| . | ||
 |
||
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 Location: Siberia
Registered: 01-10-2004
Posts: 10381
|
Posted
I expect "Aaron Kampman" types out of round 4 & later  |
 Location: Pitying the fools
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 7668
|
Posted
It is all relative to a degree.
Some people are grading the "draft" and some people are grading the GM on his draft picks. On Murphy, TT deserves and Incomplete but if you just grade the draft itself Murphy is an F. It can get more complicated too. If you use 2 picks to trade up to take BJ Sander does that equal 2 F's or 1 F? If you take 1 pick and trade down and draft Mike Hawkins and Kurt Campbell does that equal 2 F's or just 1? |
 Location: Do you feel that Italian families allow for individuality?
Registered: 01-06-2006
Posts: 2534
|
Posted
I thought everybody we ever draft/sign has to be a combination of Randy Moss, Ladanian Tomilson, Tom Brady, and Reggie White or else they were a worthless selection? |
 Location: Normal, Illinois
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 5648
|
Posted
Grading a draft, and grading a trade are two different things. I think you just have to look at each player seperately, and grade them based on their performance when it comes to grading a draft. As for the seperate grade for GM, and seperate grade for the draft as a whole .. I can see that. I would give TT an Incomplete for the Murphy pick .. not his fault the player was injured. You could give him an F though if he took a medical risk and picked the kid knowing he had some neck issues in the past. I don't think TT knew though, so he gets a pass. |
 Location: Jersey
Registered: 06-11-2000
Posts: 2470
|
Posted
There must be a medical privacy issue with the test. If I was a guy playing in the NFL I'd seriously consider getting the test done myself. |
|
Location: Normal, Illinois
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 5648
|
Posted
I'm sure that's part of it. Also, a lot of people don't want to know if something is wrong with them. Once it was known you had stenosis you would be done as a football player .. goobbye limelight .. goodbye millions. |
 Location: San Diego
Registered: 12-19-2005
Posts: 7144
|
Posted
I refer to that in two ways: (1) A double-F-minus and (2) A nutshell. IMHO, blowing extra picks to draft a player who sucks should count more than simply missing a pick when it's your turn. |
|
Location: San Diego
Registered: 12-19-2005
Posts: 7144
|
Posted
I don't think any of the GM's who picked Lewis, Sharpe or Murphy knew, because I distinctly remembering the reporting of each, in that it was stated that 'it turns out the kid has a spinal condition,' which was a surprise to everyone. I know that I wouldn't touch any kid who had already had any sort of neck problem, or multiple concussions in college - those would be huge red flags for me. Regarding the privacy issue, I'm not sure how that applies. They all sign waivers at the combine, and they poke and prod every other nook and cranny in these kids' bodies. It must be that testing for stenosis is either too expensive or invasive, such as if it requires some sort of spinal tap. That's why it'd be nice to see a post from someone who knows about these things. Legally, though, I'm pretty confident in stating that it's not a privacy issue. Medically, I'm obviously clueless. |
|
Location: Siberia
Registered: 01-10-2004
Posts: 10381
|
Posted
I have a friend, who is a Niner fan, and the other day he was lamenting the fact that they had the #1 overall pick in probably the worst draft (talent-wise) of the last decade. If Rodgers comes out and has 20 TD passes with 10 INT's this season, the Niner fans will be jumping off the Golden Gate bridge.
I refer to it as 3 F's & you're out! That move along with the R-Kal Truluck move were pretty much "bone-headed" & sealed a fate. FS brings up a great point that TT trading down is preparing for the future just in case instead of going for the "sure thing". I like it & I'm certain other teams are watching & will follow suit. |
 Registered: 09-28-2001
Posts: 2991
|
Posted
Dx of Spinal Stenosis requires an MRI or contrast CT scan.
