Bob McGinn on Vernon Davis

[motife]

Draft Preview: Wide receivers, tight ends
Davis considered top tight-end prospect ever
Posted: April 24, 2006
On the Packers



Bob McGinn
E-MAIL

Green Bay - A lot of tight ends have entered the National Football League over the years but it probably can be said that none of them ever has had more ability than Vernon Davis.

Longtime scouts said Davis' workout at the combine was the best that they had ever seen by a tight end. It would be one thing if Davis was only a marginal performer, but at Maryland he was a good to very good player. And his character and work habits are regarded as beyond reproach.

"There's absolutely nothing not to like about the guy," Chicago Bears GM Jerry Angelo said. "(Kellen) Winslow, (Tony) Gonzalez, (Jeremy) Shockey had pretty good speed when they came out, but nobody put up these kinds of numbers. Nobody. So he's got special talent, and he's a good blocker. You can build an offense around him."

Advertisement

Scouts were eager to see Davis two months ago in Indianapolis. As a third-year junior just having declared a year early, Davis had to fill in a lot of blanks on his résumé.

Beforehand, some personnel people guessed he'd measure about 6 feet 2 inches. When Davis was announced at 6-3¼ and 254 pounds, his size no longer could be used against him.

Here are his workout numbers:

• A 40-yard dash of 4.38 seconds.

• A vertical jump of 42 inches.

• A standing broad jump of 10 feet 8 inches.

• Thirty-three repetitions of 225 pounds on the bench press.

• And a score of 20 on the 50-question Wonderlic intelligence test, just about the league average.

Angelo, in the personnel business for 27 years, couldn't remember a better class of tight ends. Bill Polian, president of the Indianapolis Colts, said tight end was the best position in this draft.

Despite the depth of talent, Davis' numbers put his peers to shame. The best efforts by the others were a 4.54 40 (Western Michigan's Tony Scheffler) a 37-inch vertical jump (UCLA's Marcedes Lewis), a 9-10 broad jump (Lewis) and 32 reps on the bench (Michigan's Tim Massaquoi).

Now compare Davis' performance to that of some of the other leading tight ends in the last 20 or so years.

Winslow, 2004: 6-4, 249, 4.58, 33½, 10-1, 24 (Wonderlic of 12).

Shockey, 2002: 6-4½, 255, 4.59, 33, 10-0, no bench press (Wonderlic of 16).

Gonzalez, 1997: 6-4, 242, 4.81, 33½, 9-8, no bench press (Wonderlic of 12).

Shannon Sharpe, 1990: 6-1½, 221, 4.66, 34, 10-2, no bench press (Wonderlic unavailable).

Keith Jackson, 1984: 6-2½, 249, 4.69, 29, no broad jump or bench press (Wonderlic of 21).

Research from the last 20 years showed that the next-best workout was turned in two years ago by Ben Watson, who went to New England on the 32nd pick. His numbers were 6-3½, 258, 4.50, 35½, 10-3, 34 (Wonderlic of 41). After an injury-wrecked rookie season he started to come on in ’05.
"(Davis) is an explosive athlete but I won't ever put all-time on anybody," said Ozzie Newsome, the GM of the Baltimore Ravens and a Hall of Fame tight end for the Cleveland Browns. "They put all-time on Kellen Winslow and he has yet to play a down. There's too many things that can happen."

Given that Davis is rated head and shoulders above everyone else, the Journal Sentinel polled 21 personnel people on the next-best tight end. Lewis drew 10 votes, followed by Georgia's Leonard Pope with 4½, Colorado's Joe Klopfenstein with 4 and Notre Dame's Anthony Fasano with 2½.

It probably can be said that Pope, at 6-7¾, is the tallest tight end at the combine since Zach Hilton (6-7¾) signed with New Orleans as a free agent in 2003. At their pro days, however, Pope was measured at 6-7 7/8 and Hilton was 6-7 3/8.
As plentiful as the supply of tight ends with starting ability is, the list of capable wide receivers is equally as barren.

"You might get as good a guy in the fourth round as you would in the first," Polian said. "What's up high isn't terrific."

Twelve of 20 scouts tabbed Ohio State's Santonio Holmes as the best of the bunch, six picked Florida's Chad Jackson and two liked Miami's Sinorice Moss.

