Another Undrafted Free Agent to Watch: Wisconsin RB John Clay
Tip of the cap to Don Banks of Sports Illustrated for putting together a piece on John Clay that piqued my interest, and I looked a little bit further into the running back. I left Clay off of the 'running back' UDFA post because I sort of scoffed at his combine times and moved on. He ran a pretty sub-par 4.87 at 6'0, 230 at the Combine and my guess is that a lot of teams may have just written him off there as well. Pretty strange for a guy that was the Big-10 offensive player of the year in 2009 after rushing for 1500 yards and 18 touchdowns and who followed up '09 with a pretty solid showing in 2010 with 1014 yards and 14 touchdowns as Wisconsin made their way to the Rose Bowl.
Though Clay failed to impress when he really needed to at the Combine, just 10 days later he ran a 4.72 and added 4.5 inches to his vertical at his Pro Day so it appears he really did just have a bad day in Indianapolis. The other thing to keep in mind is that during Clay's career at Wisconsin he played at anywhere between 250 and all the way up to 270 so you can't really hope that he's a burner. What he is though, is a punch you in the mouth, stiff-arm you Beastmode style, downhill running back that averaged 5.5 yards per carry while running for 3414 yards and 41 touchdowns in a 3-year span against Big-10 defenses.
In reality Clay's Combine performance wasn't the reason he was passed over by so many teams. Instead, it's more likely due to the fact Clay is a bit of a liability in the pass game and isn't going to contribute much on special teams. As his own agent told Clay prior to the draft, "Your value is as a first- and second-down runner, and that makes you a one-dimensional guy. Now, your one dimension is really good, but sometimes one-dimensional guys can fall through the cracks, or fall in the draft." And that's exactly what happened.
If you're a regular reader of the blog you'll know that I would like to see the Hawks to invest in a fullback to help with the running game. I'd love to see Oakland's Marcel Reece or Baltimore's Le'Ron McClain signed in free agency but just looking at the Hawks modus operandi in the last year it seems more likely they'll take a chance on a low-cost, low-risk player and John Clay might be someone they could have interest in. Clay would be a dependable short yardage ball-carrier and a legitimate lead blocker at 250 pounds. As Don Banks put it, "at 245-250 pounds, Clay should be able to hammer away at a tired defense, and help wrap up a game by moving the chains and protecting a lead. Somewhat the same role Brandon Jacobs started out in at the beginning of his Giants career." Though this assumes the Hawks would be protecting a lead, it does fit what they're trying to institute down the road with their new dedication to the run.
Clay protects the football, fights for yardage, keeps his legs moving, and has a track record of success in short yardage situations, something the Hawks were miserable at in 2010. He's big enough to play a hybrid running back/fullback will have a chip on his shoulder. Just food for thought.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not. Quick. Enough. To. The. Hole
He looked even slower than Ron Dayne in college.
It’s possible that every guy on that offensive line will play in the NFL too.
No thanks.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Damn, you beat me to the Ron Dayne reference.
I was going to say something about tubby midsections.
No Thanks
I don’t like his pass catching. He isn’t much of a threat out in the flat. While we need a FB he needs to be more versatile. In addition to blocking, he needs to be a factor in the passing game or he will sit and watch a TE play.
As a Wisconsin fan, I can't advocate for Clay as an NFL running back.
Or even fullback-hybrid. For reasons others have alluded to- slow to the hole, one-dimensional, ran behind one of the best lines in all of college football against frequently some sub-par run defenses. He might be worth a flier but I find it difficult to see him succeeding.
The statistics you don't compile never lie.
-Stephen Colbert
by kentcheesehead on May 10, 2011 12:03 PM PDT reply actions
He wasn't even the best RB on his own team
To improve, they should try to become the musical southern cal of the west. - bRuins Nation poster on the Stanford band.
Is a RB really that big of a priority this offseason?
I mean, I get that the running game was crap last year but IMO at least around 90% of that blame falls to the line, particularly the right side (well, every part of it outside of the LT). I guess I wouldn’t be totally bummed to see this guy come to camp but in the end I’m not even sure I’d want to use up a practice squad slot on a guy who’s too big and slow to play special teams and whose primary skillset is more or less identical (and not as good, it appears) as Marshawn Lynch.
On top of that, RB is one of those positions that a. IMO is not all that hard to fill – sure, an elite guy is great to have but there are maybe 30 B type backs after the top 7 or 8 who can all do a passable job behind a good line, and b. of all the offensive skill positions, it might be the one where a rookie can step in and play the best out of anyone. What I’m saying here is that if we’re more or less writing off 2011 (I know Carroll isn’t but that’s PC for you), there’s no reason we don’t have to save our resources for RBs for 2012 or later.
In fairness to the Ron Dayne comparison though, my memory of Dayne wasn’t that he washed out of the league due to lack of speed so much as he washed out due to not being able to exploit his power because he stood up too straight. He wasn’t fast either, definitely, but plenty of slow backs have had good, solid careers: Jerome Bettis, Natrone Means, Christian Okoye pop out of my head immediately.
Big priority?
We’re talking about an UDFA guy who would likely go to the PS and make PS wages. Not exactly an expensive FA or draft pick.
I agree with your our FO has invested quite a bit into RBs last year (albeit in low picks) and is likely happy with our starter, depth and PS (CHRISHENRYCHRISHENRYCHRISHENRY). Still, this is a no-cost wager, always compete. I can imagine it’s less attractive for an UDFA than signing with a team with obvious needs though.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Meh, it's not a huge issue, really...
…I agree with you that far. But I just don’t see a viable endgame here. At best, he pushes Henry out of the PS role and develops into… Marshawn Lynch with less speed and more power. I mean, that isn’t useless by any means but I’d much rather see one of those extra 6 slots spent on, let’s say, a linebacker who can one day be an adequate backup or even sometime starter, youth on either side of the line (heck, I would strongly consider keeping 6 D linemen on the PS next year but I’m weird that way), an extra QB, etc. Really, even if I decide that I have to use the PS for depth, I’d want a guy who can jump into the existing gameplan, which Clay might be able to do if Lynch was the guy who went down but not if it was Forsett.
Yeah, it’s not big. But mehhhhhh.
by Johnny Slick on May 10, 2011 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions

by 































