PDA

View Full Version : So, about this Pierre-Paul stuff...


Supporting Caste
02-11-2010, 12:03 PM
What are the reasons that people are starting to project him as a top 3 pick?

I like the guy as a prospect, but he wasn't as productive as his talent should dictate and he's ONE YEAR out of JC.

I understand scouts will believe what they will, but I'm curious as to what the origin of this belief is.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 12:07 PM
What are the reasons that people are starting to project him as a top 3 pick?

I like the guy as a prospect, but he wasn't as productive as his talent should dictate and he's ONE YEAR out of JC.

I understand scouts will believe what they will, but I'm curious as to what the origin of this belief is.


Here is the thing about JPP. He is dominant on film and has some ridiculous measureables. His wingspan is one of the largest I have ever seen from a defensive lineman. Huge range, huge athleticism, and even without the sack numbers (similar to a guy like Kindle,) JPP was in the back field a lot, making hits, changing plays. That's what teams want more than "sack" numbers.

Scouts are drooling over this guy, not one thinks he will fall out of the Top Ten, just be prepared for it.


There is a big difference between watching the games (and granted, I didn't get them all, it is USF,) and observing the numbers. There is plenty on tape that isn't seen on a stat sheet.

Supporting Caste
02-11-2010, 12:15 PM
I included those descriptions of productivity in my own, I guess I just don't see the big deal as much.

I guess I'm curious why these sentiments are popping up just now when this all would have been evident a long time ago? These projections surfaced basically within the last week or so.

Caddy
02-11-2010, 12:20 PM
I included those descriptions of productivity in my own, I guess I just don't see the big deal as much.

I guess I'm curious why these sentiments are popping up just now when this all would have been evident a long time ago? These projections surfaced basically within the last week or so.

I've been hearing about JPP's lofty draft status for the last couple of months.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 12:21 PM
I've been hearing about JPP's lofty draft status for the last couple of months.

Yeah, it has been around for awhile. Just trickling down to everyone, which always takes times for scouts to share the info and it to get sent around to those following.

Caddy
02-11-2010, 12:24 PM
Yeah, it has been around for awhile. Just trickling down to everyone, which always takes times for scouts to share the info and it to get sent around to those following.

I assume the main reason for that is due to the fact that he was a junior. Not a lot of juniors who are playing their first year of DIV I ball declare for the draft.

superman8456
02-11-2010, 12:31 PM
Here is the thing about JPP. He is dominant on film and has some ridiculous measureables. His wingspan is one of the largest I have ever seen from a defensive lineman. Huge range, huge athleticism, and even without the sack numbers (similar to a guy like Kindle,) JPP was in the back field a lot, making hits, changing plays. That's what teams want more than "sack" numbers.

Scouts are drooling over this guy, not one thinks he will fall out of the Top Ten, just be prepared for it.


There is a big difference between watching the games (and granted, I didn't get them all, it is USF,) and observing the numbers. There is plenty on tape that isn't seen on a stat sheet.

Can you point me in direction of this "dominant film"?

I've watched him and came away impressed by all the potential he has, but right now he is not a very good football player. Not nearly good enough to be a top ten pick. The scouts love his amazing measurables first and foremost, and then he backs it up with alright production.

There are certain things he does great. For example, he's a ridiculous at batting down passes But some of the basic, fundamental things like tackling, taking the right angles the ball, playing with proper pad level, etc. he lacks.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 12:32 PM
Here is the thing about JPP. He is dominant on film and has some ridiculous measureables. His wingspan is one of the largest I have ever seen from a defensive lineman. Huge range, huge athleticism, and even without the sack numbers (similar to a guy like Kindle,) JPP was in the back field a lot, making hits, changing plays. That's what teams want more than "sack" numbers.

Scouts are drooling over this guy, not one thinks he will fall out of the Top Ten, just be prepared for it.


There is a big difference between watching the games (and granted, I didn't get them all, it is USF,) and observing the numbers. There is plenty on tape that isn't seen on a stat sheet.

Exactly.

Everybody raves about how important statistical production is with prospects and how that matches up with their measurables.

Truth be told, production itself is not as important as many people believe. Scouts are more interested in how they attained that production. Like you said, there's way too much that goes into a football game that doesn't appear on the stat sheet.

And the reason why we're starting to here about JPP is because he's just now starting to get really broken down as a prospect. He's played one year of DI football coming out of a JC. He wasn't exactly on everybody's radar.

I like him more than Morgan, TBH. Other than Super Mario, the big, "complete" DE prospects haven't faired well in recent years. Kenechi Udeze, Derrick Harvey, Jamaal Anderson being the biggest examples.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 12:33 PM
Can you point me in direction of this "dominant film"?

I've watched him and came away impressed by all the potential he has, but right now he is not a very good football player. Not nearly good enough to be a top ten pick. The scouts love his amazing measurables first and foremost, and then he backs it up with alright production.

There are certain things he does great. For example, he's a ridiculous at batting down passes But some of the basic, fundamental things like tackling, taking the right angles the ball, playing with proper pad level, etc. he lacks.

