Just the facts, please

Buchsbaum corrects misconceptions about rookie Warrick

May 3, 2000

Clarification No. 1: Warrick was never the No. 1 prospect for this year’s draft in the eyes of most teams.

Clarification No. 2: Warrick’s poor 40-time the first time he ran for scouts is not why he went No. 4 in the draft instead of in the top spot that was once predicted.

ProFootballWeekly.com asked Buchsbaum to go into greater detail on this subject. (All quotes attributed to sources are pre-draft quotes.)

Q: Can you talk about what the scouts were telling you about Warrick before his poor 40-time?

Buchsbaum: Long before Peter Warrick ran his disappointing time, most clubs had him listed at no higher than third on their draft board. Asked why, one top scout said, "He still was 5-10 1/2. When we did background checks on him, we found he had erratic work habits and was a very immature young man who had a hard time taking or accepting blame."

Another scout said, "His immaturity and reluctance to take blame really bothered us, and he did not have the greatest work ethic in the world, either."

Q: Would it be accurate to say then that he was never the No. 1 guy on the draft board?

Buchsbaum: No (he was not). That’s very accurate. What one guy told me was, "If Cleveland had him rated as the No. 1 player at any time after the season, it tells me they just didn’t do enough homework on Warrick, Courtney Brown and LaVar Arrington, because there was no question he was not in (Brown’s and Arrington’s) class when you put everything together.

If anyone thinks (the reason) that Peter Warrick wasn’t the No. 1 was his poor time (that’s inaccurate). Let me give you another quote that a guy gave me. He said, "I don’t care if Peter Warrick had run a 4.2 40 in his workout, he still was not going to be the No. 1 pick at his size with his background, when you had players like Courtney Brown in this draft."

The Archives
1999 - 2000 Season