Archived

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

Mr. Scot

Did Nawrocki cross the line?

233 posts in this topic

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

And to all the folks saying that no draft prospect has ever been treated like Newton before, I have to ask, are your memories really that short? :sosp:

Dolphins GM asks Dez Bryant if his mother was a prostitute

Dez Bryant was actually suspended for games unlike Newton, even though that question was still uncalled for you can't compare that to Newton who has not been CONVICTED of any thing criminal besides the fact that he BOUGHT a stolen lap top (He did not want to rat out the guy he bought it from which is why many belive he stole it.) On top of that Newton did not have a troubled past or troubled background.

When you are looking to draft a prospect you usually can't go wrong by looking at the players drive, ability, and athleticism. Unfortunatley, NFL scouts and analysis have shied away from this technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Saying that he's ill-informed assumes he's wrong. He might be, but he also might not be.

Whether or not you take the quiz, if you read the profiles posted in it you'll find Newton isn't the only person that scouts and personnel people have said bad things about, including stuff on a very personal level.

(one of those guys started at quarterback for us last year)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to all the folks saying that no draft prospect has ever been treated like Newton before, I have to ask, are your memories really that short? :sosp:

Dolphins GM asks Dez Bryant if his mother was a prostitute

I would hardly compare an ignorant comment by a GM which was heavily criticized as equivalent to the months of constant critiques and comments made about Newton. You are really stretching to make a point.

Frankly given what we now about Bryant they should have looked a little deeper. Apparently he was buying jewelry on "credit" well before he graduated college. Why didn't any of that come up?? Because people were not looking that deep into his background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites