Robert Quinn Pro Day results-4.58 40 at 264 pounds

[Mitch]

Why would anyone doing professional evaluations be biased against Kerrigan? They're not. They've graded his talent from mid to back end of the first round. Pretty damn high and complimentary in my estimation. But, no one I've read, with any credibility in the field, has him in the top 10.

That later picks often pan out (thank God!) is irrelevant to what I was saying; namely that talent is the starting point in evaluating athletes and their potential success, not whether they are willing to run through walls.

Canuck:

Are you really sold on what the pundits tell you?

Seriously?

Every year they get many of the ratings wrong.

In fact, ESPN has been doing yearly "Re-Draft in Hindsight" specials...where they compare the player the teams took in the first round with the player they should have taken.

This past year...the only two top ten picks that looked right on the money were the first two: Bradford and Suh...and the irony is that some of the same pundits who were touting the players who were getting drafted that high are now the ones a year later saying so-and-so team should have really drafted so-and-so player instead.

All we need to do is look at the Cardinals' recent Top 10 drafting history...many more misses than hits, weren't they? Not even close.

The only one the Cardinals got their money's worth on was Larry Fitzgerald...but they passed up a couple of franchise QBs to get him...which didn't matter, as it turned out, in the 2008 & 2009 seasons, because of Kurt Warner.

Thus...based on the number of faulty ratings from the pundits and the Cardinals' top 10 draft history...I am not inclined to trust anything but my own eyes.

I didn't go into my research of the OLB prospects with any pre-conceived or biased thoughts...I just wanted the tapes to speak for themselves.

The one consideration I have made is that I think very highly of O'Brien Schofield---but cannot see him playing SOLB...to me he is strictly a WOLB...thus...I have been thinking that our biggest need is at SOLB...

But...I also was very impressed with what Keith Butler had to say about his proto-typical 34 OLBers: "they have to be able to bull rush and beat you with quickness to the ball." He went on to say, "If they can't do both, they can't play for us."

There is no bull rush in Von Miller's game. Check out Somers' blog and ex-scout Dave Razzona's take on Miller. What Razzona says about him is what you see on tape...he's a speed guy all the way...and they had to spell him a few times a game at A&M.

Kerrigan fits Butler's criteria the best of any of the prospects, imo.

The pundits don't care about Butler's criteria...there are other philsophies out there. Some DCs want speed guys...and Miller would be a perfect fit in a speed oriented defense.

 

[Buckybird]

Canuck:

Are you really sold on what the pundits tell you?

Seriously?

Every year they get many of the ratings wrong.


There is no bull rush in Von Miller's game. Check out Somers' blog and ex-scout Dave Razzona's take on Miller. What Razzona says about him is what you see on tape...he's a speed guy all the way...and they had to spell him a few times a game at A&M.

Kerrigan fits Butler's criteria the best of any of the prospects, imo.

The pundits don't care about Butler's criteria...there are other philsophies out there. Some DCs want speed guys...and Miller would be a perfect fit in a speed oriented defense.

Mitch, I agree 100% with you on this & have said so many times leading up to this draft. Teams must find players that fit what their scheme is, thus making the draft gurus irrelevant for the most part.

I like Houston, Smith, Kerrigan & Quinn (in that order) better than Miller as a complete 3-4 OLB, but the draftniks & the Cards fans would boo their asses off if the they choose 1 of them over Miller at #5. It's all about preferance & fit...I like chocolate while K9 may like vanilla. Only time will tell who is right about Miller, Kerrigan or whomever we draft. All I know is the great 3-4 (Steelers, Chargers, Ravens, etc) teams don't have OLB that look like & play the game that Von Miller does.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Canuck:

Are you really sold on what the pundits tell you?

Seriously?

Every year they get many of the ratings wrong.

As I am not an expert I'm simply left with what I read, hear or see from people who have a lifetime of professional experience in the game at its highest level.

The pundits, as you say, that I pay attention to are the one's who say that evaluation is both art and science; measurables and imponderables. On balance, I will pay closer attention to their views as with few exceptions posters are merely debating their evaluations; their boards and their mocks.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I'm a big fan of Quinn, I think he could have a DeMarcus Ware-type impact pretty early on. I'm more sold on Von Miller's short term impact, but 4 years down the road I think Quinn will be the better overall player.

Either one would be my pick, followed by Peterson and then a QB.

 

[Mitch]

As I am not an expert I'm simply left with what I read, hear or see from people who have a lifetime of professional experience in the game at its highest level.

The pundits, as you say, that I pay attention to are the one's who say that evaluation is both art and science; measurables and imponderables. On balance, I will pay closer attention to their views as with few exceptions posters are merely debating their evaluations; their boards and their mocks.

