Initially, I was thinking "huh" and "this is a reach" and "this isn't a position of need" in response to the pick. But I try not to be particularly emotional about these things (at least half of all picks won't work out, no matter where they're drafted or at what position, and after thinking about it I think I understand it better and better. I'm not saying I love the pick, I'm just saying I understand it and I'm convinced it's not a terrible pick.
First of all, let's look at some of Ted's tendencies. Ted tends to value the following things a lot in draft prospects (in no particular order):
1) Size
2) Functional athleticism (relative to position).
3) Leadership
4) Work Ethic.
5) Stepped up performance against elite competition (inc. performing well in college all-star games).
When evaluated from this perspective, the Neal pick is perfectly predictable. I didn't have him on my radar before the draft (I honestly didn't pay that much attention to Purdue), but in retrospect it seems like a slam dunk for Ted's tendencies. First of all, he's 6-4 295 with 33" arms, which is both large and somewhat ideal size for playing his position in the defense (5-technique). He's also immensely strong with great burst, putting up 31 reps at the combine, and having a 1.60 second 10-yard split, better than some of the pure pass rushers; strength and burst are probably the most important measurables for the trenches. He was a team captain at Purdue. He was a weight room junkie, having bench pressed 500+ several times in his career. He also performed very well in both the East-West Shrine Game and the Senior Bowl practices. So you can really tick the box next to almost all of Ted's favorite things.
If you go around and read a lot of the draft analysts who aren't professional scouts you will get things like: "Motor runs hot and cold", "Stamina is an issue", "There are questions about his consistency, that he takes plays off. Conditioning has been poor.", "stands around too much when the play gets away from him". However, to me, this smacks of guys who watch tape, but don't really watch whole games. Certainly, he's guilty of some of these things, but the mitigating factor is that in the Purdue defense, they never rotated him out. Which lead to him playing 70-80 snaps a game. There's not a defensive tackle in the NFL who could play 70-80 snaps without "taking plays off" or "having an inconsistent motor." 300 pound bodies just can't go at 100% for an entire game, which is why teams rotate their defensive linemen. This is something that you would notice if you watched an entire game, but not something you'll see from just watching tape on a prospect. So don't trust any accounts of "laziness" or "inconsistent motor". The knocks on him about "doesn't have a counter" are accurate, but this is something that can be corrected by coaching. No college player is perfect after all.
Also, looking at positional value, mid second round is a reasonable place to get 5-technique defensive linemen. It's about where Igor Olshansky was drafted, and Neal compares positively to Olshansky coming out of college.
So not a perfect pick, but not necessarily a bad one. It's a pick that's worthy of giving the benefit of the doubt because there's not an NFL front office that doesn't do a more in-depth job scouting college prospects than whoever your favorite draft analyst is. Even the very good ones (Mike Mayock, Wes Bunting, etc.) don't have nearly the knowledge base that teams do. When teams scout, they have regional scouts that live in the area, attend as many games and practices as they can, and speak to coaches when convenient. Any scout who is simply assigned to the players in a relatively small region, is going to do a better job with the prospects of that region than any national analyst. There's simply too much football for any one man to watch all of it.
Lurker64 wrote: