Bob McGinn on Vernon Davis

[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?