Player: Jaquan Brisker

School: Penn State 

Height and Weight: 6’1”, 199

Combine Results:

• 40: 4.49
• Bench: 22
• Broad Jump: 10’4”
• Vertical Jump: 34.5”
• 3 Cone:  DNP
• Other Notes: Brisker took part in all the tests; however, it sounds like he tweaked his back while doing the bench press. He competed in the jumps, but apparently it got worse as he ran his 40 and called it a day after his first attempt. Brisker did not compete in the field workout and drills, but will do so at his pro day. Brisker’s bench was solid for a safety; however the rest of his numbers are fairly average. It is hard to say if his back impacted his numbers, but we will find out at his pro day. If he wants to go in the first round he needs to hope that he can improve his test numbers and show out in the drills.

Strengths: Plays well in the box, quality vision in zone coverage, physical when playing man and in general

Weaknesses: Being a true “deep safety” that drops the deep third, inconsistent tackler

Projected Draft Day: Day 2

Player Comparison: Mike Edwards

Player Summary: Brisker needs to play more of a box role as he enters the league. At Penn State, Brisker looked like a top notch player in college when he was in the box and closer to the line of scrimmage. Brisker isn’t afraid to get in on the play and hit; however, from the tape I watched it looks like Brisker has very inconsistent tackling and it is a big red flag for me for a box safety prospect. Brisker seems to like to have a physical style of play, and I think that can get him in trouble. He wants the highlight reel hit, and can find himself over pursuing or forgetting to break down or wrap up. In coverage Brisker is fairly sound when he has less ground to cover. Brisker looked okay when dropping into a cover 2 shell deep and seemed to have great vision when rolling down to the box. Brisker likes to be physical when in man coverage and tries to throw receivers and tight ends off their route. When given heavier responsibilities, such as playing the deep third in cover 3, he does not seem to do as well. He can let plays get behind him and has slightly slower vision which can cause him to get to plays late. Penn State also liked to blitz Brisker which I liked to see. Brisker has his flaws, but he has a solid nose for the ball and should have a role of some kind in year one for whatever team drafts him.

I compared Brisker to Mike Edwards of Tampa Bay. They are similar in physical build, but also in style of play. Mike Edwards shares the strong safety role with Jordan Whitehead in Tampa. When Edwards is at safety, he is usually rolled down and if Tampa has all 3 safeties in, Edwards is used in a nickel/dime position where he can be in the box which is where he excels in run support and blitzing. I could see Brisker stepping into a similar role in year one where he could share safety snaps with someone until he can develop his coverage skills more. The only difference is that after going back and watching some tape of Edwards at Kentucky, Edwards seemed to be a better tackler heading into the league, but that is surely something that can be improved by Brisker in the league with the right coaching.