4.90 in the 40(.02 slower than at the combine, hammy tightened after 1st attempt and didn't attempt a second)

20 reps on the bench

31" vertical jump(same as the combine)

4.44 20 yard shuttle(same as the combine)

7.12 3 cone drill(.16 slower than at the combine)

Folks were saying he performed poorly at the combine due to illness. Perhaps he's just not that athletic.

(03-31-2017, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks were saying he performed poorly at the combine due to illness. Perhaps he's just not that athletic.

Yeah he's not. Granted, it was reported he did workouts with a hamstring injury, but he's also not extremely athletic by any means.

(03-31-2017, 07:29 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Yeah he's not. Granted, it was reported he did workouts with a hamstring injury, but he's also not extremely athletic by any means.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it's kind of convenient to me that a guy who has concerns about his athletic ability is always dealing with some kind of ailment that negatively impacts his athletic performance whenever his measurables are being tested.

It's also very interesting to see just how close his performance with a tight hammy is to his performance when battling the flu.  His 20 yard shuttle and vertical jumps were identical and his 40 times were within .02 of each other.  

It begs the question, is he just unlucky or putting up a smokescreen?

(03-31-2017, 07:46 PM)Whatever Wrote: Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it's kind of convenient to me that a guy who has concerns about his athletic ability is always dealing with some kind of ailment that negatively impacts his athletic performance whenever his measurables are being tested.

It's also very interesting to see just how close his performance with a tight hammy is to his performance when battling the flu.  His 20 yard shuttle and vertical jumps were identical and his 40 times were within .02 of each other.  

It begs the question, is he just unlucky or putting up a smokescreen?

I honestly view it as a smoekscreen. He did well in some areas, in some he didn't. His tape speaks differently as he is a natural pass rusher.

He just doesn't test like a top ten pick

Makes you wonder how much the underwear olympics really matter for certain positions. I think he did well enough. He's a DE for Pete's sake, not a free safety.

His pro day doesn't really matter that much to me. I just don't see him as an explosive enough guy worthy of a top ten pick right now. I think he is who he's always been.

Good. Better chance of him being there if we trade down.

(03-31-2017, 07:46 PM)Whatever Wrote: Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it's kind of convenient to me that a guy who has concerns about his athletic ability is always dealing with some kind of ailment that negatively impacts his athletic performance whenever his measurables are being tested.

It's also very interesting to see just how close his performance with a tight hammy is to his performance when battling the flu.  His 20 yard shuttle and vertical jumps were identical and his 40 times were within .02 of each other.  

It begs the question, is he just unlucky or putting up a smokescreen?

I was for Barnett, but as you say it begs the question.

I am honestly hoping Jordan Willis falls to us in the 2nd and would be even for a (so called reach) for him at 9.

Willis is my guy now, and if we want a hybrid my guy is Hassan Reddick.

(04-01-2017, 12:08 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I was for Barnett, but as you say it begs the question.

I am honestly hoping Jordan Willis falls to us in the 2nd and would be even for a (so called reach) for him at 9.

Willis is my guy now, and if we want a hybrid my guy is Hassan Reddick.

I could see wr/te in 1, Mixon in 2, and walker or bashem in 3.  D line and o line in 4.  Then again I could be full of bengal dung

(03-31-2017, 10:57 PM)Shady Wrote: Makes you wonder how much the underwear olympics really matter for certain positions. I think he did well enough. He's a DE for Pete's sake, not a free safety.

There are other questions that get raised by his workout, however, besides the poor numbers.  If you have watch the video from his 40, there's a couple of concerns that pop up.

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/derek-barnett-runs-40-yard-153606563.html

The first is that he's carrying a lot of bad weight around his belly, and he's undersized for a 4-3 DE already.  That combined with his poor bench press performance and the lack of play strength exhibited on his film brings into question whether he has the size, strength, and conditioning necessary to be an immediate starter as a rookie, or if will just be a 3rd down specialist.  In our case, you have to wonder if the #9 pick is worth a rotational DE.

Second, one of the other posters pointed out that he had bad form when he ran the 40 at the combine, and expected him to improve his form and his time at his Pro Day.  He still has terrible form, however.  That indicates that he's either lazy and didn't work on it or he doesn't absorb coaching well, or both.

Also, if these ailments are a smokescreen, than that means Barnett is a guy who would rather make excuses for poor performances rather than work to address issues and improve.

I realize full well that there are lots of busts that posted great combine/pro day numbers.  However, there are also lots of guys who broke production records in college that didn't amount to anything in the pros. With a top ten pick, I feel you should look at guys who have a combination of good athletic ability and production rather than just taking a raw athlete and hoping you can coach him up or taking a below average athlete and hoping his production somehow translates over against superior competition.

(04-01-2017, 01:25 PM)Whatever Wrote: There are other questions that get raised by his workout, however, besides the poor numbers.  If you have watch the video from his 40, there's a couple of concerns that pop up.