Just going off of games I've watched/DVRed this year. Yes, he doesn't tackle well or take the right angles, but he gets into the back field numerous times during a drive and pressures QBs a lot.

CC.SD
02-11-2010, 01:01 PM
So who in the top 10 snags him Jbond? KC and Cleveland seem like the only real options to me. Buffalo just took Maybin at 11 last year and the top 5 seems like it's got enough 'sure thing' talent in the QBs, Suh, Berry, McCoy and Okung.

Raiders? I guess that fits the slate.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 01:02 PM
So who in the top 10 snags him Jbond? KC and Cleveland seem like the only real options to me. Buffalo just took Maybin at 11 last year and the top 5 seems like it's got enough 'sure thing' talent in the QBs, Suh, Berry, McCoy and Okung.

Raiders? I guess that fits the slate.

Cleveland, Oakland, Jacksonville, and maybe even Denver are all possibilities.

FUNBUNCHER
02-11-2010, 01:05 PM
Is he a better prospect than Michael Johnson was last year?

Is JPP a better prospect than Dunlap is?? Some players get hype heading into the draft and it propels them all the way into the draft, IMO.

Production may not be everything, but it's a red flag to select a player in the top 5 who wasn't clearly dominant in college, I think.

Ware, Freeney, Peppers, Mario Williams, Merriman and Dumervil were generally the best players on the defensive side of the ball in their last year of college football. You didn't have to be a pro scout to recognize their obvious ability.
JPP may belong in the former group based on his raw physical tools, but he's disappeared in too many games IMO to warrant a top 5 selection.

If JPP is taken in the top 5, Dunlap should be the #1 overall selection.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 01:10 PM
Is he a better prospect than Michael Johnson was last year?

Is JPP a better prospect than Dunlap is?? Some players get hype heading into the draft and it propels them all the way into the draft, IMO.

Production may not be everything, but it's a red flag to select a player in the top 5 who wasn't clearly dominant in college, I think.

Ware, Freeney, Peppers, Mario Williams, Merriman and Dumervil were generally the best players on the defensive side of the ball in their last year of college football. You didn't have to be a pro scout to recognize their obvious ability.
JPP may belong in the former group based on his raw physical tools, but he's disappeared in too many games IMO to warrant a top 5 selection.

If JPP is taken in the top 5, Dunlap should be the #1 overall selection.

Yes and Yes. JPP's motor is much much better than Michael Johnson and Carlos Dunlap.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 01:15 PM
Is he a better prospect than Michael Johnson was last year?

Is JPP a better prospect than Dunlap is?? Some players get hype heading into the draft and it propels them all the way into the draft, IMO.

Production may not be everything, but it's a red flag to select a player in the top 5 who wasn't clearly dominant in college, I think.

Ware, Freeney, Peppers, Mario Williams, Merriman and Dumervil were generally the best players on the defensive side of the ball in their last year of college football. You didn't have to be a pro scout to recognize their obvious ability.
JPP may belong in the former group based on his raw physical tools, but he's disappeared in too many games IMO to warrant a top 5 selection.

If JPP is taken in the top 5, Dunlap should be the #1 overall selection.

JPP's lack of production doesn't come from not trying. He's actually pretty tenacious and he's got a good motor. He just really doesn't know what he's doing yet haha.

Michael Johnson and Carlos Dunlap? Lazy, lazy, lazy.

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 01:16 PM
I'd say he goes to the Dolphins at #12.

Scotty D
02-11-2010, 01:16 PM
Yes and Yes. JPP's motor is much much better than Michael Johnson and Carlos Dunlap.

This may be crazy, but how does he stack up against McCoy/Suh?

draftguru151
02-11-2010, 01:22 PM
JPP is worlds better of a football player than Johnson and Dunlap, even with how raw he is right now. I loved Johnson's athletic ability but he looked lost in his stance at times as a senior in college. Don't really want to go too much into Dunlap as his faults have been discussed a ton on the board already. I haven't seen a ton of JPP but the one game I've looked at him so far (I'm pretty sure it was the bowl game) it's extremely easy to see he is a first round talent. Top 3 and such I'm not sure yet (and I very much doubt I'll rank him there) but I can see the reasoning behind it.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 01:23 PM
This may be crazy, but how does he stack up against McCoy/Suh?

Apples and Oranges, but I wouldn't put him anywhere near that class.

Heck, I don't even love JPP as a great NFL player per say, just trying to say this is why scouts have him as a Top Ten pick.

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Heck, I don't even love JPP as a great NFL player per say, just trying to say this is why scouts have him as a Top Ten pick.
You don't draft players based only in their potential.

FUNBUNCHER
02-11-2010, 01:39 PM
JPP is worlds better of a football player than Johnson and Dunlap, even with how raw he is right now. I loved Johnson's athletic ability but he looked lost in his stance at times as a senior in college. Don't really want to go too much into Dunlap as his faults have been discussed a ton on the board already. I haven't seen a ton of JPP but the one game I've looked at him so far (I'm pretty sure it was the bowl game) it's extremely easy to see he is a first round talent. Top 3 and such I'm not sure yet (and I very much doubt I'll rank him there) but I can see the reasoning behind it.

