yes they are AMONG the best, not THE best, truthfully I would compare Quinn to either of them and I don't remember anyone calling him a once in a decade DE, and I also don't remember their HCs calling them out in public, don't remember hearing how they skated their last college years because they wanted to avoid injury. think about it, how many cant miss players that "cant miss" have in fact missed? hell Glen Dorsey was going to be the next Warren Sapp, is he? ghoulston was going to tear it up, has he? how about that LB seattle drafted #4 a couple years ago, cant even remember his name lol. the NFL is a different beast than college, that's why a lot of college stars are average in the NFL. I promise you for every cant miss player who reached their potential in the NFL, I can name 2 or 3 who didn't.
Quinn is great, I think he could be on his way to being the league's best pass rusher (though Aldon Smith and Von Miller had off years, Smith had the most sacks in NFL history through his first 32 games, I think, even more than the great Reggie White?), but part of greatness is consistency, I don't think it would be fair yet to equate Quinn's body of work with Peppers. Not sure who would be the best DE in the past decade, but Peppers would have to be in the conversation, and may well be the best. I don't even know if he has ever led the league in sacks for a seasons, but he has been very good in the last decade (he is a little long in the tooth now, so I would say roughly through about 2011). Not sure if there are lots of DEs better than Mario Williams since he was drafted.
Needless to say, Clowney doesn't need to be a Hall of Famer to be worth the 1.2 pick if he is one of the top pass rushers in the league in the next decade.
BTW, we could be talking about different things. I'm not saying players don't exceed expectations at times, obviously they do. Kurt Warner. Tom Brady. Priest Holmes. James Harrison. London Fletcher. Richard Sherman and Kam Chancellor were day three picks. But what is the moral. I don't think you are advocating that we keep trading down until we amass lots of fifth, sixth and seventh round picks, and count on Hall of Fame UFAs?
What I am talking about is that the top graded DEs in the past decade or so, in my recollection, Peppers and Williams, turned out pretty good. Saying lesser regarded Quinn did well, too, doesn't say anything to the contrary of what I was saying. Quinn had his own issues as well, if you recall. He probably would have gone higher, except some thought he was a character risk for getting suspended and kicked off the team for improper benefits, he didn't play for a year (whch didn't work out so good for Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams). He was considered a medical risk for having a brain tumor in remission. Sometimes risks pay off, sometimes they don't (Rams have had no shortage of bad picks since the GSOT days). I'm assuming you aren't suggesting going for lower graded prospects at the same position, so we are back to square one, looking for the highest graded prospects.
LTs can bust or disappoint (Jason Smith). Same with WR (David Terrell, Koren Robinson). Wouldn't all prospects be levelled by your same pointed NFL is tougher comment?
Was Dorsey really called one of the best DT prospects ever? He may have been compared to Sapp as a pro, but Sapp himself fell because of smoking pot before the combine, and I don't think was one of the greatest prospects ever at the position, AT THE TIME HE WAS DRAFTED. Suh I do remember as being called a historically good DT prospect, and as noted above, I thought he would live up to that initially, not so much the past few seasons. Great DE prospects like Reggie White (first round USFL) and Bruce Smith (first overall) I think tend to be recognized. Some of the most productive DTs like Glover and Randle weren't necessarily high pedigree, which suggests NFL scouts and personnel-types have a better handle on projecting top DEs than DTs? Geno Atkins wasn't a high pick (late fourth)? Was Gholston really called a historically great DE prospect, or more of a workout warrior like Mike Mamula, I think you can see the difference (Clowney is being called a great prospect BEFORE the underwear Olympics, that is the difference).
I had to look up Aaron Curry. He was called the best LB in the draft, in the conversation for best in the draft, and a very safe pick. But I don't remember scouts saying he was one of the most awesome prospects at his position in the history of the draft. Maybe you are just trying to think of busts that were picked high at various positions? That isn't really the same conversation. Maybe others just see things differently. But I disagree with Les when he says WRs like Calvin Johnson or QBs like Luck come around every other year (or even that scouts say they do, which is of course a different thing, I don't agree with that either).
Again, what is the point of saying for every can't miss player 2-3 fail. So for every lower graded player, can we find 20-30 that fail? Should we be looking to draft lower graded players?
When we get right down to it, the people who were for Clowney still are, and those that weren't aren't. So this thread is really about reasons why people had already made up their mind they did or didn't want him in the first place, not sure much progress has been made on the question if historically good DEs have a better hit rate (I don't think your examples made the point you were trying to, maybe other ones could). Realistically, it probably also will fall down easily seen dividing lines between those who have already made up their mind we don't need a DE, and would prefer a LT or WR. I realize there may be many that question his motor and effort (I have also at times), and this is a reasonable concern. Part of the post is a hypothetical. IF we draft him, if Fisher is convinced effort won't be a problem, there could be a lot of upside people aren't considering (and I put myself in this category at different times, though I have started threads like this in the past).
