Archived

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

YoungPanthers89

Nolan Nawrocki at it again.

152 posts in this topic

I have never called Nawrocki a duck. I've just pointed out his webbed feet, waddle, and incessant quacking.

Translation: "I don't need evidence. The accusation is enough."

Bravo on that forward thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue Boy has to be someone having a good time with an alt, let's not even use him as an example please.

No I don't think you are a racist. I'm pretty sure I've said this before. I will say that you have blinders on to certain things though.

Guess what? I think there are things you're wrong about too. I like to call it "disagreeing".

Appreciate the statement. In the future, refrain from making any about implications about my character and I'll do the same for you.

Deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guessing you missed where I mentioned the parts about the Geno Smith profile that I thought were baseless.

But see, here's the thing. Every one of these things has a "base" but it's found in someone's evaluation, which is essentially an opinion except where it cites particular incidents in the player's background.

Sometimes those opinions are wrong, but "wrong" isn't synonymous with "racist". And I've given you plenty of examples where white QBs had highly negative personal items in their evaluation. There are worse ones than those, mind you, but I was sticking with names people would recognize.

I'm still waiting for you to show me something that proves the negative elements of the analyses are based on race. If you're sure that they are, you should be able to find evidence of it, right?

Unless of course, you can't.

I asked for baseless examples. Still your move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for baseless examples. Still your move.

Can't find them on your own or just trying to deflect?

Frankly, there aren't many things in PFW that I've found completely "baseless". The Geno Smith thing mentioned above is one. As for other stuff, I'd say some of it was poor interpretation, just plain wrong thinking or bad sources (which is what I attribute the Newton stuff to, and could well be the story with Smith as well) but the vast majority of the analysis - as in the above examples - has been largely on target.

Bottom Line: The "baseless" stuff isn't the norm, and if you actually took the time to read more than just the one or two profiles cited here, you might be able to see that.

Except, of course, that you don't seem to want to see that, which I'd guess is why you're avoiding actually examining any draft profiles other than Newton's or Smith's. Easier to just deflect and declare victory, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't waivered in my request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess what? I think there are things you're wrong about too. I like to call it "disagreeing".

Appreciate the statement. In the future, refrain from making any about implications about my character and I'll do the same for you.

Deal?

Well that would be me admitting to something that I haven't done. Not every person is throwing out subtle implications just because they happen to disagree with anothers viewpoint. If everyone on the internet agreed with each other it would be a mindless desolate wasteland, or North Korea. Maybe this place has made you paranoid over time. Anyway, I'm tired and this thread has run it's course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh... I'm beginning to think Nawrocki is doing this just to generate press so people buy his pubs. I don't see how else he can keep putting out stuff that is so completely contradicted by so many other sources. So yes, maybe someone told him that. Are you telling me that this guy is stupid enough not to realize scouts lie, and not smart enough get multiple opinions, particularly after the Cam stuff?

Maybe he's a racist, maybe he just has some biases that show up sometimes (note: just because some guy doesn't poo on every black QB doesn't mean he isn't being racially bias when he makes totally unsubstantiated claims), but I think it's more likely he's counting on threads like this showing up on message boards across the country to generate him some word of mouth.

That Barkley piece, ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

give yourselves a well needed pat on the back...alls yall

mr.scott is a deflecting white night.

the red is fiery, dont messwitm cause he bad.

calvin and hobbes is mr.scotts son and is smarter than all of you...pretty sure thats spot on.

delhomey is waiting.......still waiting....hes really tired and doesnt feel like typing....still waiting...

daddy uncle is a funny fugr again while being a weeny that cant say a wrong thing, ever.

p4l still overachieving

stirs stirring

kurb aka the ref

thread wrap-up brought to you by wholeyshitballstheguyisadouchebagwhythefugareweohnevermindcarryon.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He got called out for his article by Doug Farrar on Shutdown Corner. I still think Smith has issues but nice to see reporters policing analysis.

http://sports.yahoo....55790--nfl.html

Very good article with quotes from Smith's coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He got called out for his article by Doug Farrar on Shutdown Corner. I still think Smith has issues but nice to see reporters policing analysis.

http://sports.yahoo....55790--nfl.html

Very good article with quotes from Smith's coaches.

Quoting...

Now, what we don't know is where Nawrocki is getting this stuff. We assume he's talking to NFL teams, because if he isn't, he's making it up -- unless he's in the room with NFL teams during combine interviews, which we tend to doubt. That's the first problem with the "analysis" that doesn't come strictly from tape -- the lack of clear and credible sources. If you poll a room full of NFL scouts, coaches, and executives about any player, you'll get a pretty divergent set of opinions. It's then your job as the analyst in question to vet those opinions, decide what's accurate and relevant, and present your version.

I'm honestly not sure that's how they do it. From what I've read, it actually sounds more like they just print the vast majority of what they've heard from whomever.

The good side of that? It presents a truer representation of what all's being said rather than it just being your opinion with citations to back it up.

The bad? If you have contradictory info or one of your sources is just plain off the mark, the result is a mess (which is what this story is looking like).

Citing coaches can be a bit tricky too. Yes, they have the most experience with the player, but they're not exactly objective parties.

Be interesting to see how this plays out. Wouldn't necessarily expect it to have much in the way of real world consequences (the Newton fracas didn't) but ya never know.

Regardless of how the debate goes, my main hope is that Smith get's drafted by a team that'll do a good job developing him into a solid NFL quarterback.

I'm iffy on whether I'd want Andy Reid in charge of that task. He's developed QBs that have played well within his system, but then they suck if they leave it.I'd kinda like Smith to be a guy who can be successful in situations other than just playing in one system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.