2011 NFL Draft: Ricardo Lockette Scouting Report
Ricardo Lockette is an interesting prospect with elite speed and overall athleticism. While raw and coming from the D-II level, Lockette still possesses NFL talent that could have a team calling him earlier than some would think come draft day.
Lockette’s eventual selection in the 2011 NFL Draft will largely depend on if a team feels that he’s simply a project that isn’t far away from blossoming into something special, or if he’s too raw to chance it.
Position: Wide Receiver
School: Fort Valley State
Height: 6’2” 1/8
Weight: 211 lbs
Hands: 9 5/8
40 Time: 4.37
Really an exceptional talent, with elite speed, great size and outstanding overall athleticism. Has long arms and is adept at going up and after balls. Solid strength and great body control. Very explosive player with loads of potential. Versatile receiver that also has experience in the return game.
What round should Lockette go in?
Very raw with suspect hands. Usually does a good job catching with his hands and not his body, but his hands are just not where they need to be, as he drops a ton of easy balls. Played against low-level competition and wasn’t very dominant. Not a good route-runner. Lacks discipline and focus.
Appears to be more of a sensational athlete than a sensational player at this point. Has had character issues. Has a history of injuries. Very much a project, although his upside is limitless.
Overall, Lockette is being talked about because he’s a phenomenal athlete that could really do some damage at the next level with some good coaching and a better work ethic.
He needs to prove he’s more than a 40 time, and he needs to hone his route-running and improve his receiving ability.
Ultimately, someone is going to take a chance on Lockette because of his immense talent, and he figures to go somewhere between the fourth or fifth round.
NFL Player Comparison: Fendi Onobun
For more 2011 NFL Draft player profiles, rankings, and mocks, head over to NFL Soup.com!
Follow me on Twitter @NFLSoupKevin
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?