Even Kiem doesnt think he is a OT

[redskinsfan]

Sure it carries weight. But I also take something that you all seem to want to dismiss.

1. BEST Offensive lineman in the draft
2. Last time I checked we actually needed a guard
3. I would rather a 7-10 year starter at Guard that grades out by most to likely be one of the best at his craft over a situation pass rusher.

4. Im not hung up on the Oh my god you cant draft "this position" that high in the draft because Im more concerned with over all team effect than I am with Kiper grading our draft a success or how often a guy is going to be on sports center.

So, shark, since you're some expert in draft analysis, why don't you submit a guest column to the Post articulating your college scouting ideas or start up a draft service yourself? I think the answer to this question will be pretty illuminating on why your opinion or anyone of the posters' views on this board don't amount to a whole lot.

 

[Sharkinva]

So, shark, since you're some expert in draft analysis, why don't you submit a guest column to the Post articulating your college scouting ideas or start up a draft service yourself? I think the answer to this question will be pretty illuminating on why your opinion or anyone of the posters' views on this board don't amount to a whole lot.

So wait, your assumption is that unless some one actually gets paid to do a craft or skill, they can not possibly be any good at said named craft or skill?? Now thats funny, because I have seen plenty of so called professionals in various job fields that get paid very well that dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. Conversely I have known guys that do normal every day jobs that are more well spoken, and articulate than some of these so called pundits you give so much awe to. I have never claimed to be an expert in draft analysis. What i have said is that most of these guys tend to parrot each other with minor degrees of disagreement this time of year. And its not because they do some awe inspiring job that us poor mortals would have no comprehension of or the intelligence to do. They look at these guys and they give an opinion. Sure it might be slightly more informed than the average fan, but its still an opinion. Whats more enlightening is the fact that these opinions are taken as the gospel, and when they turn out to be wrong (which is more often than you care to admit) its just glossed over if any one calls them on it. You give god powers to GMs and scouts, but remember Vinny who you clown made MILLIONS to run the Skins. Matt Millen.. same deal. They are all making an educated guess, and fueling it with a bit of group think. Thats all really.

As for your question of why dont I start up a guest column or draft service, simply put I dont have the journalism degree that most guest columnists actually do have. But that does not mean I need to accept some one elses assessment when I am perfectly capable of making my own.

 

[redskinsfan]

So wait, your assumption is that unless some one actually gets paid to do a craft or skill, they can not possibly be any good at said named craft or skill?? Now thats funny, because I have seen plenty of so called professionals in various job fields that get paid very well that dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. Conversely I have known guys that do normal every day jobs that are more well spoken, and articulate than some of these so called pundits you give so much awe to. I have never claimed to be an expert in draft analysis. What i have said is that most of these guys tend to parrot each other with minor degrees of disagreement this time of year. And its not because they do some awe inspiring job that us poor mortals would have no comprehension of or the intelligence to do. They look at these guys and they give an opinion. Sure it might be slightly more informed than the average fan, but its still an opinion. Whats more enlightening is the fact that these opinions are taken as the gospel, and when they turn out to be wrong (which is more often than you care to admit) its just glossed over if any one calls them on it. You give god powers to GMs and scouts, but remember Vinny who you clown made MILLIONS to run the Skins. Matt Millen.. same deal. They are all making an educated guess, and fueling it with a bit of group think. Thats all really.

As for your question of why dont I start up a guest column or draft service, simply put I dont have the journalism degree that most guest columnists actually do have. But that does not mean I need to accept some one elses assessment when I am perfectly capable of making my own.

You apparently haven't been reading and comprehending my posts. I've made it pretty clear that among the pundits that get paid to opine on college scouting, there are those who are respected and others that I've sometimes called buffoons (e.g., Kiper). So, I've never said that just because you're some self-professed high priest of draft wisdom you're any good. I know this pretty well practicing law. There are plenty of lawyers that have law degrees and get paid pretty well for representing clients. Some are the class of the profession whereas most lawyers are various degrees of suck.

As for any one of our views on Scherff and other draft prospects, it would be foolish to challenge people like Keim, Bullock, Davis and Brooks. Not only to do they have expertise in college scouting, they've got a bunch of time and resources to help them do their jobs. When you say that you do your own research and come up with your opinions, that's one thing; when you use that opinion to challenge people like Keim saying you can judge players adequately yourself, you're basically claiming you're better than them. And each of them in addition to others like Tucker and Cosell have provided views that conflict with yours on Scherff.

