Fiu, Cirminiello, Mitchell on TV - Campus Insiders | Buy College Football Tickets

2012 NFL Combine - Center Analysis
Michigan C David Molk
Michigan C David Molk
CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Feb 20, 2012


Pre-Combine quick looks at the centers invited to Indy.

2012 NFL Pre-Combine

Top Ten Center Rankings


- 2013 Prospects: Offense
- 2013 Prospects: Defense

Follow Us ... #ColFootballNews 

- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OT Rankings  
- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OT Rankings. No. 11 to 25
- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OG Rankings
- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OG Rankings. No. 11 to 20 

  1. Peter Konz, Wisconsin (Jr.) 6-3, 315Proj. 2
Positives: Huge. The near-perfect size for a big, blasting guard. … Finishes his blocks to the end. Puts his man into the tenth row when needed. … Smart and doesn’t make mistakes. A perfect leader for a line and a ten-year anchor with perennial Pro Bowl talent.

Negatives: Not the greatest athlete. He’s not going to do much on the move and will mostly be used in a phone booth. … Has been banged up. Missed a key part of last year with an ankle problem and had a blood clotting problem early in his career. … Might need to be in a power running scheme. He’s not as quick off the snap as pure passing teams are going to like.

2. Ben Jones, Georgia 6-3, 311Proj. 3
Positives: A rock who can move to guard is absolutely needed. He’s a dependable blocker who always brings the effort. … Beats people up. He buries his guy and is great for a power running game. … Smart. Doesn’t make many mistakes.

Negatives: Not quick. He’ll have issues with more athletic defensive tackles. … Okay in pass protection, but not elite. He’s at his best when he’s moving forward. … Will lunge a bit at times, but when he gets his hands on a defender, it’s over.

3. David Molk, Michigan 6-2, 287 Proj. 4
Positives: A phenomenal leader. He’s the guy you work an offensive line around for a decade. … A blaster. He’s terrific for the running game and has the nastiness to destroy his man. … Great at line calls. Seems to see things three steps ahead.

Negatives: Not huge. Not small, but he’s not a 300 pounder and doesn’t have the room to add any good weight. … Can he hold up? He’s been banged up throughout his career and has a foot problem that should knock him down a few spots. … Not a pass protector. For his size he needs to be quicker.

4. Michael Brewster, Ohio State 6-4, 310Proj. 4
Positives: Very big and with a great heart. He’s a center, but he’d have starter potential as a guard, too. … A great leader. A quarterback for the line and good at sniffing out the blitz and making the right reads. … A try-hard type who maximizes his ability.

Negatives: A good run blocker, but not the killer some of the other prospects are. He gets the job done, but he’s not always devastating. … Limited quickness. Not always perfect with his footwork, and that costs him. … Low ceiling. He’ll be a good pro, but he’ll be solid. He doesn’t have All-Pro talent.

5. William Vlachos, Alabama 6-0, 306Proj. 6
Positives: It’s all about leverage. He’s a bowling ball who gets under defenders and generates a push. …. Quick. Gets to his man in a hurry and is great at helping out. … Very smart and tough as nails. He has handled SEC defensive tackles on a regular basis and more than held his own.

Negatives: Doesn’t have the body. Too short and squatty, and doesn’t have any room to get bigger. … A center only. Doesn’t have the raw tools to be a guard. … Not going to blast anyone. More of a technician who gets the job done than a guy who’ll bury his man.

6. Phillip Blake, Baylor 6-2, 312Proj. 5
Positives: An ultra-steady starter who was a mainstay on the Bear line for three years. Experienced. … Great at staying alive and making the play happen. Great at letting Robert Griffin be Robert Griffin, giving him time to work. … Good on the move. Picks off defenders well.

Negatives: Hasn’t shown much as a pounding run blocker. Walls people off, but doesn’t put anyone on the back. … Doesn’t really look the part. He’s not all that tall and he’s not arm. He’ll let defenders gets to him and won’t get much going forward. … Inconsistent. Not always as sound as some teams are going to like. Part of that was a function of having a player like RGIII moving around.

7. Quentin Saulsberry, Mississippi State 6-3, 302 Proj. 4
Positives: Versatile. His future could be as a guard or as a key backup who fills a variety of roles. … Good body. Has a nice frame that could handle a bit more weight, but he’s a strong-looking football player. … Moves well. Has the feet to get out and make something happen.

Negatives: Needs to get stronger for the running game. He’ll push, but he won’t bury. … Good against the top-shelf SEC tackles, but not great. Lost his share of battles. … Probably seen as a key backup for a few spots more than a key piece to the puzzle.

8. Mason Cloy, Clemson 6-3, 297Proj. 6
Positives: Decent enough on the move to get by. Chips well and gets off the snap in a hurry. … A good leader. Turned into the main man for a good line. Sniffs things out. … Decent at walling off. Might not be for everyone, but he should be able to find a home in a zone-blocking scheme.

Negatives: A bit too tackle-like. He could stand to add a few more good pounds. … Not a killer of a run blocker. Might project to guard in the right system. … Could stand to get functionally stronger to be a key swing player.

9. Moe Petrus, Connecticut 6-2, 299 Proj. FA
Positives: Ultra-productive leader for a line that did a great job of pounding away for the ground game – at least before this year. … Finishes his blocks. He’ll shove people around for the ground attack. … Decent punch and quickness. Has just enough tools to have a nice career as a key reserve for a few spots.

Negatives: Not big. He doesn’t have the frame to be much bigger without adding bad weight. … As big as he’s going to get. He bulked up a bit to get to close to 300, but that’s it. … Okay in pass protection, but not great. He’ll get off the ball well but struggles with the athletic interior defenders.

10. Garth Gerhart, Arizona State 6-1, 305Proj. 6
Positives: A nice pass blocker. Moves well and does a good job of locating the pass rusher and providing help. … Walls off defenders. He might not beat anyone up, but he could fit in a zone-blocking scheme. … Smart. Doesn’t screw up and seems to sniff out the blitz.

Negatives: Not big or bulky. He gets good leverage for his size, but he’s not a huge interior presence. … While he’ll fight, he doesn’t kill his guy. He’ll push, but he won’t blast. … Doesn’t project to be a guard. He’s a center and that’s it.

11. David Snow, Texas (OG) Proj. FA
12. Tyler Horn, Miami Proj. FA
13. Scott Wedige, Northern Illinois Proj. FA
14.Mark Spinney, Boston College Proj. FA
15. Cam Holland, North Carolina Proj. FA
16. Rodney Austin, Elon Proj. FA
17. Grant Johnson, Oregon State Proj. FA
18. Anthony Mihota, Virginia Proj. FA
19. Mike Caputo, Nebraska Proj. FA
20. Jeremiah Hatch, Kansas Proj. FA

- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OT Rankings  
- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OT Rankings. No. 11 to 25
- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OG Rankings
- 2012 CFN Pre-Combine OG Rankings. No. 11 to 20