*Update: AD Mitchell signed

[w87r]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

This is not the writer. This is a scout he's quoting. This (especially if it's the same scout he's quoting about the diabetes/uncoachable/immature thing) seems like a scout either with an agenda or some axe to grind.  

 

BTW seems like the part about the diabetes is/was in this exact article, but I currently cannot find it in the article. Do we know if it got deleted or if it's behind a paywall we cannot see?

Here's this one:

 

https://www.golongtd.com/p/bob-mcginns-first-round-analysis

 

"WR Adonai Mitchell: A number of scouts expressed considerable reservations about his makeup and discipline."

 

 

The other article I see has multiple part breakdown, with most behind pay wall.

 

 

 

[w87r]

Just now, w87r said:

Here's this one:

 

https://www.golongtd.com/p/bob-mcginns-first-round-analysis

 

"WR Adonai Mitchell: A number of scouts expressed considerable reservations about his makeup and discipline."

 

 

The other article I see has multiple part breakdown, with most behind pay wall.

 

 

 

Then I found this with probably some info from behind the pay wall?

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2024/04/scouts-raise-concerns-regarding-texas-wr-adonai-mitchells-maturity-health/

 

"He's got Garrett Wilsonesque catch radius, athletic ability, body control. But is almost  uncoachable. According to scout per golongtd.com."

[BeanDiasucci]

7 minutes ago, w87r said:

Here's this one:

 

https://www.golongtd.com/p/bob-mcginns-first-round-analysis

 

"WR Adonai Mitchell: A number of scouts expressed considerable reservations about his makeup and discipline."

 

 

The other article I see has multiple part breakdown, with most behind pay wall.

 

 

 

Thank you guys for sharing these links. Having seen the full column now, I'd say the columnist had a responsibility to get someone on Mitchell's side of the story to comment before printing this report. That's how journalism is supposed to work. He should have talked to Mitchell, his parents, and/or his college coaches to put these stories about Mitchell not managing his diabetes well (which I understand can be very challenging) into context and find out more about whether they are true. How can you report that a player is almost uncoachable without talking to his coaches? That's unprofessional. 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, w87r said:

Here's this one:

 

https://www.golongtd.com/p/bob-mcginns-first-round-analysis

 

"WR Adonai Mitchell: A number of scouts expressed considerable reservations about his makeup and discipline."

 

 

The other article I see has multiple part breakdown, with most behind pay wall.

 

 

 

No, no. It's the multi part one. The part about the WRs/TEs is part 1. Don't know what happened with the diabetes part. It just seems to have vanished. Or it's in a separate part that's behind a paywall, but I found links to this one (part 1) that were quoting the diabetes parts from April. Weird all around.

[ADnum1]

7 minutes ago, w87r said:

Then I found this with probably some info from behind the pay wall?

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2024/04/scouts-raise-concerns-regarding-texas-wr-adonai-mitchells-maturity-health/

 

"He's got Garrett Wilsonesque catch radius, athletic ability, body control. But is almost  uncoachable. According to scout per golongtd.com."

Uncoachable ?

 

He was coached by a very tough disciplinarian coach in Kirby Smart, the head coach at UGA for 2 years.

 

Anyone that knows Coach Smart knows he's a no nonsense guy that doesn't put up with any nonsense.

 

Look if Colts fans want to believe this nonsense thats fine.  There is nothing I can do to talk you all out of it.

 

But his record at UGA and on the field speaks for itself.  He wasn't "uncoachable" at all.

 

Kirby loved him, the coaches loved him, the players loved him and most importantly the fans loved him.

 

But lets go ahead and believe an "anonymous scout"

[w87r]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

No, no. It's the multi part one. The part about the WRs/TEs is part 1. Don't know what happened with the diabetes part. It just seems to have vanished. Or it's in a separate part that's behind a paywall, but I found links to this one (part 1) that were quoting the diabetes parts from April. Weird all around.

https://www.golongtd.com/p/part-1-wrte-hall-of-fame-talent-at?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 

"Like Harrison and Bowers, Mitchell was a junior who spent only three seasons in college. His resume, however, wasn’t as impressive because of limited playing time and a high-ankle sprain during his two years at Georgia.

 

Coming off a 55-reception, 11-touchdown season at Texas, Mitchell did everything at the combine other than the short shuttle, the 3-cone and the bench press. And, after his blazing 40 of 4.35 and exceptional distances in the jumps, his decision to work at the combine appeared to be paying off.

 

Then Mitchell, wearing the WO19 jersey, started running the various routes in line with other wide receivers. His performance was insufficient, to say the least.

 

“He blew that 40 out, which didn’t surprise me,” one veteran scout said. “But then his position workout might have been the worst I’ve seen by a top receiver. He was falling over. He dropped balls. He had to keep redoing. It seemed as if he didn’t know how to run routes. He just seemed out of it.

 

“Generally, I don’t get alarmed by a combine. That was alarming.”

 

Based on television coverage, Mitchell staggered and fell during the gauntlet, dropped the first two slants, dropped an out and either messed up the route or failed to make the catch on his next three attempts. His performance was adequate after that.

 

“He was very linear, very straight line,” another scout said watching Mitchell at the combine. “Which surprised me, because in my limited exposure, for a fast guy, I thought he could actually bend and get in and out of his cuts.

 

“After running fast, the position stuff didn’t match. It wasn’t terrible. It wasn’t fatal. But it definitely raised some alerts with me. He didn’t have a great combine.”

 

Mitchell stood on his combine numbers and did positio"n drills March 21 at Texas pro day, leaving the bench press and shuttles void."

 

 

This one?

[Superman]

I don't think there's anything wrong with McGinn's report, or with unnamed sources. We love these anonymous insights when we agree with them, it's only when there's some dissonance that we start complaining about unnamed sources. 

 

It seems factual that AD Mitchell has had some challenges with managing his diabetes, and that it has affected the way he presents himself and interacts with other people. It's also had an affect on how he practices. And there's nothing particularly surprising about that. Everyone has been "hangry" before, and everyone has experienced a food coma. Diabetics can experience extremes of those two feelings, and it can happen very quickly. Once you put it into context, it's just something AD and his circle will have to manage meticulously. And the Colts feel confident that he can do that, which is all I really care about.

 

So the reports bringing this information to light don't really bother me. What makes these reports look worse is the way they get aggregated. Because it's the most sensational soundbites that get snipped and spread around the Internet, and then we don't seek out the full context or try to understand what's actually being said. In McGinn's report, even the source that was most harsh in speaking about AD followed up with good things about him. But all that sticks is 'unnamed source drags AD Mitchell,' and then everyone runs with it.

 

There might be smear campaigns at times. Sometimes people push negative information to serve an agenda. And really, fans and media fuel the fire, in a variety of ways. So I understand Ballard's frustration, and I think he was right to defend his player. I also think it's obvious from AD's recent quotes that Ballard's choice to go after these sources endeared Ballard and the Colts to AD, which is a good thing. And now AD has to prove Ballard and the Colts right, which is a good thing. 

[w87r]

1 minute ago, ADnum1 said:

Look if Colts fans want to believe this nonsense thats fine.  There is nothing I can do to talk you all out of it.

 

But lets go ahead and believe an "anonymous scout"

Why are you talking to me like I wrote the article or voiced the opinion?

 

 

Simply was trying to find the article or info that was being asked about.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

It says more to me about the scouts putting that tag on him.  
 

Also remember Colts didn’t want him too bad or they would not of traded down. So in some sense maybe colts bought into some of these false stories. Or maybe it could have just been his lack of production at Texas. If he had stayed at Georgia he might of went higher. But he also did the right thing by transferring so he could be near his daughter.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

https://www.golongtd.com/p/part-1-wrte-hall-of-fame-talent-at?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 

"Like Harrison and Bowers, Mitchell was a junior who spent only three seasons in college. His resume, however, wasn’t as impressive because of limited playing time and a high-ankle sprain during his two years at Georgia.

 

Coming off a 55-reception, 11-touchdown season at Texas, Mitchell did everything at the combine other than the short shuttle, the 3-cone and the bench press. And, after his blazing 40 of 4.35 and exceptional distances in the jumps, his decision to work at the combine appeared to be paying off.

 

Then Mitchell, wearing the WO19 jersey, started running the various routes in line with other wide receivers. His performance was insufficient, to say the least.

 

“He blew that 40 out, which didn’t surprise me,” one veteran scout said. “But then his position workout might have been the worst I’ve seen by a top receiver. He was falling over. He dropped balls. He had to keep redoing. It seemed as if he didn’t know how to run routes. He just seemed out of it.

 

“Generally, I don’t get alarmed by a combine. That was alarming.”

 

Based on television coverage, Mitchell staggered and fell during the gauntlet, dropped the first two slants, dropped an out and either messed up the route or failed to make the catch on his next three attempts. His performance was adequate after that.

 

“He was very linear, very straight line,” another scout said watching Mitchell at the combine. “Which surprised me, because in my limited exposure, for a fast guy, I thought he could actually bend and get in and out of his cuts.

 

“After running fast, the position stuff didn’t match. It wasn’t terrible. It wasn’t fatal. But it definitely raised some alerts with me. He didn’t have a great combine.”

 

Mitchell stood on his combine numbers and did positio"n drills March 21 at Texas pro day, leaving the bench press and shuttles void."

 

 

This one?

Yes. All the quotes about the diabetes, about him being uncoachable and immature link to that article, but those exact parts are now removed(and possibly replaced by the stuff about his combine?!? Since I don't see the quotes about his combine in any of the pieces that link to that article. Which is super weird. )

 

Again ... Unless we are not seeing some hidden article. To me it looks like it was redacted at some point after and the diabetes/uncoachable/immature things got replaced by the combine performance stuff.

[ADnum1]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

Why are you talking to me like I wrote the article or voiced the opinion?

 

 

Simply was trying to find the article or info that was being asked about.

My apologies.  I was simply venting.

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, lester said:

That is, you noted: what if McGinn's article is correct? Well, what if its not? He, personally, will have cost AD Mitchell MILLIONS of dollars. Not the scouts; McGinn. McGinn is the one with the platform. If the scouts had a platform, they wouldn't be anonymous sources. The difference between bottom of the 1st round and where AD was selected is $5 to $10 million over 4 years.

 

I disagree. I don't think any team is basing their draft decisions on what Bob McGinn is reporting. 

 

The scouts that are quoted in this article (presumably) work for NFL teams. Those teams already know the opinions of these scouts, and would have done their own work on the players being discussed. If I run a team and my scout starts talking about a player having some issues, we're having a meaningful discussion about it before we put him on the board. 

 

Quote

As another poster noted, does McGinn have any responsibility in regards to articles he releases that are not factual, whether they were written in good faith or not?

 

If any reporter puts something out that's factually incorrect, sure, he's responsible for that. In this case, a reporter is sharing the opinions of sources, and he's framing it as such. If someone wants to take that as verified fact, that's their choice, but that's probably not a good idea.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yes. All the quotes about the diabetes, about him being uncoachable and immature link to that article, but those exact parts are now removed(and possibly replaced by the stuff about his combine?!? Since I don't see the quotes about his combine in any of the pieces that link to that article. Which is super weird. )

 

Again ... Unless we are not seeing some hidden article. To me it looks like it was redacted at some point after and the diabetes/uncoachable/immature things got replaced by the combine performance stuff.

 

Yeah, it's on GoLongTD's site, and paywalled. But here are some relevant snippets:

 

 

[w87r]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yes. All the quotes about the diabetes, about him being uncoachable and immature link to that article, but those exact parts are now removed(and possibly replaced by the stuff about his combine?!? Since I don't see the quotes about his combine in any of the pieces that link to that article. Which is super weird. )

 

Again ... Unless we are not seeing some hidden article. To me it looks like it was redacted at some point after and the diabetes/uncoachable/immature things got replaced by the combine performance stuff.

In this destin article today, he has a little bit of it.

 

https://atozsports.com/indianapolis/adonai-mitchell-colts-nfl-journey-with-type-1-diabetes/

 

"He's been diagnosed as a Type 1 diabetic. "You're going to have to assign him, somebody, to be next to him for his first few years because his issues are all about his diabetes and his blood sugar," said a second scout. "When his blood sugars are off, he's rude; he's abrasive, he doesn't pay attention in meetings. It's why you get really, really cruddy character reports coming out of Georiga and Texas. But when his stuff is normal, and they get him normal by lunchtime, he's out at practice high energy, a best practice player, and loves football.

 

He's got Garrett Wilsonesque catch radius, athelic ability, and body control. But he's almost uncoachable. 

 

A third source said diabetes was a major concern. "You've got to look out for it an he's got to take care of himself," he said. "Every diabetic does. Theres some questions but at the end of the day he's a good player that hasn't done anything overly malicious. He's probably just immature.""

 

 

 

So yeah, they either changed it or something else is behind the pay wall.

 

 

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, it's on GoLongTD's site, and paywalled. But here are some relevant snippets:

 

 

Again. Notice the link. The link sends us to the article about his combine performance now, not about his diabetes, despite the quotes from April being about his diabetes. No idea what happened. It looks fishy to me. 

 

Did they move the diabetes quotes to a different article behind a paywall? Or is this not the full article and the diabetes part is part of the paywalled content? But the weirdest thing to me is that what's now there is not quoted by any of the articles I see that quoted the diabetes part.

 

Just strange.

[w87r]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Again. Notice the link. The link sends us to the article about his combine performance now, not about his diabetes, despite the quotes from April being about his diabetes. No idea what happened. It looks fishy to me. 

I don't think anything has been deleted it takes you to the article which is multi part.

 

It starts ranking WRs at the bottom and talking about Harrison more in depth.

 

Followed by a pay wall to sign up for the rest. Which more likely than not, includes those in depth reports on Mitchell.

 

 

 

That's what I gather by the info being there in Destin's article with link to site, which then shows pay wall for the rest.

[BeanDiasucci]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I disagree. I don't think any team is basing their draft decisions on what Bob McGinn is reporting. 

 

The scouts that are quoted in this article (presumably) work for NFL teams. Those teams already know the opinions of these scouts, and would have done their own work on the players being discussed. If I run a team and my scout starts talking about a player having some issues, we're having a meaningful discussion about it before we put him on the board. 

 

 

If any reporter puts something out that's factually incorrect, sure, he's responsible for that. In this case, a reporter is sharing the opinions of sources, and he's framing it as such. If someone wants to take that as verified fact, that's their choice, but that's probably not a good idea.

I agree with you that teams aren't basing draft decisions on what Bob McGinn is reporting. But I disagree that McGinn's reporting is okay here. In journalism, you don't get to share bad opinions of people without giving the person who is being criticized a chance to respond in the report. If a reporter wrote about a professional in the community, let's say a prominent real estate agent, and reported that other unnamed people thought the real estate agent had wild mood swings due to badly controlled diabetes and was unmanageable, would that reporting be okay? I'd suggest that if a reporter managed to get that into print without giving the real estate agent a chance to respond, you'd likely see the reporter and whoever approved the story fired. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

I don't think anything has been deleted it takes you to the article which is multi part.

 

It starts ranking WRs at the bottom and talking about Harrison more in depth.

 

Followed by a pay wall to sign up for the rest. Which more likely than not, includes those in depth reports on Mitchell.

 

 

 

That's what I gather by the info being there in Destin's article with link to site, which then shows pay wall for the rest.

Possible, yah... Still weird how every quote we get(from April) linking to this article is the diabetes part, and none of them are quoting the combine part.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Again. Notice the link. The link sends us to the article about his combine performance now, not about his diabetes, despite the quotes from April being about his diabetes. No idea what happened. It looks fishy to me. 

 

Did they move the diabetes quotes to a different article behind a paywall? Or is this not the full article and the diabetes part is part of the paywalled content? But the weirdest thing to me is that what's now there is not quoted by any of the articles I see that quoted the diabetes part.

 

Just strange.

 

If you click on the images in the tweet, it gives you those portions of the article. 

 

And yeah, it's paywalled.

[w87r]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Possible, yah... Still weird how every quote we get(from April) linking to this article is the diabetes part, and none of them are quoting the combine part.

I don't think it is weird at all.

 

Harrison is clearly ranked #1 on the rankings list and the sign in/ or up is listed right after him. All excerpts quoted, that link you to the pay wall, clearly have been seen past the pay wall, and are giving a glimpse of what is behind it. 

 

 

All the talk above the rankings is just some general info about some of the higher rated guys.

 

The rankings get more detailed and that's where that information is.

 

I doubt that is even all of Harrison's, at the point of signing in or up.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

If you click on the images in the tweet, it gives you those portions of the article. 

 

And yeah, it's paywalled.

Yes, I saw them, but that was in April. What I'm saying is - I'm not sure they are still there. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

I agree with you that teams aren't basing draft decisions on what Bob McGinn is reporting. But I disagree that McGinn's reporting is okay here. In journalism, you don't get to share bad opinions of people without giving the person who is being criticized a chance to respond in the report. If a reporter wrote about a professional in the community, let's say a prominent real estate agent, and reported that other unnamed people thought the real estate agent had wild mood swings due to badly controlled diabetes and was unmanageable, would that reporting be okay? I'd suggest that if a reporter managed to get that into print without giving the real estate agent a chance to respond, you'd likely see the reporter and whoever approved the story fired. 

 

To the bolded, reporters share unfavorable quotes without a response from the subject all the time. In that case, it's up to the consumer to contextualize, and unfortunately, the way we consume media generally doesn't lend itself to proper contextualization.

 

Just look at this thread for the last few posts. We're trying to find an article that we've all seen referenced, but in reality, I don't think any of us have actually read it, because it's paywalled. What we've read is clips and aggregations, and now we're debating about whether the report was responsibly shared. 

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, w87r said:

I don't think it is weird at all.

 

Harrison is clearly ranked #1 on the rankings list and the sign in/ or up is listed right after him. All excerpts quoted, that link you to the pay wall, clearly have been seen past the pay wall, and are giving a glimpse of what is behind it. 

 

 

All the talk above the rankings is just some general info about some of the higher rated guys.

 

The rankings get more detailed and that's where that information is.

