Archived

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

Mr. Scot

Did Nawrocki cross the line?

233 posts in this topic

Lance Zierlein actually confirmed a specific element of the report (always knows where the cameras are) and added that this comment came from someone at Auburn. He said that was one of the points he believed probably wasn't true until an NFL team confirmed it to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King gave no indication that Nawrocki exaggerated at all.

You have no reason to believe this is a case of telephone where the story gets changed dramatically. Sure it is possible, but not likely.

King would have mentioned something if Nawrocki was exaggerating or taking them out of context

You missed the point. Nawrocki reported what he heard but also compiled his own spin on it. For example he is told that Newton says one thing privately and one thing publicly. He then reports that sources say Newton is fake and disgenuous. Is what he said wrong or exxagerated. Depends on your definition of what he was told. What if Nawrocki talked to 5 or 6 people and they all told him similar things but of different intensities. It is totally up to him whether he reports that the general consensus is that he is fake and a sham or he reports that people have reported a range of things from his having a fake smile to being disingenuous. There is no equivocation of consideration that these are unsubstantiated reports. He reports them as fact and seems to focus on the negative.

King wouldn't know if they were true or exxagerated unless he knew the whole truth. All he is reporting is that he heard the same thing. Once again it means the rumor mill is rampant but it doesn't prove there is any veracity to the reports unless specific sources are named and they weren't and won't be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance Zierlein actually confirmed a specific element of the report (always knows where the cameras are) and added that this comment came from someone at Auburn. He said that was one of the points he believed probably wasn't true until an NFL team confirmed it to him.

And if that is all that was reported then it wouldn't have even made a ripple. Honestly who wouldn't get carried away with all the publicity for a guy who a year ago was playing in junior college.

It was the extent of the negative comments far beyond that which drew the controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pretty significant portion of the draft analysis process as done by anyone is subjective. They don't just sit down and rank everybody by who has the best stats.

I realize that allot of it is subjective to one degree or another, but deciding whether or not someone's smile is genuine seems incredibly subjective to me... did they hook up brain monitors?

On top of that, would it be better for him not to smile when it's appropriate or not be aware that there are cameras in the room? Don't you want the "face of your franchise" to be aware of where the cameras are and play to them to a certain extent?

I think there are some very fair criticisms of Cam as a prospect, but some of this stuff is ridiculous...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize the allot of it is subjective, but deciding whether or not someone's smile is genuine seems incredibly subjective to me... did they hook up brain monitors?

On top of that, would it be better for him not to smile when it's appropriate or not be aware that there are cameras in the room? Don't you want the "face of your franchise" to be aware of where the cameras are and play to them?

I think there are some very fair criticisms of Cam as a prospect, but some of this stuff is ridiculous...

Is virginity important? :eek:

(apparently it is to somebody) :sosp:

Zierlein's article addressed why stuff like that is in there...

Rob Rang, Chad Reuter and the guys over at NFLDraftScout.com do a great job of giving readers a look at player evaluations that are very professionally done and give readers great insight into the strengths and weaknesses of players. Draft Scout doesn't, however, won't go too far into the character issues for players. While they hear the stories about players from scouts and personnel people around the league, they usually won't print much of it.

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

Is virginity important? :eek:

(apparently it is to somebody) :sosp:

Zierlein's article addressed why stuff like that is in there...

It is completely different because the scouts are not making their information public.

How would you like it, if I told everyone in your business that you were a fake, you weren't good at your job, and you would never be able to get the job done. (All without myself having met you). On top of that, they believed me. That is exactly what is happening here and if you would tell me that, that wouldn't upset you then I would most likely not believe you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Scot, you dodged this one yesterday. What is your opinion of the Gil Brandt article. The one where he actually spent some time with Cam and interviewed several people at Auburn instead of a single source and came away with a much different impression.

Wouldn't you think someone who actually spent time with someone and talked to people at Auburn would have a better perspective and more accurate info?

Why do ypu latch to Nawrocki but ignore Wyche, Brandt, and Yas who says teams are telling them he satisfied them with his responses to his past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is completely different because the scouts are not making their information public.

How would you like it, if I told everyone in your business that you were a fake, you weren't good at your job, and you would never be able to get the job done. (All without myself having met you). On top of that, they believed me. That is exactly what is happening here and if you would tell me that, that wouldn't upset you then I would most likely not believe you.

How would you like to throw millions of dollars of your boss's money at a 22 year old kid without knowing anything about his character?

More importantly, how do you think your boss would feel about it if the guy turned out to be a loser?

These guys are investigated for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Scot, you dodged this one yesterday. What is your opinion of the Gil Brandt article. The one where he actually spent some time with Cam and interviewed several people at Auburn instead of a single source and came away with a much different impression.

Wouldn't you think someone who actually spent time with someone and talked to people at Auburn would have a better perspective and more accurate info?

Why do ypu latch to Namrocki but ignore Wyche, Brandt, and Yas who says teams are telling them he satisfied them with his responses to his past.

To me it depends on who Brandt talked to at Auburn, staffers and coaches an only gain from inflating Newton's stock.

I'm not hitching my wagon to any one report, I just don't think Cam is anywhere near as mature as he needs to be and I expressed that here before this article came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites