Mayock's consistently been one of those guys who thinks offensive line is the way to go unless you get an Andrew Luck at QB. Why is his word gospel again?

Mike Mayock basically comes off like a babbling boob unless he's pointing out DB technique and he played ****ing safety so I'd hope he understands that much.

The only thing he remotely has is good sources so he knows who teams are likely to pick but that doesn't make his personal opinions worth a shit.

Well he was ripping Geno's work ethic, but everything else I heard said Geno's not a great prospect but he is a hard worker. So that part of this guy's evaluation goes against everything else I had heard on him. McShay isn't that high on Geno but he went out of his way on nfl live to talk about how good Geno's work ethic is. The line about not commanding respect from teammates just seems like a low blow. I doubt Geno's teammates or coaches are going behind his back and ripping him like that. And again I'm not a Geno lover in the slightest, I think it's absurd how much people worship him on this site.

Says the guy named "Alex Smith Dynasty"

Talk to me again about unwarranted worship, please.

Now, now SNR; we could be looking at yet another Chiefs QB "Dynasty of Suck" lasting three to four years, so his username has validity, yes.
Posted via Mobile Device

I think it's definitely fair to be skeptical of his take about work ethic and teammate respect based on other reports to the contrary, but I don't think it's fair to jump to any conclusions about his motives or that he's making things up. I think it's far more likely that he has sources telling him these things and that there are, in fact, mixed opinions about Geno's leadership qualities and work ethic.

And you're right. It is absurd how much people worship him here.

More racist analysis and reporting about a black QB (that happens to corroborate what Nolan Nawrocki said about him before he was drafted): Cam Newton's Leadership Skills Questioned by Steve Smith After Loss to Giants

Still waiting, BryanBusby.

How can you be okay with people being skeptical about his take and at the same time not be okay with people "jumping to conclusions" about his motives ? It would seem obvious if the guy is making things up the next reason would be to ask why ? What are his motives? You cant be skeptical and not wonder about his motives.

Because I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that he's making things up. I think it's fair to believe that someone else is getting better information from their sources than he is from his (although I don't necessarily think that's the right conclusion to draw), but I think you have to assume he's basing his takes on real information not on imagination. The guy isn't an internet nobody, he's a guy with a pretty long and solid track record.

I think his motives are to get it right so that when all is said and done and Geno Smith's career is over, people can look back at his scouting report and say Nawrocki really nailed that one.

I get what you're saying. I dont know enough about the guy personally to assume his take was based on racial bias. The reason why people are asking that question is because NO ONE ELSE said these things about Geno. Nothing leaked out of WV, no coaches brought this up, no one who scouted him said that either. The guy offered no reference of were this information came from-it appears as if he made it up...and if he did the natural assumption is to ask why.

Look at his review of Matt Barkley, who is widely considered the #2 Prospect behind Geno. His review is glowing in comparison to Geno. The majority of it is positive. There are even built in excuses for Barkley (poor offensive line etc) yet no mention of Geno's shittastic O-Line and Defense and lack of a running game.

WVU had Austin, Baily and Geno. THAT'S IT. Yet he wants to single out the K-state game as the moment of truth for Geno and makes no note of the awful play of his defense.

But Barkley gets a built in excuse?

That is bullshit and it's biased

Here is the funniest thing:

What's Barkley's #1 question mark?

His Arm strength, right?

It's not even mentioned as a negative for Barkley.

And we're suppose to take this guys seriously? It REEKS of favoritism.

It's awful. Geno gets a laundry list of negatives, Barkely, the #2 Prospect gets a few sentences.

Yeah...i smell some favoritism and some Bullshit here.

The guy clearly has some ulterior motives. I'm not going to pretend i know what those motives are, but it's pretty ****ing blatant when you compare the reports side by side.

1. It's not surprising that his critique of Barkley is a little better than that of Smith since he gave him a higher grade.

2. Despite that higher grade, he doesn't treat Barkley with kid gloves. You're imagining that. Read these negatives again and tell me where he's making excuses:

3. Doesn't mention arm strength? Go back to 2. and read it again.

4. I don't know why you're trying so hard to see ulterior motives, but it seems to be screwing up your reading ability.

Not quick-eyed

OMG, Barkley's got slow eyes too!

Funny thing is Mayock has always been taken as the best TV guy around here. Until now.

There is some reason all the top teams are scrambling to shuffle average journeymen, and there is no smoke at all about anyone interested in moving up. Maybe Nolan has it right.