When scouts were asked to list their top three in order (a first-place vote was worth three points, etc), the results showed Holmes with 49 points, Jackson with 37, Moss with 17, Western Michigan's Greg Jennings and Oregon's Demetrius Williams with 7 apiece and Notre Dame's Maurice Stovall with 3.

[mraynrand]

"You can build an offense around him"


Winslow - not only was he drafted 6th, but a seondround pick was traded away by cleveland to move up to get him. BUT:

Winslow, 2004: 6-4, 249, 4.58, 33½, 10-1, 24 (Wonderlic of 12). - That Wonderlic of 12 led him to think he could ride his bike like an idiot in a parking lot. Guy thought he was indestructable - a fatuous ass obviously influenced by his arrogant race-baiting father. Listening to V. Davis at the combine, you can tell the guy has his head on straight. Probably won't end his career in a hot tub with a high schooler.

"You can build an offense around him"

[Scott Campbell]

I WANT VD!

[MJZiggy]

Go see Michael Vick.

[Rastak]

I WANT VD!Not many people can say that.... :D

[Pack0514]

The thing I want to know from that whole article is what was Shannon Sharpe's wonderlic score..... from listening to that guy speak on CBS, I bet it was in the single digits. He is a complete fool.

Anyway, not to get off subject, I think Davis has great potetial. I wouldnt mind see him in green and gold if we traded down. I think #5 is too high for him though.

[Fritz]

Ugh...let's not get so hung up on the "measurables." How well did he play football in college???

[billy_oliver880]

It would be really interesting to see where they had this guy on the mock draft charts before he did his workout. I would bet that he wasn't nearly as high on the list as he is right now.

[RashanGary]

Acctually if you read the analysis it says Davis had amazing production and for those of us who have been follwoign the draft all year long know he was considered a top 10 player before the combine.


Vernon Davis is the most physically dominate TE to ever play the game. He makes A.J. Hawk look like a little girl.

[motife]

Ugh...let's not get so hung up on the "measurables." How well did he play football in college???

You can say the same about Mario Williams. Not an outstanding player in college. Was ranked 4th best defensive player in the ACC.

[RashanGary]

Great point Mot,

GM's have been doing this for a long time and they know that you cannot teach physical dominance. Mario has it. Davis has it. Hawk is above average.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Draft Preview: Wide receivers, tight ends
Davis considered top tight-end prospect ever


Hah! Tony Mandarich was called the greatest Offensive line prospect ever!


I would be happy if the team took Davis @ #5, the offense needs drastic help.

[Harlan Huckleby]

GM's have been doing this for a long time and they know that you cannot teach physical dominance. Mario has it. Davis has it. Hawk is above average.

I'd rather see Mario or Davis than Hawk for this reason.

[Partial]

Acctually if you read the analysis it says Davis had amazing production and for those of us who have been follwoign the draft all year long know he was considered a top 10 player before the combine.


Vernon Davis is the most physically dominate TE to ever play the game. He makes A.J. Hawk look like a little girl.


Collins, the reason you keep getting attacked over this is because every statement you make starts with "ananalysts said" "the highlight film I watched shows"

you don't watch any real games. watching available footage on youtube doesn't tell the whole tale. He didn't dominate in college. He didn't come close to. He's OVERRATED.

[RashanGary]

Partial,

Bob McGinn and the scouts he surveyed just said the same thing. I said he's the most physically dominate TE ever and that is what every scout agree's upon. I don't create Vernon's phyical measurements, I just read them. The fact is; he is the most physically gifted TE ever. That can not be argued unless your definitino of better is slower, weaker and less explosive.

[swede]

Partial,

Bob McGinn and the scouts he surveyed just said the same thing. I said he's the most physically dominate TE ever and that is what every scout agree's upon. I don't create Vernon's phyical measurements, I just read them. The fact is; he is the most physically gifted TE ever. That can not be argued unless your definitino of better is slower, weaker and less explosive.

Bing!

