Niners Nation Scouting Report: Eddie Royal, WR, Virginia Tech

by Fooch on Mar 7, 2008 9:43 PM PST in News Comment 15 comments

So I was scratching my head over what to write about today to carry us into the weekend. This is certainly a random enough player for some of us. For others, Eddie Royal's name has come up as a possible sleeper wide receiver/returner. MM mentioned Royal as part of his unscientific look at wide receivers, and said, "Very, very intriguing." Well let's take it a step further and check out what the Scouts have to say:

Strengths: Explodes off the ball, creates space by driving corners back and can get open quickly. Changes directions quickly, runs adequate routes and can separate from man coverage . . . Runs hard, is a balanced runner that can bounce of arm tackles and flashes the ability to pick up yards after contact. Shows a second gear when tracking the ball downfield and flashes the ability to make over-the-shoulder catches . . . Is a dangerous kickoff as well as punt return man and can make an immediate impact on special teams . . . Feisty and physical; won't back down from a challenge.

The return game is what is primarily mentioned in conjunction with Royal. Matt Barrows was curious as to whether the signing of Allen Rossum would preclude the 49ers from drafting a return specialist like Royal. The question is what can Royal bring in the receiving game if Rossum is a long-term answer in the return game.

Weaknesses: Is short, doesn't have great bulk and can get pushed around by bigger corners. Rounds cuts off at times and isn't a precise route-runner at this point. Sustained a slight concussion in 2004, missed 2005 spring practices with compartment syndrome in left leg, slowed by a sprained toe in 2006 and durability is a concern.

Over at ESPN, Royal is flagged with a B for Bulk/Size and a D for Durability. You have to wonder if the small size has led to the injuries or if that is just an easy, but incorrect, assumption to make.

Overall: Royal's lack of size and injury history should raise some red flags. However, he has the speed, elusiveness and athletic ability to develop into a dangerous No. 3 or No. 4 slot-receiver in the NFL and he has added value in the return game. Royal should come off the board in the third-to-fourth round range of the 2008 draft.

If Royal were snagged in the third or fourth round as the scouts are projecting, I'd certainly have no problem with that. Of course does that mean you skip out on the higher tier of receivers in the first two rounds and roll the dice that a guy like Eddie Royal is there later in the draft? Of course a speedy guy without good route-running abilities sounds an awful lot like Ashley Lelie. Maybe Mike Martz can work with him. Personally, I'd rather grab a receiver with one of the first two picks and stock up on depth elsewhere later in the draft.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Man

I've never heard of compartment syndrome in my whole life, my entire 22.95 years of life, and now twice in the same week. What a strange world. I can't get away from this syndrome! It's coming for me!

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Mar 7, 2008 11:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

As much as I hate VA Tech

i think royal might be a good fit for us, and I don't see a problem taking 2 receivers in this draft, and if we don't take one with the first 2 picks then a guy like royal would be perfect with the 3rd or 4th.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Mar 8, 2008 11:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

the problem

"I don't see a problem taking 2 receivers in this draft."

bruce, jackson, hill, battle-that leaves roster space for probably 1 more receiver, 2 more at most. since all 4 on the roster now and vernon will all see significant playing time at receiver and rossum and battle have the kick return duties locked down, what would be the point in spending 2 of the top 4 or 5 draft picks on a wr, when we need so much depth on the o-line and in the secondary? i agree with fooch, i'd rather see them spend the first or second selection on a wideout with number 1 receiver potential, because battle and bruce will be fine posession guys, and jackson and hill should be ok in martz's underneath routes, but we lack a playmaker on the outside. if we need to add a 6th receiver for depth we might as well add a lelie-type castoff free agent after the draft, or trade for a guy like shaun mcdonald familiar with martz's system.

by sam23 on Mar 8, 2008 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that we need to add OLine and secondary depth, but I don't see the point of holding onto receivers that aren't good. Yeah I think guys like battle and jackson are fine, but I don't have any emotional ties to them and if we can get someone better I have no problem casting them aside.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Mar 8, 2008 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

eh,

battle and jackson are probably better than anything we are gonna find in the 3rd or 4th round at the receiver position. battle is not a bad player at all, and he plays hard. he's just always asked to do way too much. as a 3rd or 4th receiver he'd be pretty good. he's got good hands (even though you couldnt tell at times last year) runs routes well, and isnt afraid to go across the middle. i'm hopeful martz can get the best out of what jackson has left and use him in a role similar to how he used curtis, furrey and mcdonald in his previous offenses. i agree its an uninspiring bunch, but put a #1 receiver with 'em and its suddenly a very good group. where we find that #1 is another matter. i dont think hardy, desean, or even sweed have the ability to step in and be the guy right now. that said, i think they should draft a guy early and hope martz can speed his development.

by sam23 on Mar 9, 2008 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i see

your point though. its not like drafting a couple guys and cutting a vet will make the receivers any worse.

by sam23 on Mar 9, 2008 12:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

right

that's all I'm saying, the more competition the better and I'm fine with letting a vet go if he's not that good.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Mar 9, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I read...

... previously that Lelie and Jackson are no "locks" when it comes to roster spots. If Jackson comes out with hands of stone again in the preseason or Lelie comes in again being very indifferent to the fact his route running sucks, you can believe one or both of them will see the door.

by sfgfan on Mar 10, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think

lelie is as good as gone. but wouldnt jackson contract hurt us if we released him?

by sam23 on Mar 10, 2008 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all.

Jackson was acquired via trade, so the 49ers didn't pay him any bonus money (although I think they did guarantee a portion of last year's salary after he arrived). Because there's no bonus money involved, he doesn't affect the team, financially, with a release (or at trade).

by sfgfan on Mar 10, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice

i thought they gave him an extension as soon as they got him.

by sam23 on Mar 10, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Royal

I think he'd be an interesting pick in the 3rd or the 4th round, like you Fooch. He's the kind of versatile (return-man and WR) player that Nolan/McCloughan seem to favor. The only thing he has going against him is his durability concerns (and we all know how much Nolan dislikes the chronically injured).

As for Rossum preventing the team from taking a kick returner because he's the "long-term" solution? I don't think Rossum's deal guarantees very much (monetarily), so I can definitely see the 49ers looking for competition at kick returner. Rossum could always return punts (because he'll have more experience, and probably better hands/nerves) and let the explosive youngster take the kickoffs.

by sfgfan on Mar 10, 2008 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Draft...

We should draft one receiver and that's it... we have plenty of depth at the position, and all we really need is a number 1 and getting one this off season wasn't realistic (paying Berrian that kind of money when he won't even be a true #1 is ridiculous). Receivers will have far less impact on this team's future than improving the lines...

by jaytierney on Mar 10, 2008 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Very good point.

To add to that, there doesn't seem to really be a clear-cut #1 WR in this year's draft, either. So taking (in the draft) multiple receivers may really just create a redundancy in what the team already has (supporting WRs).

by sfgfan on Mar 10, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DJ Hall

I think DL Hall is the sleeper we are looking for. He seems to have gotten a bad rap...he is saying the right things in interviews and apparantly worked hard in the combine. He puts up big numbers in big games.

I agree with comments above...I would almost rather replace Jackson and Lelei with some young tallent with upside. Would not be much of a drop off.

by boulder99 on Mar 10, 2008 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs