that we have. Not to harp on the past, but let's be honest ... it's funny to me how neither Ted nor Mike will ever admit it, but their grand plan to be a "zone-blocking scheme" offense, failed miserably and that was magnified by the lot of horrific ZBS-prototype o-linemen that were drafted, just for the ZBS. No need to name them all, but names like Barbre, Spitz, Colledge, Moll, etc. These guys were track stars disguised as linemen. Secretly and quietly, we're done drafting those types. Thankfully. Sure - they still run ZBS, one-cut runs and all that. But what we're seeing the last few years is definitely more standard West Coast stuff.

Again - I like Ted, no real beefs with him. But he needs to hit on the o-linemen when Rodgers is back there for a lot nore years, hopefully. I agree that we're improving there - we need the injury bug to stay the hell away. Big time.

 

[wist43]

Bradford has to play inside - for this pick to make any sense.

 

[easyk83]

Bradford has to play inside - for this pick to make any sense.

They might play him outside for the first season, and then shift him to the inside next year. Once you get into the 4th round youre not going to find many rookie year contributors. It would certainly make sense to let him adjust to the NFL and see if he's a guy worth keeping around at a position where he's more comfortable and then shifting him inside if he demonstrates some NFL ability, work ethic, and aggression.

 

[wist43]

They might play him outside for the first season, and then shift him to the inside next year. Once you get into the 4th round youre not going to find many rookie year contributors. It would certainly make sense to let him adjust to the NFL and see if he's a guy worth keeping around at a position where he's more comfortable and then shifting him inside if he demonstrates some NFL ability, work ethic, and aggression.

That's not necessarily true... you can find starters anywhere. Didn't Sitton start his rookie year??

Especially this year, with an especially deep draft.

That said, Capers loves Brad Jones and AJ Hawk... he'll ride them to another 25th defensive ranking. No worries

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They might play him outside for the first season, and then shift him to the inside next year. Once you get into the 4th round youre not going to find many rookie year contributors. It would certainly make sense to let him adjust to the NFL and see if he's a guy worth keeping around at a position where he's more comfortable and then shifting him inside if he demonstrates some NFL ability, work ethic, and aggression.

Bradford was graded by some experts as an early second round pick, so I would think he could contribute right away. Gutekunst said though that the Packers will play him outside first.

 

[thequick12]

Hope they change their mind and play him inside. Adrian Hubbard undrafted OLB out of Alabama could be good hes 6-6 ran a 4.69 40 and played LB in college so he won't be transitioning from de. Hoping he can knock Palmer or Mulumba off the roster and be a solid backup/ rotational player to Perry and Mathews.

 

[wist43]

Hope they change their mind and play him inside. Adrian Hubbard undrafted OLB out of Alabama could be good hes 6-6 ran a 4.69 40 and played LB in college so he won't be transitioning from de. Hoping he can knock Palmer or Mulumba off the roster and be a solid backup/ rotational player to Perry and Mathews.

Don't see how they can't play him inside... course this is the Packers we're talking about - you know, Aaron Kampman and Jeremy Thompson at OLB, lol...

That said, Mulumba has a chance to be a good player. Tough to evaluate anyone in the front seven with Capers as DC though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hope they change their mind and play him inside. Adrian Hubbard undrafted OLB out of Alabama could be good hes 6-6 ran a 4.69 40 and played LB in college so he won't be transitioning from de. Hoping he can knock Palmer or Mulumba off the roster and be a solid backup/ rotational player to Perry and Mathews.

Bradford is best suited to play OLB in the Packers defense. I would like the team to keep him there. I hope one of the undrafted free agents will be able to grab a starting spot at ILB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Don't see how they can't play him inside... course this is the Packers we're talking about - you know, Aaron Kampman and Jeremy Thompson at OLB, lol...

OK, let me know why you think Bradford is best suited to play ILB in the Packers defense.

 

[wist43]

OK, let me know why you think Bradford is best suited to play ILB in the Packers defense.

He's short and has short arms... a guy can get away with physical limitations at the collegiate level, but the NFL exposes those guys. The 2 most common projections are usually OT to OG, and DE to OLB; but most of the DE to OLB projections involve taller guys that lack sand in their bucket - the problem they have in projecting to OLB, is they usually lack the speed and athleticism to operate in space at LB in the NFL - the classic 'tweener'.

For Bradford, his biggest drawback is short arms. In college he could get the edge enough to be effective, but in the NFL OT's will get their hands on him and it'll be over. That combined with the fact that he is not a fluid mover, makes the transition to OLB more difficult b/c he doesn't have the requisite athleticism.

At ILB though, he can play in smaller box and use his short/squat build to stuff the inside run and on blitzes he will more often be dealing with the C and G's.

It just makes sense to play him in the middle as opposed to the outside.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He's short and has short arms... a guy can get away with physical limitations at the collegiate level, but the NFL exposes those guys. The 2 most common projections are usually OT to OG, and DE to OLB; but most of the DE to OLB projections involve taller guys that lack sand in their bucket - the problem they have in projecting to OLB, is they usually lack the speed and athleticism to operate in space at LB in the NFL - the classic 'tweener'.

For Bradford, his biggest drawback is short arms. In college he could get the edge enough to be effective, but in the NFL OT's will get their hands on him and it'll be over. That combined with the fact that he is not a fluid mover, makes the transition to OLB more difficult b/c he doesn't have the requisite athleticism.

At ILB though, he can play in smaller box and use his short/squat build to stuff the inside run and on blitzes he will more often be dealing with the C and G's.

It just makes sense to play him in the middle as opposed to the outside.

The Packers see him as a pass rusher. He´s very explosive which will help him on the outside although he doesn´t possess ideal length.

He has never played ILB in his career and his short arms won´t help him get off blocks by offensive linemen at the second level playing inside linebacker in a 3-4 either.