One point to Nick.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The fact is that Hawk and Davis could both end up being great players, but you don't have to tear one down to prop the other one up. Saying Davis is an amazing athlete, but guys like Hawk can be found at the Y is just plan ludicrous. On the other hand, praising Hawk's production and stating that Davis is all measurables is ludicrous also. He did have 800 yards receiving as a college TE last year. Personally, I prefer Hawk. I think the grades are similar. When they are, go with the HUGE need and not the position that you have probably an above average starter with an above average backup.

[RashanGary]

I can understand that for sure Harv....

I go back and forth for the same reason.....

[b bulldog]

Do you think that Hawk could cover Davis?

[b bulldog]

best scenario is Davis at 5 and a LB in round two.

[RashanGary]

Ferguson/Ryans/Walker coming back is best case for next year IMO.

[b bulldog]

i AGREE IF 84 COMES BACK, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST.

[RashanGary]

Ferguson/Ryans/Maurice Drew/Woodson/Pickett/Manuel/Walker

That is just an example of some of the things that could happen. If those things happen I would expect a playoff birth.

[b bulldog]

Drew in round three or four although I like Calhoun muc h better.

[Partial]

Why do you guys all want ferguson? We have two upper echelon tackles.

Give me Davin Joseph at Gaurd over anyone switching positions from tackle to guard any day of the week.

That, paired with AJ Hawk gives a much better combo.

[Bretsky]

Why do you guys all want ferguson? We have two upper echelon tackles.

Give me Davin Joseph at Gaurd over anyone switching positions from tackle to guard any day of the week.

That, paired with AJ Hawk gives a much better combo.

agree

[RashanGary]

Because Ferguson is a better player according to every single scout that has been asked.

[RashanGary]

Why would you take Morgan over Reynolds? We needed a DE and had some pretty good LB's.

Because when you take the lesser player you look back and say "We could have had that probowl star but instead we have this guy"

[Partial]

ferguson is a better play at a position of strength on our team. He wouldn't start. It would be a waste of a pick. It would make ZERO sense to have everyone shift positions.

It'd make more sense to take Davin Joseph at 5 to play guard rather than try and finagle a guard out of a square of tackles. That just seems stupid. You'd get better results with Joseph by far and away.

So why not take Joseph in the second, and add Hawk, rather than simply adding Joseph?

[Bretsky]

Because Ferguson is a better player according to every single scout that has been asked.

I've read some pre-draft grades; scale of 1-100. Ferguson was rated higher, but it was like 96 to 95. I won't argue he's better, but difference is minimal. I'm like partial in that I feel that

Hawk and Joseph > Ferguson and D'Quell Jackson

[Bretsky]

Why would you take Morgan over Reynolds? We needed a DE and had some pretty good LB's.

Because when you take the lesser player you look back and say "We could have had that probowl star but instead we have this guy"

Most scouts had a solid difference between those two; most scouts have very little difference between Ferguson and Hawk. Kudos for the comparison though.

[Partial]

are you sure you don't want to draft Davis and play him at guard since he's such a great athlete that can play a wealth of positions? :lol:

I kid because I care

[MJZiggy]

Why not if we're gonna have a cornerback playing WR?

[Bretsky]

Why not if we're gonna have a cornerback playing WR?

A healthy Woodson may have been our 2nd best WR at the end of last year

[RashanGary]

But who are scouts to argue with the pioneer who wanted to star Kitna over Palmer.

[Bretsky]

But who are scouts to argue with the pioneer who wanted to star Kitna over Palmer.

? I have no idea what this means.

[Partial]

But who are scouts to argue with the pioneer who wanted to star Kitna over Palmer.

are you referring to my icon? I am the #1 member of the Palmer fan club...

i think Kitna's money, too (in a trent dilfer sort of way) ((as money as trent dilfer can be))

[RashanGary]

Really Bretsky,

Find one draft source that has Ferguson listed below Hawk. If it's such a close call you're bound to find one or two who have Hawk listed higher.

[Partial]

It doesn't matter what they're rated. Why would you draft a guy at 5 to play out of position or on the bench?

That is RETARDED.

If they want to make the oline better at 5, they'd be better off adding an actual guard rather than converting a tackle to a guard.

Remember when they tried that last year? Didn't work out so well. What reason do you have to believe it would work better second time around?

Why not get an equally talented prospect at a greater position of need?

[Bretsky]

Really Bretsky,

Find one draft source that has Ferguson listed below Hawk. If it's such a close call you're bound to find one or two who have Hawk listed higher.