 

I doubt that is even all of Harrison's, at the point of signing in or up.

I just read the article again to see the structure. You probably are right. It looks like he's starting to list the players in the ranking with quotes from scouts and it just cuts out at some point in the Harrison part and you have to pay for the rest.

 

So yeah... Please ignore my semi-conspiratorial allusions above. That's my bad.

 

Still not sure how ethical it is to post such disparaging comments about the character of a young player when those quotes are coming from scouts that might have conflict of interest in sharing such information before the draft.

[BeanDiasucci]

Just now, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, reporters share unfavorable quotes without a response from the subject all the time. In that case, it's up to the consumer to contextualize, and unfortunately, the way we consume media generally doesn't lend itself to proper contextualization.

 

Just look at this thread for the last few posts. We're trying to find an article that we've all seen referenced, but in reality, I don't think any of us have actually read it, because it's paywalled. What we've read is clips and aggregations, and now we're debating about whether the report was responsibly shared. 

Give me an example of that. A report by a reporter from a legit news organization that doesn't at least attempt to give the subject a chance to respond. I think you can find bad journalism examples of what you're saying is common, but I don't think you can find good journalism examples - by which I mean examples from well-respected reporters and well-respected media. What you're suggesting is okay definitely isn't okay based on what they teach in journalism schools.  

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Give me an example of that. A report by a reporter from a legit news organization that doesn't at least attempt to give the subject a chance to respond. I think you can find bad journalism examples of what you're saying is common, but I don't think you can find good journalism examples - by which I mean examples from well-respected reporters and well-respected media. What you're suggesting is okay definitely isn't okay based on what they teach in journalism schools.  

 

Kind of seems like you're setting up a litmus test for whether a reporter is "good" or not based on whether they do this thing you don't like. So maybe you could share some well-respected media in your opinion -- sports would be most relevant -- and then we could share some examples. 

 

I agree that the best practice would be to reach out to the subject for a response. But if the subject declines or doesn't acknowledge the request, now what? Add a line saying 'subject declined to respond,' and now the unnamed sources are viewed with more legitimacy? 

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Kind of seems like you're setting up a litmus test for whether a reporter is "good" or not based on whether they do this thing you don't like. So maybe you could share some well-respected media in your opinion -- sports would be most relevant -- and then we could share some examples. 

 

I agree that the best practice would be to reach out to the subject for a response. But if the subject declines or doesn't acknowledge the request, now what? Add a line saying 'subject declined to respond,' and now the unnamed sources are viewed with more legitimacy? 

Honestly, isn't that kind of a base level journalistic integrity and ethics? I don't think he's setting up some arbitrary litmus test. I'm no journalist and have no idea what the professional standard is, but this to me seems like a pretty reasonable standard - if you are writing about someone and a source is sharing pretty disparaging information that might affect the subject to the tune of millions of dollars, the least you should probably do is to ask for comment from said subject, before you print that information.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Yes. All the quotes about the diabetes, about him being uncoachable and immature link to that article, but those exact parts are now removed(and possibly replaced by the stuff about his combine?!? Since I don't see the quotes about his combine in any of the pieces that link to that article. Which is super weird. )

 

Again ... Unless we are not seeing some hidden article. To me it looks like it was redacted at some point after and the diabetes/uncoachable/immature things got replaced by the combine performance stuff.

 

That could have happened. Could have been a HIPAA issue too.

 

But I think the fact that these other quotes existed (even if they were put in later) adds necessary context to this situation. It wasn't just AD being the victim of some smear campaign that somehow heavily influenced NFL teams...as seems to be the narrative. Instead, there were also concerns among different scouts (assuming it wasn't one scout) about other aspects, including his Combine workout.

 

So we know what some thought...and we know what happened. 10 teams drafted WRs before AD. Yes, 3 of those WRs were going earlier than him no matter what, but 7 other WR-needy teams opted for other WRs. And even Ballard actually traded down with him on the board. It seems fairly safe to assume that NFL teams didn't have him as a R1 WR, or top 5 at the position, for reasons beyond a couple comments from anonymous scouts. 

[stitches]

Just now, shasta519 said:

 

That could have happened. Could have been a HIPAA issue too.

 

But I think the fact that these other quotes existed (even if they were put in later) adds necessary context to this situation. It wasn't just AD being the victim of some smear campaign that somehow heavily influenced NFL teams...as seems to be the narrative. Instead, there were also concerns among different scouts (assuming it wasn't one scout) about other aspects, including his Combine workout.

 

So we know what some thought...and we know what happened. 10 teams drafted WRs before AD. Yes, 3 of those WRs were going earlier than him no matter what, but 7 other WR-needy teams opted for other WRs. And even Ballard actually traded down with him on the board. It seems fairly safe to assume that NFL teams didn't have him as a R1 WR, or top 5 at the position, for reasons beyond a couple comments from anonymous scouts. 

I think I was wrong in my guess here. On later inspection, it seems like the more likely situation is that the part about his diabetes is still in this article, but it's just hidden behind a paywall.. 

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I think I was wrong in my guess here. On later inspection, it seems like the more likely situation is that the part about his diabetes is still in this article, but it's just hidden behind a paywall.. 

 

I had actually never seen the specific comments about diabetes until this Destin article...or Part 1 of this Bob McGinn article for that matter. I knew some things were said though and Ballard didn't like it.

 

But now that I have read Destin's article and McGinn's article, I just don't agree with the narrative Destin is pushing here. He's trying to portray AD as a R1 talent who was unfairly treated by the rumor-mongering media, which caused teams to not draft him until R2.

 

But we all know it doesn't really work like that anymore. And McGinn's article has additional not-so-flattering comments from scouts during AD's Combine workout (not just his diabetes management or coachability). So we know a glimpse into what some scouts were thinking back as far as the Combine, which was well before McGinn even published this article in mid April.

 

The bigger picture for me is "man, that sure seems like a lot of discouraging comments from scouts." And McGinn didn't have an agenda...he just happened to have more material on AD Mitchell than others and he published it. 

 

 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

Does a reporter bear any responsibility about what he includes in his pieces? Sourced or not? Is everything a source tell you printable? Is everything worth printing? BTW I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just wonder if there are any ethical considerations a reporter might have when reporting on this type of touchy subject, especially when some of those anonymous scouts might have vested interest in a player getting drafted higher or lower than currently projected? 

Yes, there are ethical considerations.  But I’d say those are in a case by case basis.  
 

But the vast majority of comments are going to be used.  Now if a reporter thinks a source is trying to bad mouth a player, perhaps for professional gain, they can decline to use the info and also stop using the source if the source loses credibility.  
 

Source relationships are obviously important and can get tricky.

[Superman]

45 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

So we know what some thought...and we know what happened. 10 teams drafted WRs before AD. Yes, 3 of those WRs were going earlier than him no matter what, but 7 other WR-needy teams opted for other WRs. And even Ballard actually traded down with him on the board. It seems fairly safe to assume that NFL teams didn't have him as a R1 WR, or top 5 at the position, for reasons beyond a couple comments from anonymous scouts. 

 

I don't necessarily agree that if teams chose other WRs it means they didn't view him as a first round player. It just means they liked a different player more. 

 

As for the rest, I think it's obvious that teams had concerns about AD Mitchell. I also think it's obvious the Colts weren't dying to draft him, otherwise they wouldn't have traded back. So the whole 'he was a surefire first rounder until unnamed sources went after him' thing doesn't quite connect for me.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, lester said:

 

I think I like AD. But that's not what is motivating my posts. I'm enjoying the dialogue as I distract myself from a spreadsheet but I do have a point to make.

 

That is, you noted: what if McGinn's article is correct? Well, what if its not? He, personally, will have cost AD Mitchell MILLIONS of dollars. Not the scouts; McGinn. McGinn is the one with the platform. If the scouts had a platform, they wouldn't be anonymous sources. The difference between bottom of the 1st round and where AD was selected is $5 to $10 million over 4 years.

 

As another poster noted, does McGinn have any responsibility in regards to articles he releases that are not factual, whether they were written in good faith or not?

There was nothing stopping Mitchell (or his agent) from contacting McGinn to say can I give you an interview so you can put out my side of the story.  
 

Look….  Sports stories move quickly, if you had to get a response from every source in every story, stories would never get done.  Especially in a world where so much info is now getting tweeted out.  And if Mitchell or his agent didn’t trust McGinn, odds are it wouldn’t be hard to find a reporter who would be happy to interview Mitchell.  The kid has a compelling story. 
 

So in many cases if a reporter can’t get to a player after a game, or needs more info, you can grab him before the next game and do a follow up where the player is now the full story.  I’m talking here about baseball,  basketball and hockey where there are multiple games in a week.  A little different in football, but you’d go to the team facility and get a follow up 1-on-1 for a good next day story. 
 

Once the McGinn story was out there was time for Mitchell to do as much damage control as he thought necessary.  
 

I don’t want to go on and on.  Hope I came close to answering.  If not, or you have more questions, hit me up, because I’m always here.   

