Another Blurb from Gil Brandt about Suggs workout yesterday!

[ajcardfan]

Sure, there are always really good college players who don't pan out in the pros. And, there's usually a few who come out of nowhere to be good in the pros. But, which do the odds really favor? Your percent of success will be much better by taking the guy who did well in college.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
Sure, there are always really good college players who don't pan out in the pros. And, there's usually a few who come out of nowhere to be good in the pros. But, which do the odds really favor? Your percent of success will be much better by taking the guy who did well in college.

No - the odds favor the guys who did really well in college AND have the physical tools (strength and speed) - that's who you should be getting with a top six pick IMO.

 

[john h]

Re: Oh and last time I checked

Originally posted by Chris_Sanders
Initial acceleration is part of someone's 40 time. That's why it is such a telling stat.

Suggs 40 times means only two things:

#1 He is just slow...slower than the QBs he will be trying to get to.

#2 He tires so easily, that the massive speed burst he gets in the initial take off vanishes almost immediately.

I have heard all I want to hear I do not want Suggs. You do not learn speed. He is slow and undersized and I do not care where he went to school or what college records he holds. This sure looks like another Jake ind DE clothing.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
Chris - You have a right to your opinion, and perhaps you'll be proved to be right.

But I don't think so. There are a few things you should consider:

- While it's true that how fast someone runs the first 10 - 20 yards also goes into someone's 40 time, two players can run the forty with identical times, except that one will take longer to build up speed and continue to increase it over the final 20 yards while another will explode out of the blocks but max out at that point.

The explosive guy is more likely to be a successful edge-rusher because he has the initial quicks to beat the LT and whiz around him.

The other guy is more likely to be an excellent 40 - 60 yard dash track man.

- You don't rack up 24 sacks in one season against major college competition if you're "too slow" to get the job done.

- Mean Joe Green pointed out that the kid added 10 pounds between the last workout and this one without losing any additional straight line speed - that's a plus.

- It's not all about speed and quicks. Suggs also has a sufficient number of moves in his arsenal (with the knowledge of when/when not to use them) to be super-productive at what he does best.

He may bulk up and he may not. You need speed not just for 10 yds but sometimes for a lot more than that to run a guy down from behind. Sometimes the DE falls back into coverage. You need speed then. There are guys available at least on the interior line we could use who have the numbers to back them up. Where is his strength? I cannot believe the number of reps he had? We are already making excuses for him and have not even drafted him. We just went through 5 years of Jake hell. No more please. I am getting the feeling this guy will not go in the top 10 unless we draft him.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Stout
I haven't sounded off in the Suggs debate lately because it's all being said, but I do have to make a contribution.

First, let me qualify my statements by saying I'd still take the guy. He's the best pass rusher in college football. He had 24 sacks. He has game speed. I'd rather have Leftwich, yes, but I won't be heartbroken if we take Suggs.

That said, he's by no means a sure thing. His lack of speed scares me. Everyone can cry game speed all you want, but there are plenty of comparisons to make to past players that supposedly 'played faster' than their 40 times. Thomas Burke 'played faster' than his 40 time. He looked like a man among children. IN COLLEGE. My fear is that, while Suggs looks great in college, the speed of the NFL may be too much for him. It is a legitimite fear. Period.

I'm tired of everyone getting on their high horses and claiming their side of the story is correct, not that it's necessarily happening in this thread. One side says that he's absolutely a terrible pick because of his workout numbers. I can't agree-they could be deceptive. Of course, the other side is willing to completely ignore his horrible workouts and say he will be a good pick because of 'game speed'. I certainly can't agree with that faulty logic, because he is no sure thing.

Bottom line: We won't know for sure until he plays. If Leftwich is gone, AND we can't trade down, I'd be happy to get Suggs at #6. He's worth the gamble at that spot for what we'd get if he does pan out. If he doesn't play well, it sucks, but we have to suck it up and drive on, as we used to say in the Army.

I would sure take one of the big interior DL before Suggs after what I am reading. Seems to me much less of a gamble and we need help there also.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
As noted many times before a DE does not have to run 40 yards to get to the QB. Let his college production speak for itself, he beat some major talented tackles that play in the Pac 10. What do you think Reggie White's 40 time was? Suggs can get stronger, he will get stronger he is much bigger than he was at the combine.

A DE does more than just run a few yards to get to the QB. He sometimes has to run a lot to chase someone down running the ball. Pro ball is not college ball. Suggs is going to be up against bigger faster meaner guys on a regular basis. To many questions here. Pass ---

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Bob Kemp and Evan Ann dean on KDUS talked about the "BURKE COMPARISON" and they said something to the effect that Burke was using roids.....I wasn't the only one who heard it, AJCardsfan heard it too.

Sorry Krang, but read what you posted once more. I didn't say he is a Thomas Burke. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't comparing the players. You didn't read very thoroughly. I'm trying to say (and everyone's ignoring) that sometimes players look good in college but their skill doesn't necessarily mean they will be good in the pros. To say that Suggs was phenominal in college and so has to be in the pros is ridiculous. I give a damn if Burke was on roids in college. It means nothing to Suggs. What Burke means is that college success does NOT equal NFL success. Period. PLEASE DO NOT try to read more into this...again. PLEASE DO NOT assume I'm now saying Burke=Suggs. I am saying NO SUCH THING. I'm saying, quite simply, college experience means nothing to your pro career. All it does is affect draft status.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
How can you say screw his experience? If you ignore that, then he isn't even a prospect. Suggs has more pass rush ability than any prospect coming out since I started watching the draft. He has more moves that Jevon Kearse did and many others over the past 7-9 years...

