6’1

199 LBS

Hometown: Ft. Lauderdale, Fl

Projected Rd: 2-3



Grade: 5.70

Grading Scale

SPARQ: 116.8 (#47 CB)

Combine Results

Strengths

Speed

Man to Man

Press

Shutdown Potential

Weaknesses

Gives too much cushion too often in zone

Can struggle vs bigger, physical WR’s

Looks way smaller than he is, needs to get stronger

Run support

Zone coverage needs work

Overview

Mullen only has 3 interceptions and 7 pass deflections in his 3 year campaign at Clemson, but he was ranked 19th in the nation in yards per coverage snap with 0.65, and 23rd in snaps per reception without giving up a touchdown in his college career. People assume that means he was a lock down corner, but as you watch his film you see that is not the case.

Mullen played a healthy mix of both zone and man coverage at Clemson. His man to man is his biggest strength in coverage, and while he looks smaller than listed, his press is good and he plays physical. He covers fast and smaller quick receivers well and usually stays step for step with receivers on deep routes. Where he can struggle in man is versus bigger, physical receivers. He can stay with them, but his ball skills leave a lot ot be desired and so he can get boxed out or caught on due to body position.

In zone coverage, Mullen needs a lot of work. He gives way to much cushion in zone, and while he didn’t give up many catches due to it, it doesn’t change the fact that he could of. He also doesn’t close in as fast as I’d like to see for someone as fast and athletic as he is. Paul Guenther likes to run a lot of man to man press coverage, so luckily for Mullen lacking in zone may not hurt as much as it could had he went somewhere else.

Run support is another area where Mullen struggles. He cannot shed a block to save his life, and just needs to get stronger to have any hope in improving there. There was plays where he didn’t look willing to hit or make a play on the RB as well which could be a concern.

Overall, Mullen fits the Raiders scheme and the team is pretty solid at the CB position on paper so Mullen will have time to improve in the areas he needs to. Despite all of his problems, he did lock-down a lot of cornerbacks in college, and wasn’t really exposed much due to them.

Game By Game Breakdown

Vs. Texas A&M

Stats: 2 Solo, 0 Assists, 2 Total Tackles, 0 Def, 0 INT, Targets: 0 , Catches Allowed: 1 , Yards Allowed: 20

Game Notes: First play doesn’t stay down in coverage when they were in cover 2 and the receiver caught it in the zone he was suppose to be in. (0:50) Was being a little touchy in man. (1:09) Open field tackle, could of wrapped up but might of dive at his legs because that’s the only way he can bring him down. (1:29) Good man to man coverage but lets WR block him and didn’t disengage after QB ran as he could of made the tackle. Showed good technique on that rep.

Overview: Was not targeted at all so I’d say he was overall solid but he did blow a coverage which lead to a ball being caught in his zone. He looks a lot smaller that 6’1 on the field and WR’s didn’t have trouble blocking him in this one.

Grade: B-





Vs. Duke

Stats: 1 Solo, 0 Assists, 1 Total Tackle, 1 TFL, 1 Def, Targets: 3, Catches Allowed: 0 , Yards Allowed: 0

Game Notes: Playing in all sorts of coverages this game, press man, off man, zone. (2:20) Nice effort recovering and making the TFL right after being pushed way off balance. Nice form on the tackle as well. (2:30) Lined up as the nickle. (2:41) Got off the block but looks like he barely tried to make a play on the ball carrier. (2:49) Nice man to man on outside, covered a streak route. (2:59) Like this rep because he shows perfect technique with his backpedal and the angle he took on it, and awareness to also be looking at the QB which is why he was able to get in front of the WR. (3:08) In zone, gave the WR way to much cushion and had Daniel Jones threw to him it would of been at least a 5 yard gain. The concept of this zone is too keep the play in front but not that as much as he did. (3:18) Man to man on outside and his man actually had a step on him and should of gotten the catch had the WR not dropped it. (3:38) Had good coverage on his man at first but tripped and could of been a completion with a better throw. (3:48) Giving WR way too much cushion in zone once again. (4:14) Again gives too much cushion in zone but Jones doesn’t throw it to the WR he was covering. All of these reps where he gives cushion have been curl routes.

Overview: While Mullen did not give up any receptions, there was multiple plays he should of, but his WR wasn’t targeted, or dropped the ball, or Jones threw a bad ball. Certain plays looked like an unwilling tackler, others looked agressive and physical. His biggest problem here was him giving up so much cushion, a lot of DC’s in the NFL have their CBs do that and it is a big annoyance of mine, especially since the Raiders have had CB’s like this who would give up short catches at will which add up especially if the CB is not a good tackler.

Grade: D+

Vs. Notre Dame

Stats: 4 Solo, 1 Assist, 5 Total Tackles, 0 Def, 0 INT, Targets: 4, Catches Allowed: 2 , Yards Allowed: 25, PI’s: 1

Game Notes: (0:10) Good man to man rep. (0:24) Zone coverage, played too far back in his zone and a receiver was open in his zone but the pass was dropped. (1:02) Pancaked by WR. (1:20) Played way to physical on the WR down the field and for no reason as he was with him step for step, the WR was big so maybe thats why he was being touchy as he didn’t want to let the WR be able to box him out. (2:06) Good coverage on slant route, didn’t let the WR too much inside. (2:28) Dont like how far back he was playing but that might of been by design. (3:28) Gave up catch on streak route as he turned his body the wrong way and WR was able to make the catch on outside shoulder easily. Way right with him in coverage just didn’t play the ball right. (4:48) Doesnt close in fast enough on short route but catch only went for 3 yards. (7:50) Good coverage on slant route.

Overview: Had an OK game. Had problems covering #81 of Notre Dame who is a bigger WR. When covering the others he had no problem and his man to man was mostly good in terms of staying step to step with his man, but needs to work on his ball skills and angles he takes.

Grade: C

