Ouch: PFW Evaluates Geno, Barkley

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Oh go bang your old lady; she probably needs it.
Posted via Mobile Device

[RealSNR]

Stephen A. Smith nailed it. I didn't like his blubbering later on talking about "Affecting the lives and careers of young kids blah blah." Geno Smith will be fine, and Cam Newton certainly has turned out fine. Nolan Nawrocki hasn't destroyed any careers or dreams as far as I know.

The guy simply can't write that shit about the top QB in a draft class without investigating shit himself. He didn't even ****ing meet Cam Newton, and I have no idea if he met Geno Smith. If he didn't meet Geno Smith, the dude's a fraud and should be called out for the way he does these reports.

And knowing what we know about Cam Newton, it wouldn't surprise me to see Geno Smith have a successful NFL career. This Nawrocki clown can keep up with these psycho-analytical reports all he wants, but when he keeps getting them wrong and barely even touches the football side on the "Negatives" column, then he's a ****ing hack. I don't care how well respected he is or how many connections he has. He's not a real journalist.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by SNR

Stephen A. Smith nailed it. I didn't like his blubbering later on talking about "Affecting the lives and careers of young kids blah blah." Geno Smith will be fine, and Cam Newton certainly has turned out fine. Nolan Nawrocki hasn't destroyed any careers or dreams as far as I know.

The guy simply can't write that shit about the top QB in a draft class without investigating shit himself. He didn't even ****ing meet Cam Newton, and I have no idea if he met Geno Smith. If he didn't meet Geno Smith, the dude's a fraud and should be called out for the way he does these reports.

And knowing what we know about Cam Newton, it wouldn't surprise me to see Geno Smith have a successful NFL career. This Nawrocki clown can keep up with these psycho-analytical reports all he wants, but when he keeps getting them wrong and barely even touches the football side on the "Negatives" column, then he's a ****ing hack. I don't care how well respected he is or how many connections he has. He's not a real journalist.

I don't know how much of this is from Stephen A. Smith and how much of it is yours, but either way, did you read the quote I posted from Nawrocki about RGIII? It looks like he nailed that one. None of these guys are going to get everything right, but it's ridiculous to say he got something wrong and therefore he's not a journalist. And so far, I haven't seen any strong evidence that he's gotten much wrong, even though I know he inevitably must miss on some of it.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't know how much of this is from Stephen A. Smith and how much of it is yours, but either way, did you read the quote I posted from Nawrocki about RGIII? It looks like he nailed that one. None of these guys are going to get everything right, but it's ridiculous to say he got something wrong and therefore he's not a journalist. And so far, I haven't seen any strong evidence that he's gotten much wrong, even though I know he inevitably must miss on some of it.

You can find out what Stephen A. Smith said. That's why I embedded the video for your convenience.

Also, you COMPLETELY whiffed on my point.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by SNR

You can find out what Stephen A. Smith said. That's why I embedded the video for your convenience.

Also, you COMPLETELY whiffed on my point.

Feel free to clarify your point and help me out.

[Mecca]

Yes, let's take what Mayock said like it means something.

I wonder if he's still busy trying to build a team around Aaron Curry and Robert Ayers you know they are future HOFers according to him.

[RealSNR]

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?

[Mecca]

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.

[patteeu]

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.

[ModSocks]

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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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:

Negatives: Has short arms and average grip strength (student manager was fired for deflating balls). Does not snap it quickly and spiral is not tight. Heavy-footed and cannot improvise or create with his feet. Cannot easily manipulate his arm and throwing platform under duress and the ball dies when he can’t step into it. Does not drive the ball down the field with high RPMs. Not quick-eyed — many throws are pre-determined at the line, and he will hold the ball too long on some progressions. Can be streaky (see Washington). Never beat Stanford’s pro-style defense in four years.

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.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

He clearly uses the O-Line as an excuse in his overview. He compares Barkley to DREW BREES while comparing Geno to Akili Smith. What the **** does Geno have in common with Akili Smith? Comparing him to Akili smith is automatically putting the bust tag on him when he shares nothing in common with Akili aside from his last name and skin color.

What the **** has Matt Barkely ever done to draw comparisons to Drew Brees?

Geno got absolutely destroyed in this review, using very harsh verbage. There isn't anything nearly as harsh in Barkley's review.

There is a reason why this review is so heavily debated. But go ahead and pretend that it's a fair analysis. Go ahead and continue white knighting a guy who has already been proven to be disingenuous in his scouting reports.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

He clearly uses the O-Line as an excuse in his overview. He compares Barkley to DREW BREES while comparing Geno to Akili Smith. What the **** does Geno have in common with Akili Smith? Comparing him to Akili smith is automatically putting the bust tag on him when he shares nothing in common with Akili aside from his last name and skin color.

What the **** has Matt Barkely ever done to draw comparisons to Drew Brees?

Geno got absolutely destroyed in this review, using very harsh verbage. There isn't anything nearly as harsh in Barkley's review.

There is a reason why this review is so heavily debated. But go ahead and pretend that it's a fair analysis. Go ahead and continue white knighting a guy who has already been proven to be disingenuous in his scouting reports.

He hasn't been proven to be disingenuous in his scouting reports. Please stop making things up.

Both Geno and Akili are about the same height. Both Geno and Akili were throwers not runners. Speaking of disingenuous, it's disingenuous for you to say that the only thing they had in common was a last name and skin color.

I get it. You don't like this guy's opinion of Geno Christ, but that doesn't make him a racist. No one should be surprised if he ends up being right about Geno and Barkley. He's been right about both Cam and RGIII so far.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He hasn't been proven to be disingenuous in his scouting reports. Please stop making things up.

Both Geno and Akili are about the same height. Both Geno and Akili were throwers not runners. Speaking of disingenuous, it's disingenuous for you to say that the only thing they had in common was a last name and skin color.

I get it. You don't like this guy's opinion of Geno Christ, but that doesn't make him a racist. No one should be surprised if he ends up being right about Geno and Barkley. He's been right about both Cam and RGIII so far.

Ok, so ripping someone's character when you've never met them is acceptable analysis to you? Nolan got ridiculed for it then, and he's being ridiculed for it now.

at the height comment. Wow......"hey they're the same height! Geno is on the road to bust city"

And it's a pretty far stretch to say he was right about RGII and Cam. He's was right about some stuff, wrong about others. Hell, he's right about some stuff on the Geno analysis imo. His harsh criticisms about his work ethic and character don't seem to jive. Basically declaring him a bust and a collegiate fraud before even stepping onto the field is insane.

And there you go with that embellishment shit again, acting like everyone is a blind Geno homer. Generalize some more please while you completely miss the reason why posters want Geno drafted.

[Sorter]

Not quick-eyed

OMG, Barkley's got slow eyes too!