All right, the last post you misquoted but this part I could have written much better. I'm saying screw his experience because it's already counted for all it ever will-He'll likely be a top ten pick. At this point, that's all his experience is worth. I'm willing to count it towards whether or not we take him, yes. What I'm saying is, the Cards draft board is already likely set. They've made up their mind on him. Ergo, now his college experience means diddly squat. His play, from now on, will determine everything.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Stout
Sorry Krang, but read what you posted once more. I didn't say he is a Thomas Burke. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't comparing the players. You didn't read very thoroughly. I'm trying to say (and everyone's ignoring) that sometimes players look good in college but their skill doesn't necessarily mean they will be good in the pros. To say that Suggs was phenominal in college and so has to be in the pros is ridiculous. I give a damn if Burke was on roids in college. It means nothing to Suggs. What Burke means is that college success does NOT equal NFL success. Period. PLEASE DO NOT try to read more into this...again. PLEASE DO NOT assume I'm now saying Burke=Suggs. I am saying NO SUCH THING. I'm saying, quite simply, college experience means nothing to your pro career. All it does is affect draft status.

I realize that Stout. I'm not stupid.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
I realize that Stout. I'm not stupid.

What I meant to do was to tell you a little more of what I heard about Burke. I never said in my post that you were comparing the two....maybe you need to re-read my post. I just thought you might be interested since Burke was brought up (hell I thought it was interesting)

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Stout
Sorry Krang, but read what you posted once more. I didn't say he is a Thomas Burke. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't comparing the players. You didn't read very thoroughly. I'm trying to say (and everyone's ignoring) that sometimes players look good in college but their skill doesn't necessarily mean they will be good in the pros. To say that Suggs was phenominal in college and so has to be in the pros is ridiculous. I give a damn if Burke was on roids in college. It means nothing to Suggs. What Burke means is that college success does NOT equal NFL success. Period. PLEASE DO NOT try to read more into this...again. PLEASE DO NOT assume I'm now saying Burke=Suggs. I am saying NO SUCH THING. I'm saying, quite simply, college experience means nothing to your pro career. All it does is affect draft status.

Without question college success does not mean success in the pros no matter how good you look in college. That is why 1st round picks are really such a gamble.

 

[JeffGollin]

Why isn't Suggs a lock for the top three picks in the draft?
Because Team 1 needs a QB really really badly? Because Team 2 needs a WR really really badly? Because Team 3 feels the #2 WR is really good, and the 3rd best athlete?

We're thinking too much There is too much freaking time between the Combine and Draft Day. If the Cardinals were focusing on any player other than Suggs, I truly believe there would be just as much static on this board tearing that player down.

I have this sinking feeling the Cards will talk themselves out of doing the obvious. And while there's logic in strategies other than picking Suggs at #6, if we did that, my guess is that many of us will be sitting in front of our TV screens with that mild nauseous and slightly disappointed feeling...

To repeat my point - If we had focused our attention on Newman, Trufant, Robertson and Kennedy as much as we have on Suggs, we'd find just as many reasons not to draft any of them.

(and the farther we'd go down the draft list, the more reasons there'd be).

 

[abcard]

Hello,first post for me.People are bringing up Suggs play on the field and that's what you've got to look at.I'm not sure about this but didn't Dennis Johnson set some kind of sack record in college.And if I remember right most draft gurus had him being drafted late first or early second.Cards got him in third and he sat on the bench.I don't know if anyone has his workout numbers but would like to see them if you do.

 

[Russ Smith]

The first workout I wasn't overly concerned, even the second one didn't bother me. But if reports about partying and getting tired in workouts are true then all the other hype(like the Sporting News article) are false and that concerns me.

I was researching a bit, last year about this time Julius Peppers, at 283 pounds, ran a 4.74 40 to cement his position in the draft.

So Suggs, 25 pounds lighter, is running .1 to .15 slower than Peppers right now. That does concern me. I didn't see him enough in college to be able to say he dominated there he'll be great in the NFL. I still think he's the most logical pick for the Cards at 6 but I am a little less confident about that than I was before the workouts that's for sure.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
Why isn't Suggs a lock for the top three picks in the draft?
Because Team 1 needs a QB really really badly? Because Team 2 needs a WR really really badly? Because Team 3 feels the #2 WR is really good, and the 3rd best athlete?

We're thinking too much There is too much freaking time between the Combine and Draft Day. If the Cardinals were focusing on any player other than Suggs, I truly believe there would be just as much static on this board tearing that player down.

I have this sinking feeling the Cards will talk themselves out of doing the obvious. And while there's logic in strategies other than picking Suggs at #6, if we did that, my guess is that many of us will be sitting in front of our TV screens with that mild nauseous and slightly disappointed feeling...

To repeat my point - If we had focused our attention on Newman, Trufant, Robertson and Kennedy as much as we have on Suggs, we'd find just as many reasons not to draft any of them.

(and the farther we'd go down the draft list, the more reasons there'd be).[/

COLOR]

Jeff: I know our management team knows one hell of a lot more about these players and our needs than any of us and in the end think they will do the right thing what ever that is. My only concern is that we do not draft a guy just because he is a local guy. If Suggs was from Montana I would feel a lot more secure about his selections if that is where we go. If they are convinced he is our man based on his ability then I am with them. I am probably thinking a little further out than our draft guys which is why I would take Leftwich. I realize he may not make an impact for a couple of years if he is the real deal but I do know at some point we need a quality QB for the next decade.

 

[JeffGollin]

My only concern is that we do not draft a guy just because he is a local guy.
John - I'm not a local guy - I live in NJ, have no relatives in AZ and went to a school back East.

I'd be the first guy to rip homerism and, in fact, came into the season skeptical about Suggs for that reason.

Then I watched him play.

He can play.