Link to full article: http://www.bleed-green.com/blog/?p=5106

The Interview

The interview was set up with Stephen Baker from www.andthevalleyshook.com, a blog regarding everything LSU sports. Stephen is a passionate and intelligent blogger of the LSU Tigers, and he shares with you his four-year observation of Charles Scott!

1. Tell us about Charles Scott based on your observations (off and on field).

First, the good news. Charles Scott was a team leader who never once publicly complained about the fact the team was constantly trying to give his job to Keiland Williams despite Williams’ staggering lack of production. He runs like a tank, actively seeking out contact. He also has a nose for the goal line, as he scored 18 touchdowns two seasons ago. Injuries and a shockingly awful offensive line derailed his senior year, but Scott still averaged 4.7 yards per carry. The bad news? Scott is slow. I don’t mean, he’s slow for a running back, I mean he is slow for a human being. You know how some backs have that second gear? Yeah, well Scott doesn’t. He is not a big play back. He’s a slog in the mud, get you four yards every time kind of back. that has it’s virtues, but it doesn’t limit his NFL utility. He’s a short yardage back and probably nothing more at the pro level. I should also use this as my soapbox for talking about production versus tools. NFL scouts drool over "measurables" and it’s easy to understand why. But LSU fans spent the last four years watching two backs, one a five star recruit with talent coming out of his ear hole (Keiland Williams) and the other a grind it out back that got the most out of his talent (Scott). And I would take Scott over Williams ever day of the week and twice on Sunday. Williams is an athlete. Scott is a football player. Williams could never take Scott’s job despite being the more talented guy because Williams could get tackled by a blade of grass. You need an atom bomb to bring down Scott.

2. Why is RB Charles Scott a perfect fit for the Philadelphia Eagles specifically?

Well, the most I know about the Eagles is that Desean Jackson won me my fantasy football league. So, thanks, Eagles! OK, that’s not true. I’m not sure your plans with Westbrook, but Scott would be a perfect compliment to a back like that. McCoy and Westbrook, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong since I don’t follow the Eagles like you guys, seem to be very similar backs. Scott would fit in nicely as the power back to bring some contact to the defense to open up holes for the quicker backs. Think Alstott to the other backs’ Warrick Dunn. Actually, Alstott is a terrific comp for Scott, particularly for their bruising style in college.

3. Which current NFL veteran would you compare Charles Scott to?

Oops. I jumped to that question a bit early, didn’t I? I see Scott like Mike Alstott. A good clubhouse guy who runs hard but lacks breakaway speed. He’ll run hard, particularly near the goalline. He’s not going to be an every down back and he’s not going to be a star. But he has the potential to be one of those cult heroes that every NFL team has. Look, I love Charles Scott, but I also don’t want to lie to you guys. There’s a reason he fell to the late rounds. You didn’t draft Emmit Smith.

4. You’ve watched Charles play at LSU for several years, tell us something that many experts haven’t mentioned about his play?

He’s actually a far quicker back than anyone thinks. He may lack speed, but Scott actually can make people miss in tight space. Scott is very good at getting the ball, making a hard cut and hitting the hole. Now, he had problems last season when he was getting hit in the backfield, but that had more to do with a lousy offensive line (and I cannot stress enough how terrible our offensive line was) than Scott. He can make one guy miss, not three. For a guy who I’ve consistently described as a tank, he is surprisingly nimble. Scott has good footwork. He’s not Barry Sanders, but he’s not Ron Dayne either. Scott will make the first guy miss, then he will deliver the pain.

5. Give us your realistic expectations for Scott in his rookie season, as well as his NFL future?

Realistically, I see him only getting in for special teams and in short yardage situations. He’ll have a low YPC because he’ll be running against stacked fronts in these situations, but he’ll have a high conversion rate. He get first downs and score about 4-5 touchdowns, but he probably won’t crack 200 yards. Long term? Let’s be honest, physical running backs don’t have a long shelf life. I hate to say it, but I think he’ll be out of the league in about five years after a nice career as a short yardage back. Running backs are the NFL’s fungible good, and he will likely get replaced by a younger version of himself with less wear and tear. I think he’ll be a solid pro, but he likely won’t have a long career. I hope I’m wrong. Because I’ll be cheering for Scott. The guy’s biggest attribute is heart. This means I absolutely love the guy, but the NFL is the sort of league where talent trumps heart. The one thing I can guarantee is that Scott will play hard, which is, sadly, not something you can say about most prospects.