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Honestly, isn't that kind of a base level journalistic integrity and ethics? I don't think he's setting up some arbitrary litmus test. I'm no journalist and have no idea what the professional standard is, but this to me seems like a pretty reasonable standard - if you are writing about someone and a source is sharing pretty disparaging information that might affect the subject to the tune of millions of dollars, the least you should probably do is to ask for comment from said subject, before you print that information.

 

I'm not a journalist either. I agree that it's best practice to offer the subject a chance to respond. My real point is that I don't think a lack of response from the subject automatically invalidates the information.

 

In this specific situation, I think the information was sensationalized. The initial report shared some nuanced opinions from unnamed sources, which I think is pretty common. The way the story took off from there is probably due to aggregation, for which I don't hold the initial reporter responsible. 

 

And what it seems like here is we're pushing back against a "negative" report regarding a player the Colts drafted, rather than taking the information on its merits. 

[jvan1973]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

There was nothing stopping Mitchell (or his agent) from contacting McGinn to say can I give you an interview so you can put out my side of the story.  
 

Look….  Sports stories move quickly, if you had to get a response from every source in every story, stories would never get done.  Especially in a world where so much info is now getting tweeted out.  And if Mitchell or his agent didn’t trust McGinn, odds are it wouldn’t be hard to find a reporter who would be happy to interview Mitchell.  The kid has a compelling story. 
 

So in many cases if a reporter can’t get to a player after a game, or needs more info, you can grab him before the next game and do a follow up where the player is now the full story.  I’m talking here about baseball,  basketball and hockey where there are multiple games in a week.  A little different in football, but you’d go to the team facility and get a follow up 1-on-1 for a good next day story. 
 

Once the McGinn story was out there was time for Mitchell to do as much damage control as he thought necessary.  
 

I don’t want to go on and on.  Hope I came close to answering.  If not, or you have more questions, hit me up, because I’m always here.   

Sports journalism has been crap for a long time.   It's more important to be first than accurate.   I've seen articles using Twitter accounts as sources.    What happened to the old days.    Source the intel,  interview those involved .  Vet the Intel, write the story. 

 

With the internet,  anyone with a website is a "journalist"  it's nonsense.

Joseph Pulitzer is rolling in his grave 

[ADnum1]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Sports journalism has been crap for a long time.   It's more important to be first than accurate.   I've seen articles using Twitter accounts as sources.    What happened to the old days.    Source the intel,  interview those involved .  Vet the Intel, write the story. 

 

With the internet,  anyone with a website is a "journalist"  it's nonsense.

Joseph Pulitzer is rolling in his grave 

I agree.

 

Not only is it important to be first but those stories that generate the most clicks make the most money.

 

In this day and age you have to be very sensationalist, be first and generate the most clicks.

 

Truth be damned

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Sports journalism has been crap for a long time.   It's more important to be first than accurate.   I've seen articles using Twitter accounts as sources.    What happened to the old days.    Source the intel,  interview those involved .  Vet the Intel, write the story. 

 

With the internet,  anyone with a website is a "journalist"  it's nonsense.

Joseph Pulitzer is rolling in his grave 

I appreciate your frustration…. But you and I have had this exact same conversation before.   
 

What can I tell you?   The world changed.  Information used to come in your morning newspaper or the 10 or 11p news.  Info moved slowly.   
 

Now information moves at the speed of a tweet.  The pressure to keep up has exploded.   Most people don’t get their news from the paper,  they get it from their phone.   Everyone is doing the best they can under extremely difficult circumstances.   Well…. Most everyone. 
 

And what may be crap to some is fine for others.   In this thread here, @Superman noted that for some people the news is good or bad simply if they agree with it or not.  We, all of us,  are far, far more tribal than we ever used to be when we were younger.   
 

The world has changed for better and worse.   Who was the former Indy Star writer who left to join The Athletic? He wrote about how,  for the first time in his life, having to worry about selling subscriptions.  And if he didn’t hit quotas he was going to get fired.  I was horrified for him.  My heart broke for him.  Why The Athletic thinks that’s a good business model is beyond me, but they do.   That kind of excruciating pressure will inevitably lead to bad editorial decisions.  A real shame.   
 

I don’t know what kind of response you were expecting from me….  But these are my thoughts.   Hope it clarified.  

[stitches]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not a journalist either. I agree that it's best practice to offer the subject a chance to respond. My real point is that I don't think a lack of response from the subject automatically invalidates the information.

 

In this specific situation, I think the information was sensationalized. The initial report shared some nuanced opinions from unnamed sources, which I think is pretty common. The way the story took off from there is probably due to aggregation, for which I don't hold the initial reporter responsible. 

 

And what it seems like here is we're pushing back against a "negative" report regarding a player the Colts drafted, rather than taking the information on its merits. 

I guess the whole question is the merits of the report. You report on his diabetes with tons of guesses and speculations and WITHOUT taking the side of the person who's been affected here and who's living and dealing with that condition. You report on the player being uncoachable WITHOUT taking the opinion of his coaches about being coachable or not(and BTW from what I've heard both from Colts and Texas coaches, this is resoundingly NOT TRUE). You report about him being immature and honestly, everything I've seen on the surface suggests the opposite. You report about his combine performance by giving it a pretty harsh reading(the video is in this thread and the account of what happened by McGinn is in this thread... People can actually go and look at what happened and make their own mind about whether the characterization of that workout was fair or not. I will just say you can represent the player stumbling in a drill and going again in various different ways and McGinn chose a specific way to represent it. It was the most negative way you could choose). 

 

You know I had my own reservations about that outburst by Ballard at the presser, but the more I'm learning about Mitchell the more I actually believe in what Ballard was saying and the less merit those reports have in my mind. Maybe I have my own unconscious biases too, now that I have vested interest in Mitchell actually being good for us. I don't know  

 

I guess ultimately none of it matters. AD's success or failure won't depend on some pre-draft reports... it will depend on how he handles himself from now on, how hard he works, his drive to be great and our staff's ability to get the best of him. 

[shasta519]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't necessarily agree that if teams chose other WRs it means they didn't view him as a first round player. It just means they liked a different player more. 

 

As for the rest, I think it's obvious that teams had concerns about AD Mitchell. I also think it's obvious the Colts weren't dying to draft him, otherwise they wouldn't have traded back. So the whole 'he was a surefire first rounder until unnamed sources went after him' thing doesn't quite connect for me.

 

Sure. It's possible that teams could have had boards that included many WRs as R1 grades, including Mitchell, and they just chose one over him. I worded that weirdly, but what I meant was that teams that didn't have him as a R1 player, it was for reasons beyond the rumors in this article.

 

But the "surefire first rounder until he was done dirty by rumors" doesn't track. 

 

We know that AD ranked poorly in some advanced metrics (like yards per route run) that typically operate as requisites for successful NFL WRs (outliers are rare). We know what some team scouts had concerns from his Combine drills. And we know what happened at the draft. 

 

And those comments that McGinn published weren't even his thoughts...they too were from NFL scouts.

 

Seems like the easiest and logical explanation is that teams had legit concerns (for multiple reasons) about AD and that, not rumors, is what pushed him down in the draft. But Destin seems to be spinning a couple of those concerns (that Ballard had addressed) to drive his narrative.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

I guess the whole question is the merits of the report. You report on his diabetes with tons of guesses and speculations and WITHOUT taking the side of the person who's been affected here and who's living and dealing with that condition. You report on the player being uncoachable WITHOUT taking the opinion of his coaches about being coachable or not(and BTW from what I've heard both from Colts and Texas coaches, this is resoundingly NOT TRUE). You report about him being immature and honestly, everything I've seen on the surface suggests the opposite. You report about his combine performance by giving it a pretty harsh reading(the video is in this thread and the account of what happened by McGinn is in this thread... People can actually go and look at what happened and make their own mind about whether the characterization of that workout was fair or not. I will just say you can represent the player stumbling in a drill and going again in various different ways and McGinn chose a specific way to represent it. It was the most negative way you could choose). 

 

You know I had my own reservations about that outburst by Ballard at the presser, but the more I'm learning about Mitchell the more I actually believe in what Ballard was saying and the less merit those reports have in my mind. Maybe I have my own unconscious biases too, now that I have vested interest in Mitchell actually being good for us. I don't know  

 

I guess ultimately none of it matters. AD's success or failure won't depend on some pre-draft reports... it will depend on how he handles himself from now on, how hard he works, his drive to be great and our staff's ability to get the best of him. 

 

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. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

Sure. It's possible that teams could have had boards that included many WRs as R1 grades, including Mitchell, and they just chose one over him. I worded that weirdly, but what I meant was that teams that didn't have him as a R1 player, it was for reasons beyond the rumors in this article.

 

But the "surefire first rounder until he was done dirty by rumors" doesn't track. 

 

We know that AD ranked poorly in some advanced metrics (like yards per route run) that typically operate as requisites for successful NFL WRs (outliers are rare). We know what some team scouts had concerns from his Combine drills. And we know what happened at the draft. 

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. 

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

And those comments that McGinn published weren't even his thoughts...they too were from NFL scouts.

 

Seems like the easiest and logical explanation is that teams had legit concerns (for multiple reasons) about AD and that, not rumors, is what pushed him down in the draft. But Destin seems to be spinning a couple of those concerns (that Ballard had addressed) to drive his narrative.

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... 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

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.