"Every year it turns into the same conversation- length, speed, wingspan, testing numbers -and somehow the actual games start mattering less and less. By the time January hits and draft reports come out, some defenders are treated like future stars even though their impact felt pretty hit-or-miss all season. When I went back and studied this defensive class, a pretty clear divide showed up."
"Peter Woods is talented, and I'm not questioning that. What I keep coming back to is how often the conversation skips past the parts that matter. I saw flashes, and moments where he looked like a problem. I didn't see week-after-week dominance. Too many games came and went where his presence felt quiet. The sack numbers never really matched the reputation, and the disruption came in short spurts instead of sustained stretches."
"Styles looks the part immediately. Big frame, smooth mover, and easy to picture on an NFL field. What I had issues with was finding the games where he truly took over. When I watched Ohio State, I didn't walk away thinking offenses had to change what they were doing because of him. His best games were against weaker opponents. Too much praise around Styles leans on versatility and traits instead of moments that swung momentum."
A clear divide exists between defensive prospects who receive heavy draft praise for traits and those who consistently disrupted games. Some players display physical tools and flashes but lack week-to-week dominance, sustained pressure, and consistent sack production, making their NFL projection uncertain. Other defenders regularly made quarterbacks uncomfortable yet receive limited recognition from evaluators. Specific examples include a defensive tackle with sporadic disruption rather than consistent impact, and a linebacker with ideal size and movement whose best performances came against weaker opponents and who lacks a defined position.
Read at Inside The Star
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]