McGinn on Peyton Mannings Draft Status 1998

[pbmax]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/peyton-manning-defied-some-predictions-b99190928z1-241988471.html

This article is a nice summation of everything that is wrong with public player scouting. And its not a McGinn problem per se, it the comments you get. McGinn does little to sort out subtleties, but its a pretty straightforward presentation of dithering over 4 draft slots.

Each of the statements contain enough wiggle room to allow the scout or personnel guy to bail if it doesn't work out. Even the positive one's find a general way to gloss over concerns that don't dismiss them. The only certainty here is Polian in a 2007 interview.

The other problem is that they are all using the same language to describe a player who was not going to drop past the 5th pick in the first round as they would describe a scrub QB slated to be drafted in the 5th round.

Everyone in the article would have drafted Manning in the first round. The only question was Leaf or perhaps overwhelming team need elsewhere (Woodson).

[Patler]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/peyton-manning-defied-some-predictions-b99190928z1-241988471.html

This article is a nice summation of everything that is wrong with public player scouting. And its not a McGinn problem per se, it the comments you get. McGinn does little to sort out subtleties, but its a pretty straightforward presentation of dithering over 4 draft slots.

Each of the statements contain enough wiggle room to allow the scout or personnel guy to bail if it doesn't work out. Even the positive one's find a general way to gloss over concerns that don't dismiss them. The only certainty here is Polian in a 2007 interview.

The other problem is that they are all using the same language to describe a player who was not going to drop past the 5th pick in the first round as they would describe a scrub QB slated to be drafted in the 5th round.

Everyone is the article would have drafted Manning in the first round. The only question was Leaf or perhaps overwhelming team need elsewhere (Woodson).

Agreed. It struck me that you could use those same quotes for either article:
"Manning came with lots of reservations"; or
"Manning came with greatness written all over him."

[red]

i like how he talks about how drafting a qb in the first hasn't had as many busts as they did a decade ago

then he talks about how sanchez, tannehill and locker somehow aren't busts

he also mentions bradford as a non bust, even though there is some talk in st louis that they should spend their high pick on a new franchise QB because bradford isn't cutting it

and no mention at all about weeden, gabbert, tebow or ponder

[woodbuck27]

i like how he talks about how drafting a qb in the first hasn't had as many busts as they did a decade ago

then he talks about how sanchez, tannehill and locker somehow aren't busts

he also mentions bradford as a non bust, even though there is some talk in st louis that they should spend their high pick on a new franchise QB because bradford isn't cutting it

and no mention at all about weeden, gabbert, tebow or ponder

Ryan Tannehill ( IMO lots wrong with this fella), Jake Locker (injury prone) and Sam Bradford (development and coming off injury) are all looking weak.

The 2014 season will be huge for all three of those QB's.

The rest you mention >>> BUSTS!

GO PACK GO !

[smuggler]

Bradford isn't a bust, but he's never going to be elite imo.

[red]

Bradford isn't a bust, but he's never going to be elite imo.

and for the #1 overall pick, thats a bust

7 of the next 8 guys drafted have been pro bowlers, bradford has not

his career numbers are downright pedestrian

[Guiness]

i like how he talks about how drafting a qb in the first hasn't had as many busts as they did a decade ago

then he talks about how sanchez, tannehill and locker somehow aren't busts

he also mentions bradford as a non bust, even though there is some talk in st louis that they should spend their high pick on a new franchise QB because bradford isn't cutting it

and no mention at all about weeden, gabbert, tebow or ponder

I think he did say he was talking about single digit picks, Tebow and Weedon don't fit into that category. He also said the bust rate was down to 33%, but only listed the non-busts. I don't think that part of the article had much wrong with it.

Bradford though...he's a bit of an Albatross for St-L as the last 'big money' rookie QB. With 2 years and $34M left on his contract it's going to be tough negotiating to extend him. That $17M cap charge for a mid-level QB is made even worse by the fact that QBs drafted since him make about a quarter of that. If it can't be reasonably done, we might see the Rams absorbing the dead money, reported to be $7M.


7 of the next 8 guys drafted have been pro bowlers, bradford has not

2009 was a good draft. 7 of the top 10 picks went to the pro-bowl. 15 of the top 24, including the guys picked on either side of Bulaga.

[woodbuck27]

Bradford isn't a bust, but he's never going to be elite imo.

NOT Officially yet ...but it's getting right there.

[bobblehead]

i like how he talks about how drafting a qb in the first hasn't had as many busts as they did a decade ago

then he talks about how sanchez, tannehill and locker somehow aren't busts

he also mentions bradford as a non bust, even though there is some talk in st louis that they should spend their high pick on a new franchise QB because bradford isn't cutting it

and no mention at all about weeden, gabbert, tebow or ponder

I think if you analyze your post you will conclude that bust has a lot to do with the organization that drafted the player. Washington is a hot mess and RGIII is looking bustish. I think the hiring of Gruden is the best move that rich playboy has made since he bought the club.

As for Bradford, I think he has had 3 different OC's in his 4 years (and got hurt this year). He would be a guy I want to sign if the Rams let him loose (if no one thinks he has "it")