WHAT part of this was confusing

"I won't argue he's better, but difference is minimal"

[swede]

Really Bretsky,

Find one draft source that has Ferguson listed below Hawk. If it's such a close call you're bound to find one or two who have Hawk listed higher.

Well, remember that the one draft source that counts here is stored just under that furry white scalp belonging to TT.

He may piss us all off.

[Deputy Nutz]

At this point, Hawk would absolutely own Davis on the actual field of play. But let me tella, you go to the track, and have Davis run that forty, and he might get Hawk by a step, maybe two if he is lucky.

[RashanGary]

That would have been pretty stupid to draft Randy Moss when we just signed Freeman to a big deal and had a DE sitting right there.

Do you guys know why people study history? Because if you don't know what happened you are doomed to repeat it.

I don't remember the Packers ever drafting a star player and saying "Oh shoot, we shouldn't have picked this probowl star player. Can we just trade him for a 2nd round gaurd because it's almost the same thing." Conversly, I do remember quite a few times that we passed up a star at a position that was not needed only to look back and say "We should have grabbed the star player" Thompson has been quoted as saying this is a common trend and something he is not intending on repeating.

Hawk and Ferguson do not get almost the same grade. EVERY single scout quoted and draft service printed has Ferguson a solid notch above Hawk. Why would you take a lesser player when a guy better than him is on the board?

[Chubbyhubby]

I see the Pack with 2 choices when they pick at 5. If they go Defense then Hawk if Offense then Davis.

Davis could be 49ers pick at 6 if we don't nab him. I now have a feeling with Favre in the fold and we addressed D this off season that we will Pick up Davis cause he can be a WR option as well as TE. He is a big target for Brett down the middle in traffic.

This would solve our WR problem on offense, a big play threat down the middle which we lack,

[Partial]

because a player on the field does a hell of a lot more than a player on the bench.

[swede]

I have no problem with anyone arguing that DBrick is nearly perfect at Left Tackle and should be rated higher than Hawk. If we take him we all know why it happened; he'd have been the best damn player there in TT's mind.


I just simply hate linemen being taken first. Hate it. John Michaels, Ross Verba, ugh.

[Partial]

The best player every year and every round will probably result in a really unbalanced team. There has to be a balance. AJ Hawk is a sure-fire prospect. He is as good of a prospect as any one before him at his position, his position is just less important. Thus, the lower number.

My thoughts are take the man and fuck debrick.

Debrick wouldn't even play this year. No way does he step in and beat out Cliffy. A #5 pick thats not a QB riding the pine is ridiculous.

[Deputy Nutz]

Taking an offensive linemen with the top ten picks is fucking stupid in my opinion. You can create a dynamic offensive line with low round picks. Look at the Packers line in 2003 and 2004.

Clifton = 2nd round pick
Wahle = 2nd round pick
Flanigan = 3rd round pick
Rivera = 4th round pick
Tauscher = 7th round pick

Not one of them was taken in the first round, especially not one was taken with the fifth overall pick.

[swede]

The best player every year and every round will probably result in a really unbalanced team. There has to be a balance. AJ Hawk is a sure-fire prospect. He is as good of a prospect as any one before him at his position, his position is just less important. Thus, the lower number.

My thoughts are take the man and fuck debrick.

Debrick wouldn't even play this year. No way does he step in and beat out Cliffy. A #5 pick thats not a QB riding the pine is ridiculous.

I agree with your first thought there, Partial. So I wonder how GM's organize their charts as they try to be objective and yet sometimes know that the right thing to do isn't on the chart.

[Bretsky]

That would have been pretty stupid to draft Randy Moss when we just signed Freeman to a big deal and had a DE sitting right there.

Do you guys know why people study history? Because if you don't know what happened you are doomed to repeat it.

I don't remember the Packers ever drafting a star player and saying "Oh shoot, we shouldn't have picked this probowl star player. Can we just trade him for a 2nd round gaurd because it's almost the same thing." Conversly, I do remember quite a few times that we passed up a star at a position that was not needed only to look back and say "We should have grabbed the star player" Thompson has been quoted as saying this is a common trend and something he is not intending on repeating.

Hawk and Ferguson do not get almost the same grade. EVERY single scout quoted and draft service printed has Ferguson a solid notch above Hawk. Why would you take a lesser player when a guy better than him is on the board?

This is a blog of junk with misleading statements. Wolf skippped Moss for character reasons. Don't try to compare that with passing over Ferguson for Hawk. Sure I'd take Ferguson over the Guard, if Tauscher wouldn't be too pissed off at moving......but TT being quoted with all the best available crap and he's not going to repeat old mistakes is something any GM would come in and say.

And look at scouts.com; they currently rate Ferguson as the 3rd best player and Hawk as #5. So where's the solid notch ?? I can post site after site that have these two ranked closely.

[Bretsky]

Leinart is rated by some above DF; do we take him too if he's best available ?

[Tarlam!]

Leinart is rated by some above DF; do we take him too if he's best available ?

Yes, we should. I am not sure about Young or Cutler, though.

[MJZiggy]

Moot?

Jets | V. Davis thinks the Jets will pick him
Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:42:09 -0700

Mark Cannizzaro, of the New York Post, reports Maryland TE Vernon Davis thinks the New York Jets will select him in the first round of the NFL Draft. "I think I'm going to the Jets," Davis told The Post Wednesday, April 27. "If I'd say anything, I'd say the Jets will draft me. I'm pretty sure, if nothing crazy happens, it'll be the Jets." Asked if he believes he can come in and be an immediate impact player, Davis said, "Oh, I know I can, right away."


What does that do to the mocks?

[Tarlam!]

I would love Davis to be gone. But, I would prefer the 3 QBs and that OT to be gone even more. I don't want that "Best player" shit landing us a QB or an OT.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tarlam, I don't see why u are satisfied with our offensive lineup.

[Tarlam!]

Tarlam, I don't see why u are satisfied with our offensive lineup.

I don't wanna QB or OT with our first pick, so this msut equate to satisfaction with our total offense?

Should I type a little softer around you today, HH?

[RashanGary]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Davis go before Hawk. He's bigger, faster, stronger, more explosive and pretty much everything else you could possibly think of.

[SkinBasket]

And look at scouts.com; they currently rate Ferguson as the 3rd best player and Hawk as #5. So where's the solid notch ?? I can post site after site that have these two ranked closely.

Good points B.
NC, How the fuck do you propose that you, or any one else, rank a LB and an OT head-to-head? What is this "solid notch" crapheap? My cock is a "solid notch" above my ass, but that doesn't mean it's any more important. Apples and oranges. Cocks and asses. Get my drift?

[RashanGary]

We might as well not compare players to eachother because it's impossible. Why don't you go feed that to all the GM's and scouts who get paid a lot of money to do exactly that.

How can you even begin to compare Reggie Bush to Chad Greenway? Apples to Oranges...Cocks to Asses..You get my drift

[RashanGary]

Trust me Skin basket there are ways to form educated opinions that project each players impact on the game. There is a reason Bush goes before Winston Justice and Hawk goes before DeAngelo Williams. It's not a direct comparision but rather an educated opinion which projects what player will make the biggest impact on the field in relation to the other players.

Just about every reputable source has D'brick rated above Hawk....Yes it is possible to do that because they all have Calhoun rated below Hawk as well. Maybe it's just by chance that most look similar.

[SkinBasket]

Trust me Skin basket there are ways to form educated opinions that project each players impact on the game. There is a reason Bush goes before Winston Justice and Hawk goes before DeAngelo Williams. It's not a direct comparision but rather an educated opinion which projects what player will make the biggest impact on the field in relation to the other players.

Just about every reputable source has D'brick rated above Hawk....Yes it is possible to do that because they all have Calhoun rated below Hawk as well. Maybe it's just by chance that most look similar.

Your comparisons fail because you aren't talking the best players at each of those positions, which you are with Ferg and Hawk. Anyone can say that the top LB is better than the 5th best RB or the best RB is better than the 2nd or 3rd OL.

As far as "educated opinions that project players impact on the game," what is that? A crystal ball? Every year the draft is litered with busts and surprises. Trying to stack up two players like Ferg and Hawk and claimnig one will have more "impact" than the other is silly and preposterous.

