Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
When you draft guys for their physical tools you get Sabby Piscatelli. I'm not saying Houston is no good, I actually love the guy, but the "better physical tools" argument is not a good one. Good teams draft football players, not athletes.You admit Kerrigan is better technique wise and would probably make a bigger immediate impact and that's really where it ends. You draft a guy for what he has done and can do, not for what he might do in the future. In the NFL potential translates to "not good now"
FRG is the most logical poster on this board. You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.
Quote from: JDouble on February 01, 2011, 09:48:26 AMWhen you draft guys for their physical tools you get Sabby Piscatelli. I'm not saying Houston is no good, I actually love the guy, but the "better physical tools" argument is not a good one. Good teams draft football players, not athletes.You admit Kerrigan is better technique wise and would probably make a bigger immediate impact and that's really where it ends. You draft a guy for what he has done and can do, not for what he might do in the future. In the NFL potential translates to "not good now"Not true at all or else we'd have Jimmy Clausen instead of Josh Freeman. You absolutely draft prospects with the upside to be dominant players. College film can lie. Not everything translates to the NFL. But this is all moot anyways, because through their junior seasons Houston and Kerrigan have near equal production and probably near equal measurables.
Quote from: chad1336 on February 01, 2011, 02:46:00 AMTechnique wise, Kerrigan is probably more advanced right now at getting to the quarterback, but Houston has the better physical tools and as far as intangibles, and motor, he's got that too.When you draft guys for their physical tools you get Sabby Piscatelli. I'm not saying Houston is no good, I actually love the guy, but the "better physical tools" argument is not a good one. Good teams draft football players, not athletes.You admit Kerrigan is better technique wise and would probably make a bigger immediate impact and that's really where it ends. You draft a guy for what he has done and can do, not for what he might do in the future. In the NFL potential translates to "not good now"Saying Houston has more of a motor than Kerrigan is just wrong.
Technique wise, Kerrigan is probably more advanced right now at getting to the quarterback, but Houston has the better physical tools and as far as intangibles, and motor, he's got that too.
To be clear, if Kerrigan falls to our laps, I'd love for him to be our pick, as DE is our greatest need and he is a pure DE, not a hybrid like Houston. But I think he's right up there with Kerrigan
Quote from: chad1336 on February 01, 2011, 12:03:52 PMTo be clear, if Kerrigan falls to our laps, I'd love for him to be our pick, as DE is our greatest need and he is a pure DE, not a hybrid like Houston. But I think he's right up there with KerriganHouston has only been playing OLB for one season. He's basically the same size as Kerrigan, so it's hard to say one is a "pure DE" and one isn't. The only difference was the philosophies of their coaches.
Not likely to matter. Kerrigan had a fantastic senior bowl and confirmed what many thought about him. I'd love him to fall but if we get him its because we move up and get him.
Quote from: BucNY on February 01, 2011, 01:33:34 PMNot likely to matter. Kerrigan had a fantastic senior bowl and confirmed what many thought about him. I'd love him to fall but if we get him its because we move up and get him.Actually other than looking like an underwear model at the weigh in, all the reports I've read say he had a very average senior bowl week. Most sites have him ranked at around the 18th top prospect now.
Quote from: JDouble on February 01, 2011, 01:43:13 PMQuote from: BucNY on February 01, 2011, 01:33:34 PMNot likely to matter. Kerrigan had a fantastic senior bowl and confirmed what many thought about him. I'd love him to fall but if we get him its because we move up and get him.Actually other than looking like an underwear model at the weigh in, all the reports I've read say he had a very average senior bowl week. Most sites have him ranked at around the 18th top prospect now.Calling him "very average" at the Senior Bowl shows you have an agenda... Without quoting insider articles, suffice it to say that PR thinks Kerrigan had a great senior bowl. Actually I can't remember reading anyone that didn't think he had a great week. Also, you can try to spin it but being the 18th overall prospect is bad when we pick at 20?