JPP and Michael Johnson are the SAME prospect, from a physical/athletic standpoint. He put up outstanding numbers at Ga Tech while also playing special teams, yet he was severely downgraded by scouts who questioned his motor.

Seeing JPP listed as a top 3 pick just blew the top of my head off, is all.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 01:40 PM
You don't draft players based only in their potential.

EVERY pick is based solely on his potential. They don't get picked for what they did in college, they get picked for what they will do in the NFL. If production was all that mattered, drafting would be incredibly easy.

ElectricEye
02-11-2010, 01:42 PM
You don't draft players based only in their potential.

Yeah, you do. If it comes to down a debate of production/potential, you chose potential every single time. One usually follows the other, but not everything can be statistically quantified.

draftguru151
02-11-2010, 01:48 PM
JPP and Michael Johnson are the SAME prospect, from a physical/athletic standpoint. He put up outstanding numbers at Ga Tech while also playing special teams, yet he was severely downgraded by scouts who questioned his motor.

Seeing JPP listed as a top 3 pick just blew the top of my head off, is all.

In a majority of Michael Johnson's snaps he had no explosion off the ball whatsoever because he couldn't get in a proper stance (or was too lazy to do so). Every now and then he'd actually fire off the ball and look amazing. JPP does that fairly consistently.

Also Michael Johnson got more untouched sacks than anyone I've ever seen.

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 01:52 PM
Yeah, you do. If it comes to down a debate of production/potential, you chose potential every single time. One usually follows the other, but not everything can be statistically quantified.
Still, if a guy ran a 4.40 at 270 lbs, and he only played one game in college football, would you draft him in the first? No.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 01:54 PM
Still, if a guy ran a 4.40 at 270 lbs, and he only played one game in college football, would you draft him in the first? No.

Nobody would ever get drafted playing only one game of college football, let alone in the first round. So that's a stupid example.

Would you have drafted a Hawaii or Texas Tech QB over Mark Sanchez last year?

no bare feet
02-11-2010, 01:57 PM
This guy has the upside to be a Simeon Rice/Kearse/Mario Williams type of impact player with the floor being a Tamba Hali. The upside is such a big thing with this guy because of his exposure to being a starter, and his resources as a player have not been tapped. I don't see top 3 but I can buy top 10. I would not be shocked if either KC or Clev snags him to be an OLB.

ElectricEye
02-11-2010, 01:59 PM
Still, if a guy ran a 4.40 at 270 lbs, and he only played one game in college football, would you draft him in the first? No.

That's the most cliché card you could possibly play. You're using an extreme, narrow example. We all know that doesn't happen. Have to echo YSF.

I'm not even a huge JPP guy, but I hate that argument. Almost willing to guarantee that if he got lucky and ran into a quarterback two times more during the course of the season, you wouldn't be saying that.

no bare feet
02-11-2010, 02:00 PM
For the limited exposure he shows some great moves along with the all mesaurables and rarely allows linemen inside.

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 02:02 PM
[QUOTE=yourfavestoner;2013385]Nobody would ever get drafted playing only one game of college football, let alone in the first round. So that's a stupid example.[QUOTE]
That's not a stupid example.

It's unfair how JPP, who played only one season, is ranked way above Sergio Kindle who played 4 years in the same level.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2010, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE=yourfavestoner;2013385]Nobody would ever get drafted playing only one game of college football, let alone in the first round. So that's a stupid example.[QUOTE]
That's not a stupid example.

It's unfair how JPP, who played only one season, is ranked way above Sergio Kindle who played 4 years in the same level.

This isn't about fair, it is about who scouts think will be the better NFL player for their franchise and system.

ElectricEye
02-11-2010, 02:11 PM
That's not a stupid example.

It's unfair how JPP, who played only one season, is ranked way above Sergio Kindle who played 4 years in the same level.

The funny part about this is that Sergio Kindle didn't play anywhere near JPP's his first two years in college and had a similar year to JPP this year.

Hines
02-11-2010, 02:14 PM
With his wingspan, could he bulk up and play 34 DE?

ElectricEye
02-11-2010, 02:18 PM
With his wingspan, could he bulk up and play 34 DE?

Why would you want him to? He isn't a very good 3-4 prospect IMO, but if you're throwing him in that scheme you might as well utilize his best skill.

princefielder28
02-11-2010, 02:20 PM
I can understand the hype and the potential is scary, but if I'm a team drafting in the top ten I think I could find a player who has a similar ceiling and not such a low floor.

superman8456
02-11-2010, 03:03 PM
It's been stated time and time again how teams in the top 10 dread the pick, rather than valuing them greatly. So much guaranteed money has to go into these players. Why would you draft a player with such a high chance of not being able to go on the field and be productive early on, or maybe even ever?

ATLDirtyBirds
02-11-2010, 04:08 PM
I know I'm a fan. The man has some freakish talent. I agree with YFS. I'd put him over Morgan. I think Morgan will be solid, but JPP has unlimited potential.

AntoinCD
02-11-2010, 04:09 PM
It's been stated time and time again how teams in the top 10 dread the pick, rather than valuing them greatly. So much guaranteed money has to go into these players. Why would you draft a player with such a high chance of not being able to go on the field and be productive early on, or maybe even ever?

Ah the St Louis Rams way. If your picking in the top ten you're a pretty bad team and you need major upgrades of talent. Taking the safe pick based on gauranteed money is the best way to stay mediocre. Back in 2005 how many teams in the top ten regret not taking someone like Shawne Merriman who was basically a one year starter without a defined position. He turned out ok I suppose. I know FlyingElvis is gonna hate me now for mentioning that

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 04:23 PM
Ah the St Louis Rams way. If your picking in the top ten you're a pretty bad team and you need major upgrades of talent. Taking the safe pick based on gauranteed money is the best way to stay mediocre. Back in 2005 how many teams in the top ten regret not taking someone like Shawne Merriman who was basically a one year starter without a defined position. He turned out ok I suppose. I know FlyingElvis is gonna hate me now for mentioning that

I never understood why Minnesota took Wiliamson at pick #7 instead of Ware/Merriman. As a matter of fact, I thought Merriman was a lock for them.

You traded away the best receiver in the NFL. Your defense has been only a pass rusher away for a couple of years. So why do you waste the pick you get for Moss for another receiver - one who had virtually no chance of replacing Moss' production anyways. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

AntoinCD
02-11-2010, 04:29 PM
See in that case the Vikings had a near perfect evaluation of Williamson. He had pretty good size and blazing speed. Most prospects if they have one weakness may still be taken highly based on their good points. However Minnesota forget that when evaluating WRs, the ability to catch the ball is one of the more important skills necessary. Troy Williamson has had more dropped balls than a class full of 13 year olds

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 04:49 PM
Troy Williamson has had more dropped balls than a class full of 13 year olds
You earn some rep, and a quote in my sig.

thetedginnshow
02-11-2010, 04:56 PM
He may be a freak of nature, but he still has a lot to learn about the game, and I don't think a team in the top half of the draft really has that kind of time to wait to see if he pans out, unless they can put him in a position where he can get a lot of sacks and people can assume that he's doing well. Really though, beyond a lack of core strength and experience, the big thing that bugs me about him is that he seems awfully stupid.

AntoinCD
02-11-2010, 04:58 PM
He may be a freak of nature, but he still has a lot to learn about the game, and I don't think a team in the top half of the draft really has that kind of time to wait to see if he pans out, unless they can put him in a position where he can get a lot of sacks and people can assume that he's doing well. Really though, beyond a lack of core strength and experience, the big thing that bugs me about him is that he seems awfully stupid.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he's expected to score single digits in the wonderlic

JHL6719
02-11-2010, 05:03 PM
Never really been impressed with him.

Look like Tarzan play like Jane type prospect.

Lot of potential....BUST potential.

RaiderNation
02-11-2010, 05:17 PM
I wouldnt take him in the top 10. Theres alot of good prospects that are more of a "sure thing" than he is. Id take him in the 15-20 range though

princefielder28
02-11-2010, 05:26 PM
Never really been impressed with him.

Look like Tarzan play like Jane type prospect.

Lot of potential....BUST potential.

He doesn't play like Jane; he's still Tarzan on the field but it's not always consistent

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 05:28 PM
Yeah I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he's expected to score single digits in the wonderlic
I ask myself how those guys suck in the wonderlic. Thing is too damn easy from what I've heard.

BigBanger
02-11-2010, 05:44 PM
Here is the thing about JPP. He is dominant on film and has some ridiculous measureables. His wingspan is one of the largest I have ever seen from a defensive lineman. Huge range, huge athleticism, and even without the sack numbers (similar to a guy like Kindle,) JPP was in the back field a lot, making hits, changing plays. That's what teams want more than "sack" numbers.

Scouts are drooling over this guy, not one thinks he will fall out of the Top Ten, just be prepared for it.


There is a big difference between watching the games (and granted, I didn't get them all, it is USF,) and observing the numbers. There is plenty on tape that isn't seen on a stat sheet.
I don't know his numbers off the top of my head, but dominant he is not and has never been. You can watch USF for an entire half for any random game and you might notice JPP.

If you look for him, you will see some flashes of potential greatness, then on the very next play, you see a guy so raw and so inexperienced that its hard to imagine him going top 3, which he wont. Top 10? Yeah, he's 6'6'' and 290 pounds with some athletic ability and long arms. More upside than anyone in the draft. He's going high, but don't kid yourself. The only reason he is getting this kind of hype is based on POTENTIAL, SIZE and his POSITION (4-3 DE/3-4 DE).

If he had this dominant game you speak of, then he wouldn't fall out of the top 2 picks.

AntoinCD
02-11-2010, 05:44 PM
I ask myself how those guys suck in the wonderlic. Thing is too damn easy from what I've heard.

Sample question from wonderlic-like test

There are three times as many girls as boys in a PE class. In a class basketball game the girls average 18 points and the total class average is 17. What do the boys average?

If you are a grown man with at least 3 years of higher education, be it college or junior college and you can't work that out then dumb wouldn't get a look in

bigbuc
02-11-2010, 05:45 PM
I look at it like this... If he has all the tools why not the numbers? And I know numbers don't tell the whole story, but if you're bigger, faster and stronger than everyone than why not take over games like Suh did or Morgan from GT did against the Tigers. He's a project... and like any project its going to take time with him. His Tools are top ten... not his play.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 05:53 PM
I look at it like this... If he has all the tools why not the numbers? And I know numbers don't tell the whole story, but if you're bigger, faster and stronger than everyone than why not take over games like Suh did or Morgan from GT did against the Tigers. He's a project... and like any project its going to take time with him. His Tools are top ten... not his play.

I also believe that looking at what a player can do for you "this year" and drafting him based on that is almost always a short-sighted mistake. It's another reason why I have a problem with "needs" drafting.

What you have here is a tantalizingly talented player who has only just scratched the surface of his potential. Add in the fact that he plays the second most valuable position in football and, voila, you have a soaring draft stock.

If he's a double digit sack artist three years down the line, then the pick is justified, even if he is a project or develops slowly. That's how valuable sack artists are in the NFL these days.

Me Likey Rookies
02-11-2010, 06:15 PM
Here is the thing about JPP. He is dominant on film and has some ridiculous measureables. His wingspan is one of the largest I have ever seen from a defensive lineman. Huge range, huge athleticism, and even without the sack numbers (similar to a guy like Kindle,) JPP was in the back field a lot, making hits, changing plays. That's what teams want more than "sack" numbers.



I would not say his film is dominant. Solid, sure, and mostly due to his great frame and impressive strength. But he does not have the elite burst around the edge that I would want from a top 10 pick; a lot of his sacks came on inside moves where he was able to overpower the OT with his size. Not elite burst and waaayyyy too raw = not a top 10 pick.

Crickett
02-11-2010, 06:33 PM
You don't draft players based only in their potential.

No, but you can get pretty close.

Examples:

With the 4th overall pick in the 2003 NFL draft, the New York Jets select.....

With the 19th overall pick in the 2003 NFL draft, the Baltimore Ravens select.....

With the 7th overall pick in the 2005 NFL draft, the Minnesota Vikings select.....

With the 6th overall pick in the 2006 NFL draft, the San Francisco 49ers select.....

With the 11th overall pick in the 2006 NFL draft, the Denver Broncos select.....

With the 7th overall pick in the 2009 NFL draft, the Oakland Raiders select.....

Halsey
02-11-2010, 07:04 PM
As usual, people are spinning arguments to back up their perception. Nobody said JPP would be draft based solely on potential. Nobody. It was pointed out in plain English that scouts like what they see on tape. Just because a guy doesn't have a pretty number in a glamour stat category, like sacks, doesn't mean he doesn't project well to the next level.

and anyone can go back to past Drafts and cherry pick players to fit their argument and claim that player was picked based solely on potential. Those same people will conveniently forget players they perceived as being picked soley on potential who turned out to be good pros. DeMarcus Ware was widely viewed as being a workout guy who came out of nowhere. Of course, the same people who spin every argument will swear up and down that isn't true and that they were telling everyone about Ware 2 years before he was drafted. :rolleyes:

bigbuc
02-11-2010, 07:47 PM
I also believe that looking at what a player can do for you "this year" and drafting him based on that is almost always a short-sighted mistake. It's another reason why I have a problem with "needs" drafting.

What you have here is a tantalizingly talented player who has only just scratched the surface of his potential. Add in the fact that he plays the second most valuable position in football and, voila, you have a soaring draft stock.

If he's a double digit sack artist three years down the line, then the pick is justified, even if he is a project or develops slowly. That's how valuable sack artists are in the NFL these days.

My thing is that if he's so out of this world talented, which he is. Then why doesn't he take over games? I understand that DE's are the most important position in football besides the QB. But they do have a high bust rate because Gm's and Coach's see 4.5 40's and wingspans and fall in love, and they make reasons for why these players don't show up on game day. Look back only two years Vernon Gholston had so much potential. And I hate comparing players because every situation is different but I bring him up because that the difference between talent and potential.

Talent gets you an All Pro.
Potential is a player that doesn't live up to his talent. And that gets you fired.

Supporting Caste
02-11-2010, 08:01 PM
I do like JPP as a 4-3 end, but I don't see how he could play anything else.

The guy is a rocket off the snap (for his size, anyway) and is obviously quite fast, but I don't see any stop/start ability with him. Sometimes I'd say he looks downright awkward which, to be fair, is the nature of being 6-6 with a lanky frame.