Now that YouTube is such a resource...you can go and see for yourself. It's a great thing.

Regarding the pundits...it's interesting that the majority of them never played a snap of pro football, nor did they come anywhere close. Mel Kiper...Todd McShay...these guys work hard and I respect them, but I always feel leery about their assessments.

Mike Mayock played defensive back at BC...he was a solid player, but not a pro prospect...but he played in a pro-style program with players who turned into good pros...and you can tell he's an ex-player because he has a command of football terminology and nuances that the others don't.

What I like best about Mayock is that he will go out on a limb when he feels justified in doing so---he doesn't buy into what the other pundits are saying unless he truly agrees with it---and this guy does his homework---he watches a ton of film.

What Mel is GREAT at is identifying sleepers---and knowing backgrounds on hundreds of the lesser known talents and prospects. Mel is extraordinary in this regard.

The Draft Publications are basically clueless at times---they often make their evaluations too early and you can never really tell how much thought or study went into their evaluations---in fact, it's comical how many times in the same player evaluation they will contradict themselves---saying the player lacks elite speed in one section and then laud the players speed in another.

The one guy who really was the best draft analyst of players was the late Joel Bucshbaum of Pro Football Weekly---who would always paint up both the positives and the negatives of every player. His draft annuals were worth way more than what he ever aksed for them. They were priceless. Here was a guy who lived in Brooklyn and spent most of his time studying tapes of college prospects---his preparation was phenomenal.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Now that YouTube is such a resource...you can go and see for yourself. It's a great thing.

Regarding the pundits...it's interesting that the majority of them never played a snap of pro football, nor did they come anywhere close. Mel Kiper...Todd McShay...these guys work hard and I respect them, but I always feel leery about their assessments.

Mike Mayock played defensive back at BC...he was a solid player, but not a pro prospect...but he played in a pro-style program with players who turned into good pros...and you can tell he's an ex-player because he has a command of football terminology and nuances that the others don't.

What I like best about Mayock is that he will go out on a limb when he feels justified in doing so---he doesn't buy into what the other pundits are saying unless he truly agrees with it---and this guy does his homework---he watches a ton of film.

What Mel is GREAT at is identifying sleepers---and knowing backgrounds on hundreds of the lesser known talents and prospects. Mel is extraordinary in this regard.

The Draft Publications are basically clueless at times---they often make their evaluations too early and you can never really tell how much thought or study went into their evaluations---in fact, it's comical how many times in the same player evaluation they will contradict themselves---saying the player lacks elite speed in one section and then laud the players speed in another.

The one guy who really was the best draft analyst of players was the late Joel Bucshbaum of Pro Football Weekly---who would always paint up both the positives and the negatives of every player. His draft annuals were worth way more than what he ever aksed for them. They were priceless. Here was a guy who lived in Brooklyn and spent most of his time studying tapes of college prospects---his preparation was phenomenal.

Well, there are pundits and then there are pundits. I'm interested in hearing from former coaches at the highest level; GM's; Scouts and players. I buy publications a week to two before draft day for entertainment purpose. Some are fairly solid and some wildly off base, but, as said, they feed my curiousity.

If the Cards dump out of #5 (because Miller, Peterson and Dareus are gone) then I have no problem with Kerrigan at mid first if he's number one their board at that point... but, frankly, there is the hype/smell of Larry English and Jerry Hughes about this guy. Hope I'm wrong.

P.S. Mayoch played a couple of seasons with the Giants

 

[Mitch]

Well, there are pundits and then there are pundits. I'm interested in hearing from former coaches at the highest level; GM's; Scouts and players. I buy publications a week to two before draft day for entertainment purpose. Some are fairly solid and some wildly off base, but, as said, they feed my curiousity.

If the Cards dump out of #5 (because Miller, Peterson and Dareus are gone) then I have no problem with Kerrigan at mid first if he's number one their board at that point... but, frankly, there is the hype/smell of Larry English and Jerry Hughes about this guy. Hope I'm wrong.

P.S. Mayoch played a couple of seasons with the Giants

Yes, thanks Canuck, you are right, Mayock had a brief stint as a pro.

Actually I think Kerrigan is getting under-hyped by the pundits...but, as for the scouts, I bet it's a different story.

I bet the Pats, for one, are totally enamored with Kerrigan---because he has a Teddy Bruschi type intensity to his game. Bruschi played a different position...but his intensity made the whole defense better.

Kerrigan's the best bull rusher in the draft...I would rate Jabaal Sheard the next best (and now even the pundits have Sheard going late in round one). Plus, Kerrigan has uncanny closing quickness. And man does he finsih off plays.