MRI studies are relatively expensive, and obviously a contrast CT is invasive and can have certain adverse effects. Not sure it would be worth the expense and especially the risk to dx such a rare congenital abnormality. Odds are are very good that a footbal player at the cusp of his college graduation, will not have spinal stenosis. At the same time, it's easy and relatively cost effective to screen for other things the way it's currently done. As to the draft, I agree that when rating a draft it seems we are evaluating the GM's performance. To give TT an "F" for making a great pick of a player like Murphy is dumb. He made a great pick, the guys had a freak injury due to a congenital condition....Incomplete. And missing on a 6th or 7th rounder....yeah, so what ?? |
 Registered: 01-11-2002
Posts: 10874
|
Posted
You know, a lot of people thought the Niners shouldn't have taken either Smith or Rodgers No. 1 overall -- that the best offensive player in the draft was WR Braylon Edwards, who was taken No. 3 overall by the Browns. After the incredible numbers Edwards put up last year, it looks like those people were right. Some pretty good other first rounders in that draft, too. No. 11 Shawne Merriman, No. 12 DeMarcus Ware, are two of the best linebackers in the league. Those guys will be franchise pass-rushing linebackers for a long time. Antrel Rolle (No. 8) is a very good cornerback, Jammal Brown (No. 13) is an All-Pro left tackle for the Saints. Maybe the Niners' problem was that they were so locked in on taking a franchise quarterback No. 1. |
 Location: Captain Underpants
Registered: 03-17-2004
Posts: 4272
|
Posted
The Packers definitely could be Super Bowl contenders next year and if Rodgers is capable/stays healthy they most likely will be. If he isn't capable and turns out to be similar to say Kyle Boller, the Packers could very easily take some steps backward. It's too early to say anything right now. Rodgers hasn't even participated in his first post-Favre minicamp yet. Until then, I think it's crazy to say they are Super Bowl contenders. It's kind of like saying Vernand Morency is the next big thing from the Packers. |
|
Location: Siberia
Registered: 01-10-2004
Posts: 10381
|
Posted
You're misunderstanding the definition of contender.
Max explained it very well. I suggest re-reading his posts |
|
Location: Normal, Illinois
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 5648
|
Posted
How come you guys continue to assume that Terrance Murphy was a great pick? The guy never played .. he never showed he could do it in real games. Sure, he had a great camp, but lots of other players have had great camps only to never really amount to much. To say he would have been great just seem kind of ludicrous to me. |
 Location: st paul
Registered: 08-11-2007
Posts: 1129
|
Posted
Yeah, but they were good picks AT THE TIME. No GM can see into the future. Guys get injured, that's just a fact of life in the NFL. So give TT credit for picking Murphy. He was the Real Deal. |
|
Location: st paul
Registered: 08-11-2007
Posts: 1129
|
Posted
Dude played. I remember thinking "WOW!" He got injured early his rookie year, but he did play in some games. Dude was gonna be a star. |
 Location: Somewhere along I-94 picking up feces. Or so I'm told.
Registered: 07-13-2000
Posts: 8271
|
Posted
 |
 Location: Gods Country
Registered: 05-09-2000
Posts: 10880
|
Posted
TT has proven to have a pretty darn good grasp on drafting WR.
Would have been nice to see what kind of career Murphy could have had. They're not gonna get em http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCKWtiZyupw He had some beastly numbers http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=54590 He will go in the Mark D'Onofrio, Tim Lewis area of what could have beens. |
|
Location: Captain Underpants
Registered: 03-17-2004
Posts: 4272
|
Posted
I can't disagree with Max? I think a lot of Packer fans (not necessarily Max) are forgetting something. Replacing a Hall of Fame quarterback or even being a playoff contender after a HOF QB leaves isn't elementary. If it was the Niners, Broncos, Dolphins and Cowboys would have been "contenders" every year since Montana, Young, Elway, Marino and Aikman retired. They have had some serious struggles. The Packers could be exceptions to the rule but no one knows yet. Am I excited for the Rodgers era? Yeah I am but I am not going to put Super Bowl expectations on the team until I see them play. |
 Location: CA
Registered: 09-18-2000
Posts: 1550
|
Posted
If Collins and Poppinga become backups, you know you have a good team on your hands. Depth was something Sherman didn't believe in.
|
|
Registered: 01-11-2002
Posts: 10874
|
Posted
Again, I think you're putting unnecessarily high standards on what it takes to be a "contender," particularly in today's NFL in today's NFC. I'm not saying I "expect" the Packers to go to the Super Bowl. I'm not saying they're favorites, and I'm about the last person here who would suggest replacing Favre will be easy. Team goes to the NFC Championship Game one year, I don't care what one player they lose in the offseason, no matter how good that player was. Even if I had no idea who our starting QB would be, I'd give us a reasonable shot to win the NFC North. (Just as I'd give the Vikings and Bears reasonable shots, with their lousy quarterbacks.) Any playoff team is a legit "Super Bowl contender," as the 5th-seeded Giants and 6th-seeded Steelers have proved in recent years by winning the thing. It's really not that dramatic a statement. |
|
Location: Northern MN
Registered: 04-27-2007
Posts: 412
|
Posted
|
