syhuang

Does Maurice Clarett count as a former NFL player?

crap? junk? The author doesn't say Bunkley can't play or claim Bunkley a bust in the article. He simply passes the information and even writes "It's way too early to panic....." to begin with.

This is the first time I hear this. Do you mind providing a link to it? Marv did say something similiar about Ko Simpson and Kyle Williams at 4th round pick, maybe you mistake them to Whitner and Bunkley. All I heard was that Marv was considering to trade down to draft Whitner. He later was convinced Whitner might not be available after trading down. Thus, he drafted Whitner at no.8.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9517038 It's way too early to panic, but the Philadelphia Eagles can't be comfortable that defensive tackle Brodrick Bunkley, their first-round draft pick, has struggled during offseason workouts. Grasping Jim Johnson's complex defensive scheme isn't easy, and rookies who fail to show early indications of being able to pick it up can quickly find themselves slipping behind as the year progresses This may mean nothing, it's too early to tell how Bunkley will perform on field. However, I'm glad that there's no negative news about our 1st round DT so far. Just wondering what Mort would say about Marv if Bunkley was drafted by Bills and then struggled to pick up the defense scheme. NO CLUE? OLD? In the related news, Mort still claims McCargo is a reach and Marv should draft Bunkley.

Mort just reported any pick Bills make in the supplemental draft would be a reach. Clayton also confirmed it.

How about Bunkley? Do you think he won't be a situational player and will start over Triplett if Bills drafted him?

Exactly, Giants really got screwed by following the media "draft gurus" to assume McCargo would be availabe at #32 overall. They end up with Kiwanuka at #32 when they need a DT and already have Strahan and Umenyiora at DE. This also shows how McCargo was ranked much higher than the remaining DTs on the draft board. If any remaing DT had been ranked close to McCargo, Gaints would have drafted him at either 1st round (#32 overal) or second round. But Giants didn't do this, they didn't draft a DT until their 4th round pick.

One of the offseason moves I don't agree with Marv is the signing of Fowler, doesn't he know Briere, Drury, and Connolly play great at C?

Do we really need another thread to discuss the trade-down scenario? Does your 'The odds were very high' statement also base on mock drafts and Mort's reports? Or did you have access to the draft boards of teams picked after #8?

I don't think this is a good example. Let me adjust it. Most of the analysts are working for stock analysis companies, which are like NFL franchises trying to evaluate college prospects (earnings estimates) and these analysts are like scouts. On the other hand, mock drafts are more like the analysis done by amateur analysts who not only aren't professional but also base their analysis mostly on media and public reports. The consensus of the amateur analysis may be the same as the professional analysts' in some cases, but may also be different in others.

Thanks, I did trade stocks and earned some money. It doesn't need a rocket scienciest to know it's impossible for one person to scout the whole draft class. Each stock analyst usually foucses on several stocks, not all of them. Besides, like mock drafts, there're many exceptions to show analysts were wrong, you can not use the analysis to guarantee earning money. Thus, using mock drafts to say a player would be drafted in certain picks is wrong.

I disagree with your statement. No matter how close these people are to the industry, they are not close to all 32 teams. Besides, they don't have access to all the draft board and it's impossible for them to scout the whole draft class. It's not hard to make most draft picks right, many TSW members did this. But what did these people base to make mock draft? Mostly media and other mock drafts. Some of the people might watch few video clips, but they're not real scouts.

In this post, you still emphasize consensus, which means nothing for real draft. As I said, NFL draft is not a beauty contest, it's about professional scouting. Besides, the consensus of mock drafts has nothing to do with the consensus of NFL teams. This statement is wrong, none of the mock drafts is written by real football scouts or based on real draft boards.

No more? Ok, let's see if you have anything more to say about using mock drafts to justify draft picks. ==================================================== Then why to base on incorrect data to make claims? You are welcome to express your opinions, but using incorrect data to back your arguments is simply stupid. =====================================================

Wrong.

Do you want to waste time on this? Ok, in your last post, you had "No its because......", it should be "it's because......". Do you want more examples? Make sure you're using English first. Nice comeback.

Oh really?

No more to say?

Then why based on any incorrect data to make claims? You are welcome to express your opinions, but using incorrect data to back your arguments is simply stupid.

It is because you're too stubord to to accept simple facts and prefer to use mock drafts in your arguments.

No, we have to base on right data. As I said, none of the mock drafts is written by real football scouts or based on real draft boards.

You finally understand the risk of trading down and realize using mock draft is stupid to justify draft picks

Consensus doesn't mean correctness, this is the second time I tell you this. NFL draft is not a beauty contest, consensus means nothing.

On which pick Whitner would be available as well as the risk of trading down.