Marcus Davenport

[GleefulGary]

See, now you got me looking at tape. I'm not liking that.

In that mid-round group I kinda like Yaidom

To reiterate, I'm not in any way thinking in terms of Key in the first round. I don't know what explanation he may have for his issues last season, performance and otherwise. But I will hare an observation on the drills.

Well, the first half of the 3-cone is 15 yards worth of the 20 yard shuttle which measures lateral quickness and agility. So I don't think Key lost time there given his good shuttle time. It's followed by a 90 degree turn left, a 180 degree turn, and ending with a 90 degree turn right. It wouldn't surprise me if he lost time on the 180 degree turn given his height and lanky build. So the question becomes how often does an edge rusher need to make an 180 degree turn in space? Not often.

Chubb and Davenport had worse times in both the shuttle and the 3-cone. The high waisted, long legged Clowney, for all his freakish Combine numbers, ran a 4.43 shuttle and a 7.27 3-cone probabably losing time in dipping to touch the ground.

When looking at the older tape of Key, what stands out is his 2-yard dash, the burst off the snap, and how he uses that 82" wingspan and those 10" hands.

One concern, among the other obvious ones, is how effective he'd be carrying more weight to be a 3-down player. His loggy performance last season has been partially attributed to playing at 265 lbs., though that may have been bad weight in being out of shape coming off his "vacation".

Frankly, if his story is at all plausible and he drops like a rock to the 3rd. round, I'd take him even as only a rotational pass rush specialist. Key, warts and all. sure beats Fackrell in the third round, a pick I did not like.

3-Cone is a huge predictor, especially for speed rushers.

Guys like Chubb and Garrett play with a ton of strength. Don't get me wrong, they're explosive as well, but very strong and play like it. Key isn't that kind of player, and his 3-cone was not good considering his size/play style.

Based on film alone, I wouldn't mind Key with a 3rd...it's just all the other stuff that I don't know anything about that concerns me. Not listening to team doctors, going to rehab, lot of character stuff. He scares me.

I too, did not like Fackrell. Really bad pick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

3-Cone is a huge predictor, especially for speed rushers.

Guys like Chubb and Garrett play with a ton of strength. Don't get me wrong, they're explosive as well....

How explosve can they be with such poor 3-cone times, if you get my drift?

 

[Dantés]

See, now you got me looking at tape. I'm not liking that.

In that mid-round group I kinda like Yaidom though he's a perimeter guy which we could also use. Stewart's habit of pressing guys flat footed on stick routes bugs me.

To reiterate, I'm not in any way thinking in terms of Key in the first round. I don't know what explanation he may have for his issues last season, performance and otherwise. But I do have an observation on the drills.

So, the first half of the 3-cone is 15 yards worth of the 20 yard shuttle which measures lateral quickness and agility. I don't think Key lost time there given his good shuttle time. It's followed by a 90 degree turn left, a 180 degree turn, and ending with a 90 degree turn right. It wouldn't surprise me if he lost time on the 180 degree turn given his height and lanky build. So the question becomes how often does an edge rusher need to make an 180 degree turn in space? Not often.

Chubb and Davenport had worse times in both the shuttle and the 3-cone. The high-waisted, long-legged Clowney, for all his freakish Combine numbers, ran a 4.43 shuttle and a 7.27 3-cone probabably losing time in dipping to touch the ground.

When looking at the older tape of Key, what stands out is his 2-yard dash, the burst off the snap, and how he uses that 82" wingspan and those 10" hands.

One concern, among the other obvious ones, is how effective he'd be carrying more weight to be a 3-down player. His loggy performance last season has been partially attributed to playing at 265 lbs., though that may have been bad weight in being out of shape coming off his "vacation".

Frankly, if his story is at all plausible and he drops like a rock to the 3rd. round, I'd take him even as only a rotational pass rush specialist. Key, warts and all, sure beats Fackrell in the third round, a pick I did not like.

Yiadom is a good boundary corner for sure. I’d include him in the list of good options at #76.

If they were to bring in Breeland, he’s been really good in the slot so they wouldn’t have to focus on that role as much.

A note on Key— you’re right that his agility drills were better than those other high end edge prospects. However, he’s not a power rusher. Clowney, Chubb, and Davenport work through the blocker not around them. They’re much bigger and stronger than Key and tested more explosively. Given the style of rusher that he is, you’d want to see very good agility numbers at 238 lbs.

One thing I’ve wondered is if he just didn’t train. Maybe there’s more there but he didn’t prepare himself. But that’s a whole separate problem. His commitment to being great in general, let alone on any given play, is highly questionable. I so rarely see these guys succeed. So I’d pass.

 

[HardRightEdge]

However, [Key] is not a power rusher. Clowney, Chubb, and Davenport work through the blocker not around them.

I'm well aware of the difference is these types of players. Key's shuttle is very good, evidencing lateral agility and quickness. I don't put a lot of stock in having a tall edge rusher run to a point and do a 180 degree turn. It doesn't approximate what they need to do.

I think that drill is pretty important with CBs, for example, who have to flip 180 degrees and get giddyup into their getalong.

Besides, in the comparisons being presented you're putting what I would consider a good calculated risk in the 3rd. round into a 1st. round comparison. And that's assuming you don't come out of the interviews thinking he's a head case.

 

[Dantés]

I'm well aware of the difference is these types of players. Key's shuttle is very good, evidencing lateral agility and quickness. I don't put a lot of stock in having a tall edge rusher run to a point and do a 180 degree turn. It doesn't approximate what they need to do.

I think that drill is pretty important with CBs, for example, who have to flip 180 degrees and get giddyup into their getalong.

I’m not really prepared to debate the details of the drills and what specific aspects of them are important. I just know that a sub 7 three cone has proven to be the best single indicator of future success for edge rushers. However, it’s a positive indicator, not a negative one. It doesn’t disqualify anyone.

Overall, his shuttle was good (83rd%) and his 3C was fine (62nd%). But nothing he did was special enough to allay my concerns that he’s a sub 240 lb edge player despite being 6’5” and he has off field baggage and he demonstrates bad effort on the field. All of that put together translates to a high, high probability wash out to me. So he’d have to fall very late before I’d want to spend a pick that I’m quite sure would be wasted.

Maybe you can think of some examples that I’m missing but the only guy that I can think of that succeeded as a sub 240 edge guy coming out is Cam Wake. And he tested way better than Key, and he got bigger, and he plays with his hair on fire, and he went to the CFL first.

 

[Dantés]

How explosve can they be with such poor 3-cone times, if you get my drift?

Extremely. Just not very flexible.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Maybe you can think of some examples that I’m missing but the only guy that I can think of that succeeded as a sub 240 edge guy coming out is Cam Wake. And he tested way better than Key, and he got bigger, and he plays with his hair on fire, and he went to the CFL first.

Consider DeMarcus Lawrence. While no lightweight, I think it's fair to say he wins mostly on finess moves, great hand work and the motor. If all you knew about him were the 4.80 40, the 4:31 shuttle and "horrible" 7:46 3-cone, you'd think he'd be a UDFA.

To take just two examples among several, consider where that horrible shuttle shows up in the plays at 0:08 and 1:07 in the following tape:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

By the way, the burst and hand work at 1:07 is precisely the kind of win you see from Key in the older tapes.

One thing I'd want to see from Key is lifts which he passed on both at the Combine and Pro Day. I'd ask him to do that in a private workout. If he declined again I'd be left wondering whether the shoulder is still a problem or whether he couldn't break 15.

See, this is why I hate getting dragged into tape review. I'm looking at two players here, one of whom is not a Packer, and a second who is not likely to be one while working with incomplete information.

 

[Dantés]

Consider Demarcus Lawrence. While no lightweight, I think it's fair to say he wins mostly on finess moves, great hand work and the motor. If all you knew about him were the 4.80 40, the 4:31 shuttle and "horrible" 7:46 3-cone, you'd think he'd be a UDFA.

To take just two examples, consider where that horrible shuttle shows up in the plays at 0:08 and 1:07 in the following tape:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

By the way, the burst and hand work at 1:07 is precisely the kind of win you see from Key in the older tapes.

That is a pretty good stylistic comp. Like I said, three cone times are positive indicators but not negative disqualifiers.

But you’re still talking about a prospect that came out at 251, plays at 265 and didn’t have concerns over effort or off field stuff to my knowledge. He doesnt compare when you consider Key’s risk factors.

 

[HardRightEdge]

But you’re still talking about a prospect that came out at 251, plays at 265 and didn’t have concerns over effort or off field stuff to my knowledge. He doesnt compare when you consider Key’s risk factors.

With that extra 14 lbs. I suspect Lawrence's horrible shuttle would be even worse today.

Key's risk factors are obvious which is why I would consider him in the 3rd. round.

 

[Mondio]

It's almost as if this all an inexact science

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's almost as if this all an inexact science

That and 1000+ other things.

 

[Dantés]

With that extra 14 lbs. I suspect Lawrence's horrible shuttle would be even worse today.

Key's risk factors are obvious which is why I would consider him in the 3rd. round.

Perhaps it would. I couldn’t say.

But it seems to me that you and I just have different thresholds for Key’s risk. Which is fine.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's almost as if this all an inexact science

It's not "almost". It simply is. In fact, it's more art than science.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How explosve can they be with such poor 3-cone times, if you get my drift?

Extremely explosive, they just don't turn very well.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's not "almost". It simply is. In fact, it's more art than science.

It's more gambling than art. At least when you're painting you know the paint labeled 'RED' is going to be 'RED'. In the NFL, the guy you think is going to work to improve could actually be Jamarcus Russell.

 

[Mondio]

you have the science= measurables. Philosophy=how does a particular player fit into what you think you want to do on offense or defense or your overall approach to team building, gut feelings and assesment from tape and how that translates and then you have to massage it all together and hope they don't get busted for smoking weed, or have a knee injury, or just quit trying once they feel they've made it.

 

[AmishMafia]

It's more gambling than art. At least when you're painting you know the paint labeled 'RED' is going to be 'RED'. In the NFL, the guy you think is going to work to improve could actually be Jamarcus Russell.

It's not science, art, or gambling. It's more like theoretical abstract craftwork.

You are correct, gambling is a large part, but that is not contrary to being an art or a science. Actually, gambling is a mathematical science on quantifying likeliness of exactness. Which is an art.

On the serious side, I think psychological analysis is a big part of the process. As well as physical attributes and mental aspects of the game. Which is all science exact and inexact. Blending it all together and weighing risk/reward is all an art.

 

[Dantés]

I think it's a like a scientist painting a portrait of a man who has a gambling problem sitting in a chair that he hand-crafted.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I think it's a like a scientist painting a portrait of a man who has a gambling problem sitting in a chair that he hand-crafted.

While huffing paint and having Mel Kiper takes blasted at 100dB.