Am I the only one who thinks JPP looks closer to 6-8 than 6-6? He could just have oddly proportioned limbs, I guess.

Supporting Caste
02-11-2010, 08:06 PM
Talent gets you an All Pro.
Potential is a player that doesn't live up to his talent. And that gets you fired.

Although I'm skeptical of the JPP top 3 talk, Vernon Gholston is a terrible example. That guy was very productive in college and he equally overpowered and outran the linemen he beat.

Why the hell has that guy been so terrible, anyway?

CC.SD
02-11-2010, 08:16 PM
Although I'm skeptical of the JPP top 3 talk, Vernon Gholston is a terrible example. That guy was very productive in college and he equally overpowered and outran the linemen he beat.

Why the hell has that guy been so terrible, anyway?

He has been terribly misused by the Jets, is in the wrong system, would be terrific anywhere else, and no one has ever EVER kissed his boo boos.

TACKLE
02-11-2010, 08:38 PM
He has been terribly misused by the Jets, is in the wrong system, would be terrific anywhere else, and no one has ever EVER kissed his boo boos.

I agree. I still feel that Gholston could be a very good 4-3 DE. He is actually very good against the run because off his strength and he still has a very good first step in his pass rush. Although he is a great athlete, he is tight in the hips so the Jets don't feel he can play in coverage so he doesn't get on the field. Let him get in a 3-point stance and just come after the QB.

ElectricEye
02-11-2010, 08:48 PM
I do like JPP as a 4-3 end, but I don't see how he could play anything else.

The guy is a rocket off the snap (for his size, anyway) and is obviously quite fast, but I don't see any stop/start ability with him. Sometimes I'd say he looks downright awkward which, to be fair, is the nature of being 6-6 with a lanky frame.

Am I the only one who thinks JPP looks closer to 6-8 than 6-6? He could just have oddly proportioned limbs, I guess.

He does look a bit taller than 6'6. Wouldn't surprise me if he measured a little higher than that.

Regardless of that, he's freaky long and has a disgustingly quick fist step. Combine that with athleticism, and you can see why scouts like him. The film on him really isn't bad either. He shows up for sure. Was making big plays all year. He only had two fewer TFL than Derrick Morgan, if you want to use statistics to do the talking. He just didn't get the 9+ sacks that everybody looks for in college football. To me, that's alright because he's only been playing football since halfway into his Junior Year. He's raw as hell, but he is bringing it on the field.

There are some major concerns though. From seeing a few interviews with him, I never like to say this, but intelligence seems to be a bit of an issue. He also doesn't seem 100% in love with the game. Again, I hate to say these things because I don't think anyone outside of a team/organization can REALLY know this, but it does come off that way. That's in addition to the general rawness. The reason for him not getting those couple extra sacks can be attributed a bit to luck, but you can also point to little things like him not always using his length the way he should. He can get pushed to the outside a bit too much. His primary problem is that he really doesn't have many pass rush moves. Also doesn't help that he takes bad angles fairly consistently too. But he's not all physical tools. The game has come pretty quickly to him so far. The bust potential with him is fairly massive, but the ceiling is sky, sky high. People need to remember that doesn't mean he's automatically a "Looks Like Tarzan, Plays Like Jane" type. Nor has he proved nothing at the college level. Hasn't proved as much as you would like, but he has done his damage. I don't think he's a top three guy, but if you're willing to roll the dice for talent in the top ten to fifteen, he's not a bad pick at all.

619
02-11-2010, 08:50 PM
I see some Jason Taylor in him. I'm warming up to the idea of him coming to Oakland. I was always a fan, but the more I learn about him and watch on tape, the more impressed I come away. Let's still acknowledge that he is raw and that alone should keep him out of top 3-5 or those teams at the top may have to be patient, which they can't afford to be, similarly to what Buffalo is going through with Maybin.

superman8456
02-11-2010, 09:37 PM
Ah the St Louis Rams way. If your picking in the top ten you're a pretty bad team and you need major upgrades of talent. Taking the safe pick based on gauranteed money is the best way to stay mediocre. Back in 2005 how many teams in the top ten regret not taking someone like Shawne Merriman who was basically a one year starter without a defined position. He turned out ok I suppose. I know FlyingElvis is gonna hate me now for mentioning that

I'm not saying take the "safe" pick, because we all know there is no "safe" pick. I am saying that if you are bottom of the barrel team, you should not be picking JPP. Why, you might ask? Simply because its a lot of time and a lot of money invested into a player that may or may not pan out how you want him to. I honestly believe that he will have a hard time seeing the field on non passing downs in the NFL.

The fact is that these "athletic specimens" have a higher bust rate than the average Brandon Graham, Derrick Morgan type players.

wogitalia
02-11-2010, 11:03 PM
I also believe that looking at what a player can do for you "this year"

There is only 1 time when this should be considered.

When you have two prospects that you grade as having the same amount of potential as each other, then the next step is to take the guy who you think is going to start higher.

JPP is a polarising prospect and certainly has a workout warrior vibe going with him. There is obviously a lot of physical tools to work with but there are also massive bust chances.

My biggest worry is actually the whole JUCO thing. It says a lot about a player that they are either stupid enough or so nonchalant about their football career that they can't get the grades required to get into college. I can't think of many JUCO guys who go on to do much in the NFL. I would love to be proven wrong there, but the sources I have seen it is a list of underachievers for the most part.

The thing is that as HS kids, these guys are basically given everything and life should be easier for them to make it to college yet they manage not to, it basically is a big red flag for me.

Again... I would love to be proven wrong on this.

FUNBUNCHER
02-12-2010, 12:48 AM
Wasn't Ochocinco a JUCO?? I'm sure there are a few more, but that is an important observation, still an athlete should be given the benefit of the doubt for not being mature academically as an 18 yearold.

Drafting DEs who go on to become double digit sacks guys is probably one of the most difficult positions to scout, IMO.
Merriman may not have had a true position at UMD, he was a hybrid OLB/DE for most of his three years, but he was a starter for 3 years and was by far Maryland's best defensive player as a junior, ( some would say as a sophomore too).

Look, if I had seen JPP mocked being taken from the 8th pick on down, I'd have no problem with it. But that top 3 deal just was like, whaaa?

FUNBUNCHER
02-12-2010, 01:07 AM
Sample question from wonderlic-like test

There are three times as many girls as boys in a PE class. In a class basketball game the girls average 18 points and the total class average is 17. What do the boys average?

If you are a grown man with at least 3 years of higher education, be it college or junior college and you can't work that out then dumb wouldn't get a look in

Also there is a hard time limit for the wonderlic. AntoinCD, is this an actual question or did you make it up?? Maybe I'm stoopid:confused:, maybe it's late, or maybe I'm overthinking the problem, but would you please show work on this, since I don't I could solve this problem in 2 minutes.

( BTW, it took me well over the allotted time limit to reach 14 point/average for the boy(s) if there are 3 girls/ one boy in the classroom.)

IMO, that question is a little more challenging than easy.

Now I know why so many Miami Hurricanes AA have annually blown off this test.

thetedginnshow
02-12-2010, 01:23 AM
There is only 1 time when this should be considered.

When you have two prospects that you grade as having the same amount of potential as each other, then the next step is to take the guy who you think is going to start higher.

JPP is a polarising prospect and certainly has a workout warrior vibe going with him. There is obviously a lot of physical tools to work with but there are also massive bust chances.

My biggest worry is actually the whole JUCO thing. It says a lot about a player that they are either stupid enough or so nonchalant about their football career that they can't get the grades required to get into college. I can't think of many JUCO guys who go on to do much in the NFL. I would love to be proven wrong there, but the sources I have seen it is a list of underachievers for the most part.

The thing is that as HS kids, these guys are basically given everything and life should be easier for them to make it to college yet they manage not to, it basically is a big red flag for me.

Again... I would love to be proven wrong on this.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact that he's really only playing football because he got hurt playing basketball than the JUCO thing.

Don Vito
02-12-2010, 06:25 AM
He's a talented prospect no doubt, but being one year removed from JUCO scares me. Not saying he is the same type of prospect but Loadholt was viewed as a top 10 guy if he were to declare after his first year at Oklahoma, the same goes for mount Cody. JPP does have huge upside but something about playing only 1 year of D-1 ball scares me.

AntoinCD
02-12-2010, 07:29 AM
Also there is a hard time limit for the wonderlic. AntoinCD, is this an actual question or did you make it up?? Maybe I'm stoopid:confused:, maybe it's late, or maybe I'm overthinking the problem, but would you please show work on this, since I don't I could solve this problem in 2 minutes.

( BTW, it took me well over the allotted time limit to reach 14 point/average for the boy(s) if there are 3 girls/ one boy in the classroom.)

IMO, that question is a little more challenging than easy.

Now I know why so many Miami Hurricanes AA have annually blown off this test.

No, type wonderlic sample into google and that is one of the questions.

3 times more girls than boys so break it down to the smallest possible. 3 girls one boy. Thats 4 people. If 4 people average 17 then the complete score is 68. If three of them average 18 that is 54. 68-54=14.

To confirm that say there is 6 girls and two boys, thats 8 people.

8X17=136
6x18=108
136-108=28
28/2=14

thule
02-12-2010, 08:17 AM
The main concern with JPP is that he is supposedly an idiot. Be prepared for a single digit wonderlific score. I don't think he can go top 10 for that reason alone.

yourfavestoner
02-12-2010, 10:15 AM
Had no idea that he was [i]that/i] stupid. Yet, defensive line is a position that usually garners some low pretty low wonderlic scores.

Tedginnshow's post about him switching to football after his basketball injury is more of a concern, IMO. I watched a lack of dedication kill the potential career of another bball player turned football player in Matt Jones.

If teams check him out and feel his heart is truly in football then he easily goes into the top ten. If it turns out he's stupid, undedicated, AND raw then you'll see him settle in the middle to end of round one (too many other talented pass rushers IMO).

Also agree that the only position he's suited for is 4-3 DE. He needs to be focusing on one thing and that's moving forward and rushing the passer. Having him learn coverage techniques and playing with his hand off the ground could be overwhelming for him.

SenorGato
02-12-2010, 04:43 PM
One of the top 5 most overrated players in this draft right now...

Golden Tate
JPP
Jared Odrick
Tim Tebow
Colt McCoy

I think JPP ends up a Bobby McCray type player...not bad...but not a high first round pick either.

superman8456
02-12-2010, 05:11 PM
One of the top 5 most overrated players in this draft right now...

Golden Tate
JPP
Jared Odrick
Tim Tebow
Colt McCoy

I think JPP ends up a Bobby McCray type player...not bad...but not a high first round pick either.

How is Odrick overrated?

bigbuc
02-12-2010, 05:29 PM
How is Odrick overrated?


I was thinking the same thing.

SenorGato
02-12-2010, 06:16 PM
How is Odrick overrated?

Solid rotational DT or DE on a 3-4 line...I wouldn't touch a Penn State DT in the first round anyway unless he was truly special, and I've seen enough of Odrick to not buy ALL the hype.

Believe me, I really like Odrick a whole lot. I've been on the guy for two years now. I actually like this whole draft stuff enough that I do crap like that. I just don't see the raw power or the ability to collapse the pocket I want from a first round DT.

I'd even be so bold as to say that Vince Oghobaase (when healthy) is a better prospect as a 4-3 DT or a 3-4 DE. I really can't wait to see how combine goes, but I think current rankings are going to get absolutely rocked...

Earliest I'd take Odrick is the 3rd...

asdf1223
02-12-2010, 06:52 PM
Walter Jones was also only one year removed as a JUCO as well.

BigBanger
02-12-2010, 06:58 PM
I'd even be so bold as to say that Vince Oghobaase (when healthy) is a better prospect as a 4-3 DT or a 3-4 DE.
I didn't think we would have to hear this name, especially when talking about Jared Odrick, who is much more athletic, quick, productive and technically sound. Big O is a 5th or 6th rounder. Nothing more.

Odrick struggles against double teams and is inconsistent against the run. When his shoulders are square to the line of scrimmage, he has the ability to shoot the gaps and disrupt, or take on blockers and hold his ground. Not a dominant player, but he's better than a guy like Adam Carriker.

superman8456
02-12-2010, 07:03 PM
Walter Jones was also only one year removed as a JUCO as well.

Walter Jones is also the exception, not the rule.

asdf1223
02-12-2010, 09:15 PM
I am just saying that players have made the jump before. I dont see how JPP is that different from Aaron Maybin who had basically one productive season of D-1 football as well. Atleast with JPP you have a great body to go along with it. Whichever team drafts him has to be patient and wait for two years before expecting any production.

cajuncorey
02-12-2010, 10:40 PM
if u wanna talk about the sky being the limit for a player then its carlos dunlap... the guy has all the talent in the world gives 50% on the field and still is productive... imagine if dunlap actually applied himself the game. now thats a player with a lot of potential

ElectricEye
02-12-2010, 10:42 PM
Walter Jones is also the exception, not the rule.

Honestly; how many first round caliber athletes/players escape D1/D2 ball? Of course you aren't going to be able to rattle off some massive list of names.

keylime_5
02-12-2010, 10:42 PM
for some reason i always laugh when i see the word "wingspan" when talking about a guy's...."wingspan." it's not like people have wings. the wordsmiths should have invented a better word for it than that. i'm not a bird, i don't have a wingspan :)

SenorGato
02-13-2010, 01:24 AM
I didn't think we would have to hear this name, especially when talking about Jared Odrick, who is much more athletic, quick, productive and technically sound. Big O is a 5th or 6th rounder. Nothing more.

Odrick struggles against double teams and is inconsistent against the run. When his shoulders are square to the line of scrimmage, he has the ability to shoot the gaps and disrupt, or take on blockers and hold his ground. Not a dominant player, but he's better than a guy like Adam Carriker.

Exactly why he's overrated, and why he'll go in the 3rd round.

Also, Oghobaase is bigger, handles double teams, plays the run well, and like Greg Hardy is mostly down in the rankings due to injury. Otherwise, he's got prototypical size, skill, and athleticism to be a good starting DT/DE in multiple systems.

There's a few guys I expect to be remembered after "falling" during the ebbs and flows of draft season. Myron Lewis is going to get more attention soon...Hall Davis...Eric Decker....Carlton Mitchell...this is the fun of combine season.

Cigaro
02-13-2010, 01:24 PM
I think top three is way too high for him, but from what I've seen, first round is good for him. Combined with his athleticism, I could easily see Top 10-Top 15. I think people hear of his athleticism, size, and position and immediately tab him as a pass rusher, but one of the things that makes me really like him is his running stopping ability.