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/derek-barnett-runs-40-yard-153606563.html

The first is that he's carrying a lot of bad weight around his belly, and he's undersized for a 4-3 DE already.  That combined with his poor bench press performance and the lack of play strength exhibited on his film brings into question whether he has the size, strength, and conditioning necessary to be an immediate starter as a rookie, or if will just be a 3rd down specialist.  In our case, you have to wonder if the #9 pick is worth a rotational DE.

Second, one of the other posters pointed out that he had bad form when he ran the 40 at the combine, and expected him to improve his form and his time at his Pro Day.  He still has terrible form, however.  That indicates that he's either lazy and didn't work on it or he doesn't absorb coaching well, or both.

Also, if these ailments are a smokescreen, than that means Barnett is a guy who would rather make excuses for poor performances rather than work to address issues and improve.

I realize full well that there are lots of busts that posted great combine/pro day numbers.  However, there are also lots of guys who broke production records in college that didn't amount to anything in the pros. With a top ten pick, I feel you should look at guys who have a combination of good athletic ability and production rather than just taking a raw athlete and hoping you can coach him up or taking a below average athlete and hoping his production somehow translates over against superior competition.

I'm just not a fan of Barnett, but I've sort of resigned myself to him being the pick, given the emphasis they're placing on DE. Either him or Thomas, who I like a bit more, though I'm not sure of Thomas as a 4-3 DE. I think there's more value in some of the top offensive weapons available at 9. 

(04-01-2017, 01:25 PM)Whatever Wrote: There are other questions that get raised by his workout, however, besides the poor numbers.  If you have watch the video from his 40, there's a couple of concerns that pop up.

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/derek-barnett-runs-40-yard-153606563.html

The first is that he's carrying a lot of bad weight around his belly, and he's undersized for a 4-3 DE already.  That combined with his poor bench press performance and the lack of play strength exhibited on his film brings into question whether he has the size, strength, and conditioning necessary to be an immediate starter as a rookie, or if will just be a 3rd down specialist.  In our case, you have to wonder if the #9 pick is worth a rotational DE.

Second, one of the other posters pointed out that he had bad form when he ran the 40 at the combine, and expected him to improve his form and his time at his Pro Day.  He still has terrible form, however.  That indicates that he's either lazy and didn't work on it or he doesn't absorb coaching well, or both.

Also, if these ailments are a smokescreen, than that means Barnett is a guy who would rather make excuses for poor performances rather than work to address issues and improve.

I realize full well that there are lots of busts that posted great combine/pro day numbers.  However, there are also lots of guys who broke production records in college that didn't amount to anything in the pros. With a top ten pick, I feel you should look at guys who have a combination of good athletic ability and production rather than just taking a raw athlete and hoping you can coach him up or taking a below average athlete and hoping his production somehow translates over against superior competition.

Meanwhile it looks like Taco Charlton is working at it:
http://prod.www.ravens.clubs.nfl.com/videos/videos/Taco-Charltons-Pro-Day-Highlights/32106305-e682-419c-8cea-ffb6d78a43fd

Read he's cut about 10 lbs since the combine and ran in the high 4.7s

Barnett just doesn't strike me as a top 10 pick (which sucks cause Bengals really need a pass rusher). I'd rather them go playmaker (wr/rb) with 1st pick if Solomon Thomas gone, and get a pass rusher in 2nd or 3rd round.

Are people surprised by this? He's not extremely athletic, which is why his upside is being debated. However, in college, he just continued to produce.
Barnett is expected to have a lower ceiling, but a higher floor. He should be a solid-to-great DE, but possibly never a superstar.

The question becomes can he be as productive in the NFL against the best of the best, or was it simply the ability to beat college competition?
And should the Bengals pull the trigger at 9 on a player that has a higher probability of being just solid vs being a star?

(03-31-2017, 07:19 PM)Whatever Wrote: 4.90 in the 40(.02 slower than at the combine, hammy tightened after 1st attempt and didn't attempt a second)

20 reps on the bench

31" vertical jump(same as the combine)

4.44 20 yard shuttle(same as the combine)

7.12 3 cone drill(.16 slower than at the combine)

Those stats don't cut it, and are Michael Sams-esque . Big gamble at 9, especially given his lack of size.

I'm most bothered by his 3 cone drill going up by a significant margin...

I'm all for production, but I don't like when the workout results don't support the production.

The last thing you want is another Paul Dawson. Excellent production, bad metrics, worthless in the NFL.

(04-01-2017, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meanwhile it looks like Taco Charlton is working at it:
http://prod.www.ravens.clubs.nfl.com/videos/videos/Taco-Charltons-Pro-Day-Highlights/32106305-e682-419c-8cea-ffb6d78a43fd

Read he's cut about 10 lbs since the combine and ran in the high 4.7s

Big Taco fan been pushing him for a couple months now.

I love taco, but not charlton at 9. Im cooling on Barnett some too. You hope to get an impact player at 9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk