I'm happy first of all because it isn't an obvious monumental screw up. That sort of thing shouldn't deserve praise, but with this group you learn to hold your breath and brace yourself. Gurley would have been a mistake. Perriman would have been a HUGE mistake. There were other options out there that made me cringe.
Parker was my #3 WR, but I have to be honest. I didn't feel much heat about it. I wasn't too passionate. Guys like Agholor or even DGB excited me more, even though I had them rated lower.
Here's what I think we got. I think we got the 2nd best WR prospect in the draft when it comes to being pro ready. Parker ran every route in a pro system and he did it from multiple alignments. That means he knows how to read coverages on the fly from everywhere on the field and how to adjust his route based on his alignment. No minor skill. A lot of NFL receivers never master it. Predictably, therefore, he has some of the subtleties of the position down. How to press the corner away from where the route will be breaking to create room. How to defeat press coverage (even though he's a bit predictable). Gruden mentioned that Parker produced under two different coordinators, showing his intelligence, even though he hardly comes off as fluent mentally when you hear him.
To me, he's ready to go. Plug and play. Agholor was my #3 receiver in that category, despite his inexperience. That's why I had Agholor so high and pumped him often. But Parker is even more of a day one transition. That's even more of a positive for me given my low opinion of our coaching staff in general. White might have been a more enticing lump of clay, but when you're talking about infants maybe that's not what you need.
And then there's the naked production. If Parker had come out last year you might have been able to tag him as the product of an advanced quarterback prospect. But this year the QB play he had was only adequate. A lot of people have made the AJ Green comparison. I can see it. He's sort of a poor man's version. The same thin shoulders and lanky body. I personally like the Keenan Allen comparison better but I can see why people say AJ Green. But here's where the Green comparison really sticks -- Green produced at Georgia no matter who was throwing him the football. Matthew Stafford becomes the #1 overall pick. Then here comes Aaron Murray and people forget but he looked like a solid first rounder early on. People really liked him. I know I did. But when Green sat out with that suspension and Murray really struggled it was like a revelation. Suddenly people understood where the bread was being buttered. And the trend has continued in the NFL. Andy Dalton is similarly to Murray a mediocrity propped up by a great receiver, just as Randy Moss helped along the likes of Daunte Culpepper and Jeff George to momentary respectability.
So how did Louisville fair with and without Parker?
In the seven games he missed the Cardinals went 5-2 (losing to Virginia and Clemson), but if you remove the 66-21 laugher against Murray State the Cardinals averaged 25 points per game.
With Parker back for the stretch run and the hardest part of their schedule the Cardinals went 4-2 (losing to Florida State and Georgia). But despite facing tougher opponents, Louisville averaged 31 points those six games.
Ok, so where are the deficiencies? Parker doesn't play particularly fast, for one. People will tell you he "glides". That's a nice way of saying he's slow. But as the combine proved, he doesn't time slow, which means he plays slow. So my question is: why does he play slow? Can you improve that or is it just the way it is with him? I also wish he ran crisper routes. He'll never be a truly sudden player but sometimes you'll see crispness and then it fades. Generally he's gotten away with rounding things off and still getting open in college (because he has smooth hips and doesn't tip his route imo), but unless you're Josh Gordon that doesn't last in the NFL. Also, while I like the RAC I'm not sure how much of it is Parker actually being a dynamic RAC player. You don't see Cordarelle Paterson-like instincts, agility or acceleration with Parker. I get that Patterson's name is mud now but he is an elite RAC player, and when you watch him it jumps off the screen why that is. There's nothing there with Parker in terms of an identifiable talent to isolate why he produces like he does. That makes his ability to translate it to the NFL an open question, to me.
Ultimately what I see is a big, smooth guy who doesn't tip his hand and knows how to work corners. All receivers have a lot to learn but he's farther along the road than most of them coming out. Is that enough? Because in the NFL what you generally have are really skilled guys without much physical talent (like Jarvis Landry), or physical dynamos where it's not as important how good their technique is (which is what Mike Evans was like last year as a rookie). Parker is a bit of a tweener. Does that make him the best of both worlds or a jack of all trades and a master of none?
Parker was my #3 WR, but I have to be honest. I didn't feel much heat about it. I wasn't too passionate. Guys like Agholor or even DGB excited me more, even though I had them rated lower.
Here's what I think we got. I think we got the 2nd best WR prospect in the draft when it comes to being pro ready. Parker ran every route in a pro system and he did it from multiple alignments. That means he knows how to read coverages on the fly from everywhere on the field and how to adjust his route based on his alignment. No minor skill. A lot of NFL receivers never master it. Predictably, therefore, he has some of the subtleties of the position down. How to press the corner away from where the route will be breaking to create room. How to defeat press coverage (even though he's a bit predictable). Gruden mentioned that Parker produced under two different coordinators, showing his intelligence, even though he hardly comes off as fluent mentally when you hear him.
To me, he's ready to go. Plug and play. Agholor was my #3 receiver in that category, despite his inexperience. That's why I had Agholor so high and pumped him often. But Parker is even more of a day one transition. That's even more of a positive for me given my low opinion of our coaching staff in general. White might have been a more enticing lump of clay, but when you're talking about infants maybe that's not what you need.
And then there's the naked production. If Parker had come out last year you might have been able to tag him as the product of an advanced quarterback prospect. But this year the QB play he had was only adequate. A lot of people have made the AJ Green comparison. I can see it. He's sort of a poor man's version. The same thin shoulders and lanky body. I personally like the Keenan Allen comparison better but I can see why people say AJ Green. But here's where the Green comparison really sticks -- Green produced at Georgia no matter who was throwing him the football. Matthew Stafford becomes the #1 overall pick. Then here comes Aaron Murray and people forget but he looked like a solid first rounder early on. People really liked him. I know I did. But when Green sat out with that suspension and Murray really struggled it was like a revelation. Suddenly people understood where the bread was being buttered. And the trend has continued in the NFL. Andy Dalton is similarly to Murray a mediocrity propped up by a great receiver, just as Randy Moss helped along the likes of Daunte Culpepper and Jeff George to momentary respectability.
So how did Louisville fair with and without Parker?
In the seven games he missed the Cardinals went 5-2 (losing to Virginia and Clemson), but if you remove the 66-21 laugher against Murray State the Cardinals averaged 25 points per game.
With Parker back for the stretch run and the hardest part of their schedule the Cardinals went 4-2 (losing to Florida State and Georgia). But despite facing tougher opponents, Louisville averaged 31 points those six games.
Ok, so where are the deficiencies? Parker doesn't play particularly fast, for one. People will tell you he "glides". That's a nice way of saying he's slow. But as the combine proved, he doesn't time slow, which means he plays slow. So my question is: why does he play slow? Can you improve that or is it just the way it is with him? I also wish he ran crisper routes. He'll never be a truly sudden player but sometimes you'll see crispness and then it fades. Generally he's gotten away with rounding things off and still getting open in college (because he has smooth hips and doesn't tip his route imo), but unless you're Josh Gordon that doesn't last in the NFL. Also, while I like the RAC I'm not sure how much of it is Parker actually being a dynamic RAC player. You don't see Cordarelle Paterson-like instincts, agility or acceleration with Parker. I get that Patterson's name is mud now but he is an elite RAC player, and when you watch him it jumps off the screen why that is. There's nothing there with Parker in terms of an identifiable talent to isolate why he produces like he does. That makes his ability to translate it to the NFL an open question, to me.
Ultimately what I see is a big, smooth guy who doesn't tip his hand and knows how to work corners. All receivers have a lot to learn but he's farther along the road than most of them coming out. Is that enough? Because in the NFL what you generally have are really skilled guys without much physical talent (like Jarvis Landry), or physical dynamos where it's not as important how good their technique is (which is what Mike Evans was like last year as a rookie). Parker is a bit of a tweener. Does that make him the best of both worlds or a jack of all trades and a master of none?