 

[WildBB]

Why would anyone doing professional evaluations be biased against Kerrigan? They're not. They've graded his talent from mid to back end of the first round. Pretty damn high and complimentary in my estimation. But, no one I've read, with any credibility in the field, has him in the top 10.

That later picks often pan out (thank God!) is irrelevant to what I was saying; namely that talent is the starting point in evaluating athletes and their potential success, not whether they are willing to run through walls.

And you missed my point as well. I said that many of the picks that are rated about where Kerrigan is rated work out much better than the higher rated picks. One reason is simply that they're playing for better teams. But that doesn't explain why many of the top of the 2nd round players out perform the top rated picks as well. These players have massive talent and have outperformed some of the higher rated prospects on the field. So why the evaluation discrepancy?

Yes raw talent is used as the main criteria in evaluations as well as the perceived possible ceilings of the players. That's why Bowers and Quinn are rated above the Kerrigans and Houstons. but you pretty much know what your getting for sure in those players. Which could be good enough to evaluate that they belong on your team even though ALL the pundits say you should pick otherwise.

Singletary and Ted Bruskey and D. Ryan all outplayed their draft positions , and it happens on a regular basis. Some will say just as many mid-late firsts and seconds do not live up to their being picked there. While it could be true, the thing that sets the above apart besides being somewhat undersized is their intensity and passion. That shows through on a consistent basis in college on every down. The above possessed it. Many of the pundits picks and evaluations high in the draft neglect it to somewhat of a fault, preferring the sometimes illusional high ceiling of the prospect.

To me the difference maker is how the prospect actually can FIT, with what your trying to accomplish on your particular team. That has to go into and above the teams' evaluations no matter what ALL the pundits agree on. Of course within reason.

While the Cards' have also had some questionable misses using this formula, recently Levi Brown (drafted a bit too high) , Alan Branch and possibly Beannie Wells. They drafted many of these questionable picks solely on a perceived need basis and not necessarily on the criteria that intensity, passion, EXTENDED RESULTS and leadership qualities be brought more into the evaluation equation of talent.

 

[kerouac9]

Wild, I think part of your issue is that lower-round picks have much lower expectations than Top 10 picks. "Aggressiveness" is impossible to measure, but are you really saying that DaQuan Bowers wasn't trying as hard as Ryan Kerrigan, or is it that it's easier for a lesser talent to have an impact in the Big X than it is in the SEC?

Take a look at the 2007 NFL draft. Who were the late-first/early-second round guys who outperformed those taken ahead of them? Did Aaron Sears outperform Joe Thomas? Has Anthony Gonzalez out performed Calvin Johnson? Did Paul Posluzny outperform Patrick Willis?

 

[WildBB]

Wild, I think part of your issue is that lower-round picks have much lower expectations than Top 10 picks. "Aggressiveness" is impossible to measure, but are you really saying that DaQuan Bowers wasn't trying as hard as Ryan Kerrigan, or is it that it's easier for a lesser talent to have an impact in the Big X than it is in the SEC?

Take a look at the 2007 NFL draft. Who were the late-first/early-second round guys who outperformed those taken ahead of them? Did Aaron Sears outperform Joe Thomas? Has Anthony Gonzalez out performed Calvin Johnson? Did Paul Posluzny outperform Patrick Willis?

I wish we would have drafted Posluzny instead of Branch, although I was happy with it at the time, when I was following the draft, when we traded up, I thought Posluzny would be the pick. He's a solid run defender and defensive leader, not the crazy talent that Willis is. He is a solid contributor when healthy.

Joe Thomas is probably the best OT to come out in some time. Sears did well at first but then got hurt.

I would have to go back and look at some of the early busts as well over the last five years. I'd bet there aren't more busts in the 16-30 range as there are top 15's. But I'd have to look at it.

My argument is simply, in the evaluating process some of the extended performance(over the career) by players picked later in the 1st round early 2nd sometimes gets a little overlooked or undervalued, because of so called measurables (40 times, bench press, ect.) and because of that, higher perceived ceilings of those drafted ahead of them. Doesn't work out that they're the best players always or even predominantly become the better player.

The "toughness", not necessarily the aggressiveness of the player is sometimes the hardest to get a handle on. But if you look at a players complete body of work, it many times shows through. Thus the difference between Bowers and Kerrigan. I have to question Bowers' toughness. I don't question Kerrigans.

Players I mentioned earlier that were later picks in the 1-2nd rounds, Singletary, Bruschie or Ryans, all certainly had that (toughness). Injuries and the abilities of players to fight through some of them are certainly factors as well.