Patriots being investigated for Deflating footballs.....(Mega Merge)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I don't necessarily disagree. I do think there's a double standard, though. When it's a positive report about a player we like, it's fine. When it's a negative report about a player we don't like, it's validating. We eat all of that up, all through draft season, no problem. But when it's a negative report about player we like, now the practice is unfair. It's a shrug for me all the way around, though. If it's a topic I care about, I'll dig and try to get past the surface, and make a determination on how I feel about the substance of the reports. What do you mean? -
I mostly agree. I think there might be teams that had him highly graded, but went in a different direction. The first round was wacky. And maybe for some of those teams, it was a coin flip between AD and another player, and maybe the concerns about maturity were the deciding factor. There are other teams -- like the Colts, IMO -- that generally don't value WR as a first round position, which is not necessarily a reflection of the individual player. Maybe the Colts would have taken one of the top three guys if they were in range, because they're that good, but generally, that's not how the Colts handle the position. Your other thoughts are definitely valid as well. It's not like he's the perfect physical prospect, he didn't have outstanding college production, some of the advanced stuff doesn't look great, etc. I don't think he's the 11th best WR prospect in this class, there are several players I think he should have gone ahead of. But it's not like he's a top five prospect who dropped to the middle of the second round. The Colts don't see it that way either, otherwise they wouldn't have traded back to #52. Speaking of top five prospects dropping, there were some unsourced rumors about Malik Nabers' character before the draft; he still got drafted where everyone expected him to be drafted. So yeah, I don't think these reports torpedoed AD's draft stock. Maybe the character concerns played a role, but I don't think these reports are the source of those concerns; I think it's the other way around.
-
By ColtStrong2013 · Posted
I never had reservations about his comments. I thought he was making a strong point in backing the player, not the pick. I took it as if the only person he wanted to hear it was Mitchell. Back your new player publicly over concerns that clearly led him to fall in the draft. I don't think that's a crazy statement to state either, that Mitchell undoubtedly fell because of the reports. I'm pretty confident he goes higher, if not first round, without that report/commentary. He might have even liked Mitchell, and strategically put it out there to get a great value pick... Here's a crazy thought, it could have even been a Colts scout, or connection to one. 🙃 -
I agree here. There were legit football reasons for teams to not be in love with Mitchell based on his play and some of his indicators that a lot of people seem to value were not great. I don't know how to parse what Destin is selling here. I'm not sure you can be certain those reports changed anything in team's evaluation of Mitchell. He's presenting anecdotal evidence that teams starting asking more about his diabetes after those reports. Again... not sure if this is factual or it just was more noticeable after those reports? Who knows... Let me summarize my view in short - I don't think the reports are made up. Someone told McGinn those things. There might be some truth to it. To me it looks very one sided. My whole contention here has been about that. Do you just print anything and everything someone tells you without asking for comment from your subject? Just go and read the whole thing again,,, the diabetes part, the uncoachable, immaturity part, the combine part(this one we can actually see with our own eyes and I can absolutely tell you the characterization of what happened is preposterous). If a scout under me really had those opinions about what transpired in those drills, I personally would question every single thing he's telling me. On the other examples of rumors/reports about other players(Caleb, Levis, Stroud) - absolutely, if you are going to disparage the character of any of those players the very least you must do is ask them for a comment. The fact that this practice of just throwing rocks and hiding hands and not even giving the opportunity of the target to respond, is prevalent in today's draft media, doesn't make it right. Also, I still want to underline something here... there is obvious conflict of interest here that I still haven't seen anyone address. -
I understand where you're coming from. It's not my intention to call out everyone who doesn't like how the AD stuff was handled. It just seems like typical draft season stuff to me, which everyone peddles in every year, but now that it's a highly drafted Colts pick, we're raising the standard. Wasn't it 'unnamed sources' who claimed Caleb Williams didn't want to play for the Bears, or wanted ownership equity, etc.? Weren't 'unnamed sources' repeated when questions about Levis' personality started to float around? To me, some stuff is either factual, or it's not -- it's a fact that AD has diabetes. Other stuff is opinion/projection -- rude, abrasive, immature, uncoachable -- and should be treated as such. The AD stuff was a mix of both. He has diabetes, the claim is that it has affected his ability to practice. Either that's true or it's not. I don't find it hard to believe, since AD definitely has diabetes, and that kind of stuff is typical of a young person with that condition. Someone else might view it differently, but we're never going to get anyone to corroborate that stuff on the record. One of the scouts said he has bad character reports from Georgia and Texas, which isn't going to be validated by anyone in the know, but it's hard to imagine someone just making that up. And that scout -- who I think was the harshest -- also said that when AD's blood sugar is right, he's great. So to me, he offered a reasonable explanation, and I don't think he came across as someone who dislikes AD or would have him as a character red flag. I think there was nuance that doesn't get fully considered when this stuff gets repeated. Even maturity is a spectrum, not a black and white consideration. A person -- especially at a young age -- might be incredibly responsible in one area of their life, while still figuring things out in another area. One person might see something as immature, and another has no problem with it. So a source gave an opinion, and I think it should be treated like one person's opinion, and not a rubber-stamped designation that the monolithic scouting community has agreed upon. And I don't think that Bob McGinn's collection of quotes from unnamed sources impacts how teams handle their draft board. I think McGinn is getting this stuff from people who work for teams; the teams already have the info. So I don't see the quotes as affecting AD's draft stock. It would have been balanced to offer some counter quotes, if those were available, but I don't think the quotes are as negative as they seem from the headlines. My only reservations about Ballard's presser is that it seemed like an "outburst," but knowing that he kind of did the same thing last year, I think it was sincere, and he did it for the right reasons. Without that background, he might have come across as being petty and unprofessional, but context is important. Short version: I don't think the reports are made up, I think there's probably some truth to them. And I assume the Colts did their homework, because that's how they operate. So if they're comfortable with AD Mitchell and have a plan to help him succeed, I have no concerns about it.
-
-
Members
-
.jpg.03c76055d967f51b813e290416ac9bfa.thumb.jpg.b1d64d49e1863163f4eefe42ad172348.jpg)
Recommended Posts