Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mr. Scot

Did Nawrocki cross the line?

233 posts in this topic

Sorry. Did you say something?

:D

Best response to me in two days!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nawrocki would tell you he's done "extensive" research, and Zeirlein confirmed that one of the negative statements he had actually came from someone at Auburn.

There's also this from Zeirlein....

Bottom line: I respect Brandt, but that doesn't mean I think he's always right (he's whiffed before too). Neither is Nawrocki, but he's also not alone in his feelings about Newton. In reality, they're not even his feelings per se as they are of the people he's talked to.

One of them will be right. The other will be wrong. I'll still read both next season.

I guess me and you can agree that whatever "extensive" reearch he did it pales in comparison to the research the FO will do and if they think he passes then we have to trust them. :grouphug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scouts are investigating....And as far as I know, none of them have published personal attacks. Mr. Nolan on the other hand HASN'T even met Cam Newton and he sterotypes Newton into a class that he calls a "fraud" or a "fake" which is totally inappropriate and totally false. He smiles because he enjoys the game and I might actually consider some of his idiotic comments as truth if the Tigers of Auburn didn't win the National Championship. However, someone with a "fake smile", "selfish", "me-first", "enormous ego", "does not command respect from his teammates" will NOT win an NCAA National Championship. On top of that Newton did all of this while being under investigation.

Say what you want, however I know as an Auburn/UNC fan know that Cam is not even remotely close to being as self absorbed as Nowrocki says he is. He plays for the team and sometimes plays for himself, however he also plays for the crowd, which is why he is always smiling.

Scouts jobs aren't to publish anything. Their jobs are to report to NFL teams.

And if you read carefully, you'll find that the words "fraud", "fake" and "con artist" were things that people told him, not his own statements.

Now, should he only print the good things that people tell him about prospects, or the whole thing?

For that matter, does the "only say the good stuff" rule apply only to Newton or is that for all of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scouts jobs aren't to publish anything. Their jobs are to report to NFL teams.

And if you read carefully, you'll find that the words "fraud", "fake" and "con artist" were things that people told him, not his own statements.

Now, should he only print the good things that people tell him about prospects, or the whole thing?

For that matter, does the "only say the good stuff" rule apply only to Newton or is that for all of them?

There is nothing wrong publicaly critiquing someone's game but critiquing their personal life is shallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess me and you can agree that whatever "extensive" reearch he did it pales in comparison to the research the FO will do and if they think he passes then we have to trust them. :grouphug:

Like I said, whomever they pick, I hope it's the right choice.

But whatever that decision is, none of the media types will have had any say, for good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scouts jobs aren't to publish anything. Their jobs are to report to NFL teams.

And if you read carefully, you'll find that the words "fraud", "fake" and "con artist" were things that people told him, not his own statements.

Now, should he only print the good things that people tell him about prospects, or the whole thing?

For that matter, does the "only say the good stuff" rule apply only to Newton or is that for all of them?

Out of curiosity can u direct me to the good things. He claims he talked to two decision makers who had no concerns about Cam I just can't seem to find those quotes. Thanks in advance. :) I mean since we agree he should have posted the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity can u direct me to the good things. He claims he talked to two decision makers who had no concerns about Cam I just can't seem to find those quotes. Thanks in advance. :) I mean since we agree he should have posted the whole thing.

Read the full draft profile (link)

Like all his others, it's divided into positives, negatives, and a summary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong publicaly critiquing someone's game but critiquing their personal life is shallow.

From the article...

The best teams want to know every possible bit of dirt on a player so they can decide if he's worthy of being that team's pick. The higher rated the player, the more digging the good teams will do. They don't want ANY surprises after draft day. If they are drafting a turd, they want to know they are drafting a turd and what makes that player a turd so that they can better manage the player. One defensive back in this draft is a virgin according to a draft insider I spoke with. Should this matter to a team? I don't know, but I do know that teams even dig into this area with some players (I'm not always sure why, but they do).

...

What Nawrocki did (and does) is write up prospects in the same fashion that many NFL scouts write them up, not like other media outlets write them up. Not only do scouts put the focus on their on-field attributes, but they also include anything and everything that they find out about a player that could have a positive or negative effect on the player's draft stock in his own war room. If the scout doesn't do his due diligence on a player, it could end with him getting fired. It's happened plenty of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen this before Scot, but that kind of stuff does not need to be presented to the public. I don't see any articles about Dareus, Gabbert, or Peterson like that. So explain to me why Newton is so special. It is fine if they want to judge him based on the criteria in private but publicaly declaring some fake. Is shallow and foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen this before Scot, but that kind of stuff does not need to be presented to the public. I don't see any articles about Dareus, Gabbert, or Peterson like that. So explain to me why Newton is so special. It is fine if they want to judge him based on the criteria in private but publicaly declaring some fake. Is shallow and foolish.

He's not special. He's getting the exact same treatment that every other draft prospect from 2002 forward has gotten, which means a "warts and all" profile in the annual draft preview.

If you think Newton is the only guy that's had questions about his character published in this guide, you're not very well-informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's repeating what he got from scouts and personnel guys. Right or wrong, it's not just his opinion.

Take the quiz with his past reviews (other thread). You'll see this one isn't unique.

Why should I take the quiz? I don't really believe what he said was racist, as much as it was ill informed. Almost every athlete has a fake smile they turn on when the cameras start rolling. Why is there a need to call only a handful out for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites