His scouting report of Cam Newton is spot on. Are you going to sit here and tell me, dumb quarterbacks don't get drafted in the first round? Jamarcus Russel? Blaine Gabbert? Mark Sanchez? LOL. This means absolutely nothing. If Manuel backfires then Marrone is screwed at the end of the day. Manuel's performance has a lot to be desired. Just as much as Geno. I'm not disputing this - all I'm saying is he has first round talent. He fell due to Senior Bowl. EJ Manuel took full advantage. Just saying it because I want to - don't take it so personal. I know you got on your orange shades.
Well Geno didn't come in late in the 2nd round. But I don't think that matters. 2nd round players are expected to start right away. That's not always true with qbs but it didn't matter in Geno's case because the coaching staff turned Sanchez into a gimp last season.
Real NFL people?...Draft experts? "Real" (currently employed) NFL people aren't gonna say shit. Plenty of people (with a lot more expertise than you & I) had Geno as a 1st rounder. Ask Jon Gruden....he won a Super Bowl if I remember correctly. You're like a vegan discussing the best bbq place in town....give it up.
I'm not disputing the theory you espouse, just the example. There is no way that if Idzik had Geno rated high enough to take around 13 had Sheldon not have been there that he would have left his franchise QB on the board until 39. Good theory, really bad example. _
I get it, you believe everything you read in the draft writeups and blogs. Nope, never was a first round talent. But you keep believing your Senior Bowl excuse. It's okay, I know when the frustration sets in when you realize how silly your argument is, you tend to feel the need to lash out. Btw, I went to school with Marrone, I know he's slap-dick--but he's MY slap-dick thank you. _
Exactly my point, thank you. Any "report" on anyone being rated as anything is just fodder for the masses. Do you know who buys Draft Guides and reads blogs and fake internet draft guru articles? You know, the ones that put out those "rankings"? You, me, 101, football fans. You know who doesn't buy them? Real NFL people. _
Sorry I did not get back to this before now, as I see the discussion subsequently went on for several pages. In any event I also included your last paragraph, which I will get to. My point has everything to do with this discussion. The discussion is about the assertion that Smith was seen (by who is the part being debated) as a first round pick. Despite the fact that he fell to the second round. Now, whether a player during his career totally outperforms his draft status is not an answer to that question. It's a different discussion. You need to realize, or acknowledge if in fact you do realize, that there is no necessary connection between "fallen in the draft" and who prove later to be the best players. The fact that SOME later picks become great players is beside the point of where, at the time of the draft, a player was perceived to have value, how much value they were seen as having. Particularly for hte Qb position, with so many teams in need of quality, dependable performance there, I think it is ridiculous to argue that all 32 teams would pick, even for need, let alone value, other positions if a real first round value Qb is available. The fact that all 32 teams would do that, with some going into the second round passing again on someone, is all the proof one needs that a given player in fact is not, was not, viewed by those who actually are paid to make those decisions as a first round pick. All else you have posted is speculation frankly colored by a homeristic pov.
I jsut want to add a process comment here. Some posters bring value to the board even if they really do not know how to argue. So they are somewhat good to have around. Maybe they contribute some information, or add an interesting perception to consider, even if you disagree with it. But when a discussion becomes about logic, supporting a point of view contrary to someone you are arguing with, keeping in mind what the discussion is about and what it is not about, some posters here are not as good at that as others. I think the way 101 has mixed in discussions of "fallen in the draft" to where NFL execs actually chose to use their draft picks is an example of what he generally does, that forces us to conclude he really is not very good at logical argument. Not that he's overall a bad poster, but it is what it is.
I know that, I was just fucking with him. It's fun having logical discussions with folks who don't have the logical brainpower or rational mindset to do so. He is a good poster. _
I think we can agree that there are very well informed people outside of working NFL execs involved in drafts. Gruden is a good example. But to me that kind of perhaps informal opinion does not override what actually happens in the draft. With their draft picks on the line, their reputations and business responsibilities at issue, when 32 teams, many with gaping needs at Qb, pass on a Qb prospect, and some do it twice, it becomes ridiculous to argue he "should" be understood to be a first round pick, and "fell" for some irrational reason. Whether you want to argue the execs were wrong is a different matter. But I don't think you can say those same execs thought the player in question really was a first round pick given what happened.
So, are you saying your preference for single sentence posts means you do not intend to meaningfully participate in arguments here?
The issue was never whether execs can be wrong--of course they often are because at the end of the day, the draft is still a crap shoot. But they have SO much more information than the folks making predictions and putting ranking on propects. Much of it is regurgitated and repeated to make it sound informed or "insider-like" but those guys just don't have the access. _
Yea, I figure if you take the homer element out of it, I may well be more critical of NFL execs than 101 and some others here. OF COURSE they make mistakes. And I am not fond of the logical fallacy of arguing from authority, aside from which if we just deferred to decisions made, that would eliminate 95% or more of the thoughtful posts here. But it also must be acknowledged that someone has an awfully heavy burden if they are saying the people who ran all 32 teams in the NFL were wrong about a draft prospect because they did not share the pov that such player AT THE TIME should have been viewed as a first round pick. And even then it is a burden limited to saying such player SHOULD have been seen as a first round pick. But what one can't say is he was a "clearly" first round pick who fell for irrational reasons. That just doesn't fit with the real world. All 32 teams can be wrong, but not all are irrational.
These "insiders" weren't asked to sort the qb from 1-32. It's too misleading. Yes, he may have had whatever his rating was, but I'm sure if they were asked to sort the qb Geno would not be last.
When someone says (i) I was a Geno fan at WVU and (ii) I'm a Jet fan who likes Geno--irrationality is forgivably going to enter into the discussion and cloud that poster's logical mindset. It's ok. I thought Carr was a first round talent based on what I saw, but clearly he wasn't. Nothing he did caused him to "fall", he did everything right during the year and afterwards--he just wasn't a first round talent. Doesn't mean I was right or wrong, just that I guessed wrong because any analysis or predictions we--fans--make are just guesses. He may turn out to be the best QB in the last 2 drafts, but that doesn't mean he was viewed--at that time--as a first round talent. Some homer fans still cling to those "reports" that Geno was the number one pick in that draft--that somehow we "stole" the number 1 pick in the entire draft at 39. _
LOL. Didn't we have a thread ABOUT YOU not too long ago because you fucking suck at debating? We debated about Kyle Orton, the CBs in the first round - You are just as close-minded and naive as JStokes. If you aren't getting your way you start to whine and call people names like homer or whatever. It's pathetic. I'm done with that previous argument, no sense in arguing with a bunch of close-minded people. It is what it is we'll agree to disagree.