[RashanGary]

Bush -vs- Hawk

That is the best RB vs best LB

You can project the impact that each player will have on his team and Bush's projected impact is higher than Hawk's. Ferguson's projected impact is higher than Hawk's.

It's not dicks to asses. It's the projected impact of one player on the game -vs- the projected impact of the other.

That is why QB's are more important than LB's and LB's are more important than Punters. It's not how good B.J. Sander was in relation to the other punters because if you use that retards rational you could easily justify taking him in the 3rd round. It's how much Sander could impact a game -vs- the other players still available. You don't cross off every player because you only want punters or linebackers.

Just because each year has busts and surprises doesn't mean you don't do your best to evaluate the talent available.

[RashanGary]

I'm not being a dick here Skinbasket but I had high regard for your opinion mostly because you've been witty and clever but when you acctually speak out on an issue, you reveal yourself as nothing more than color commentary.

[SkinBasket]

I'm not being a dick here Skinbasket but I had high regard for your opinion mostly because you've been witty and clever but when you acctually speak out on an issue, you reveal yourself as nothing more than color commentary.

Funny that, I was just thinking that whenever you speak out on an "issue" you reveal that you simply repeat whatever you heard on ESPN this morning.

You're the one who made exagerrated comparisons about value. I'm telling you that when it comes to the top players in ANY draft, determining their "impact" is not about some Madden Football formula that you and others seem to rely on.

Or maybe you would like to divulge your secret formula that has Fergy a "solid notch" above Hawk? Then maybe I cuold understand how it is you're so fucking confident that he's so much better. Until then you're still talking apples and oranges, or in this case, dicks and asses.

[SkinBasket]

Bush -vs- Hawk

That is the best RB vs best LB

You can project the impact that each player will have on his team and Bush's projected impact is higher than Hawk's. Ferguson's projected impact is higher than Hawk's.

It's not dicks to asses. It's the projected impact of one player on the game -vs- the projected impact of the other.

That is why QB's are more important than LB's and LB's are more important than Punters. It's not how good B.J. Sander was in relation to the other punters because if you use that retards rational you could easily justify taking him in the 3rd round. It's how much Sander could impact a game -vs- the other players still available. You don't cross off every player because you only want punters or linebackers.

Just because each year has busts and surprises doesn't mean you don't do your best to evaluate the talent available.


Balls, I missed this one.

Tell me what makes you so sure that Bush will have more impact on any given team than Hawk. Because he plays a "skill" position? Because he scored points, whereas Hawk plays defense? Because he's black and Hawk is white? Because Bush played on the left coast and not in the midwest?

No one is "crossing off players" except for you. You have this notion that there is some measurable named "impact" that is wholly independant from anything other than the player himself. I am only asserting that that is retarded, and by proxy, you are retarded. You still haven't told us why Brick is a "solid notch" above Hawk, or what the fuck that even means, which is after all, where we started this sordid affair.

So please. Teach us. Tell us how it is that Ferguson will have so much more "impact" than Hawk on whichever team he goes to. Or how Bush will have more "impact" in Houston than any other player would have. Please, look into your crystal ball that reflects Kipers face and tell me. Defend your goddamn argument and explain, even vaguely, how Ferguson is a "solid notch" above Hawk. Please. Pretty please. With sugar. You told me that, and I quote, "You can project the impact that each player will have on his team." So do it.

[RashanGary]

Skin,

I'm not even going to explain to you how GM's and Scouts grade players because I don't know everything and I don't really care to share what I do know with an angry little smart ass like yourself. What I will say is that all teams have draft boards and they are largely based on the projected impact of the players involved. It is a generally accepted process of the draft. If you don't believe that, it is on you to explain why not. Also, any further explaination would be wasted on you if you don't already understand.


Thanks for playing.

[esoxx]

I don't want to get in between here but I think Nick is basically saying TT comes from the school of taking the best player available, regardless of need.

For another cock and ass comparison, there once was this team called the Portland Trailblazers who held the #2 pick in the '84 draft. They were in need of a center. Prior to the draft, one of the Blazer's higher ups spoke with Bobby Knight about his thoughts on who to take. Knight said "Michael Jordan." Mr. Blazer responded that they didn't need a guard, they needed a center. Knight replied "then have Jordan play center."

We all know how that turned out.

So, take the player you have rated the highest and good things will happen. Or, you could do it the "Sherman Way" and lock in on a player b/c you need a DT (Washington, Lee, Peterson), a punter, a CB (Carroll/Thomas) etc... and disaster lurks.

[SkinBasket]

Hey, I understand the whole "take the best player available" thing, despite being an angry, smart ass, color commentary guy. All I'm asking is that Nick back up his statement that Fergy is a "solid notch" above Hawk. I can only assume that since he won't elaborate past, "well that's just the way it is", he can't.

I want to know why a dumb ass like me shouldn't be disappointed if the Pack takes an OT instead of Hawk, or any of the other number of players that would be a better fit and still have as much "impact" next year.

That's all I'm asking. It's not much to educate a fucktard like me, is it?

[Deputy Nutz]

God Your such a Fucktard!!!!

How can an offensive lineman have a bigger impact on a game than a linebacker?

How can a linebacker have a bigger impact on a game than an offensive lineman?

The most important thing in drafting a player, get this, if the player has a fit or a spot on the team. If the player fits the team concept. Player need has a lot to do wiith this. Don't think it does not. Some teams mask their needs quite well. Or they rank players based on both value and need. There is no need for a starting offensive tackle in Green Bay. Heck their isn't a need for a backup tackle in Green Bay. So there would be very little value in taking Ferguson. There is a need for a project tackle, one that might have great athleticsm, but might need to shore up some of his technique and is in need of some solid coaching. The Packers could meet that need later in the draft.

Don't think that team need does not play a factor in a GM setting up his draft board. It is simply one of the top three factors in value.

Even last year with selecting Aaron Rodgers, sooner or later there was going to be a need at QB, and selecting Rodgers or a QB two years before Favre retires still meets the need for a starting QB in 2007. Does it not? QB is a position especially for rookies, where holding a clip board and learning a system is more valuable to a certain extent than playing a single down in a players first couple years.

A player is only valuable to a franchise if there is a spot available for that player. Whether it is starting at offensive tackle or defensive tackle. If there is a need at back up tackle then take a player that has value there. Ferguson is over valued if he is drafted by the Packers as a back up tackle for the next three years, it is a wasted pick, because he will have little impact for close to a half a decade as a back up tackle.

The Packers still have two holes at outside linebacker. That need can also be met with a value pick in AJ Hawk.

The Packers have one pro bowl caliber TE, and one progressive tight end in Lee. There is not much of a need for a starting TE in Vernon Davis, but there is a need for an impact offensive weapon in Green Bay. There is where the value lies with Davis, not neccessarily at Tight End but on the offense in general.

The Packers have two starting defensive ends in KGB and Aarron Kampman. Both are extremely well paid. The have a project in Montgomery, but yet due to KGBs lack of size it seems like another stout defensive end is needed. Williams would have value here, but would he be slightly overvalued? Would he get the snaps that he needed to be considered a number one selection? There is value here, and there is a need here, but not to the point to where the Packers only have one starting defensive end on the roster. Would there be more value in selecting a player like Tamba Hali in the second round, and having him rotate with KGB? In my opinion, yes.

[SkinBasket]

Hey, I understand the whole "take the best player available" thing, despite being an angry, smart ass, color commentary guy.

Guess I forgot that I'm "little" as well.

Thanks for the argument of why Nick is full of crap, nutz - since I'm such a football dumbass and all. Now if Nick would just shine some of his genius upon me, maybe one day, one bright wonderful day, I can finally understand the game.

Nick, to be fair, maybe you're just not understanding the question. We went from this:


Hawk and Ferguson do not get almost the same grade. EVERY single scout quoted and draft service printed has Ferguson a solid notch above Hawk. Why would you take a lesser player when a guy better than him is on the board?

Instead of answering the question of "How is Ferguson a 'solid notch' better than Hawk?" you proceeded to swap the the phrase "solid notch" with "bigger impact" and talk vaguely about how GMs compare players.

All I'm asking is that you defend your goddamn position instead of hiding behind insults and such stunning evidence as, "It is a generally accepted process" and "Ferguson's projected impact is higher than Hawk's."

So I'll ask one more time: Please, explain how Ferguson a 'solid notch' better than Hawk?