 

[Sharkinva]

You apparently haven't been reading and comprehending my posts. I've made it pretty clear that among the pundits that get paid to opine on college scouting, there are those who are respected and others that I've sometimes called buffoons (e.g., Kiper). So, I've never said that just because you're some self-professed high priest of draft wisdom you're any good. I know this pretty well practicing law. There are plenty of lawyers that have law degrees and get paid pretty well for representing clients. Some are the class of the profession whereas most lawyers are various degrees of suck.

As for any one of our views on Scherff and other draft prospects, it would be foolish to challenge people like Keim, Bullock, Davis and Brooks. Not only to do they have expertise in college scouting, they've got a bunch of time and resources to help them do their jobs. When you say that you do your own research and come up with your opinions, that's one thing; when you use that opinion to challenge people like Keim saying you can judge players adequately yourself, you're basically claiming you're better than them. And each of them in addition to others like Tucker and Cosell have provided views that conflict with yours on Scherff.

And yet each of them have also said Scherff is one of if not the best offensive lineman in this draft. Lawyer huh, that explains the stick... duly noted counselor. I will simply put out there that despite all their expertise, you can not realistically debate that preconceived notions of where a particular position should or shouldnt be drafted likely plays a large part in where teams, experts and pundits think a guy should go in the draft. possible team needs or perceived team needs also play a huge roll in all this. Frankly as a practicing lawyer, Im shocked to see that you are simply willing to take the word and group think on any of these guys. But I totally understand that when the supposed verdict on a player fits into the final outcome you want any way, no further discussion is needed.

 

[skinsdad62]

You apparently haven't been reading and comprehending my posts. I've made it pretty clear that among the pundits that get paid to opine on college scouting, there are those who are respected and others that I've sometimes called buffoons (e.g., Kiper). So, I've never said that just because you're some self-professed high priest of draft wisdom you're any good. I know this pretty well practicing law. There are plenty of lawyers that have law degrees and get paid pretty well for representing clients. Some are the class of the profession whereas most lawyers are various degrees of suck.

As for any one of our views on Scherff and other draft prospects, it would be foolish to challenge people like Keim, Bullock, Davis and Brooks. Not only to do they have expertise in college scouting, they've got a bunch of time and resources to help them do their jobs. When you say that you do your own research and come up with your opinions, that's one thing; when you use that opinion to challenge people like Keim saying you can judge players adequately yourself, you're basically claiming you're better than them. And each of them in addition to others like Tucker and Cosell have provided views that conflict with yours on Scherff.

nope it isnt adequately means exactly that . and bullock and kiem and brooks and davis have been hugely wrong . so have i

since when is challenging some one mean you think they are better ? challenging is exactly that

i like those guys but they dig their heels in . kiem believes the skins FO doesnt think the o/line need s fixing i disagree and my eyes tell me so

rbs and te's are part of it as is qb play but that POV could be influencing his opinion . he believes we need more pass rush , (we do ) but is that overiding his view ?

bullock on twitter said his dream draft would have scherf and gann in rounds 1 and 2

 

[redskinsfan]

And yet each of them have also said Scherff is one of if not the best offensive lineman in this draft. Lawyer huh, that explains the stick... duly noted counselor. I will simply put out there that despite all their expertise, you can not realistically debate that preconceived notions of where a particular position should or shouldnt be drafted likely plays a large part in where teams, experts and pundits think a guy should go in the draft. possible team needs or perceived team needs also play a huge roll in all this. Frankly as a practicing lawyer, Im shocked to see that you are simply willing to take the word and group think on any of these guys. But I totally understand that when the supposed verdict on a player fits into the final outcome you want any way, no further discussion is needed.

This is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to start. Let's do it with buying into others' opinions. News flash: lawyers do that every day with people called expert witnesses. The rub is making sure you rely on the right ones. I employed that construct when discussing who to rely on in terms of draft pundits. Far from uncritically approving any particular pundit, I noted that there are those I trust, some of whom made Cali's list in another thread.

Then there's the issue of conflating mock drafts and big boards. With Scherff, I've always have been discussing his place on the latter as opposed to the former. Why? For the very reason you mentioned, that being the fact that mock drafts factor in need and thus don't always reflect a BPA ranking.

Let's set all this aside, however. Irrespective of who's good and bad in terms of punditry, all of them seem to concur on the very issue we've been debating, which is that Sherff is an OG not an OT. All you've been able to come up with is the fact you yourself have developed your own analysis on this. That's completely fine, until you start elevating the worth of your analysis with reputable (i.e., not all) pundits like Keim. And when that analysis conflicts with the near unanimous consensus of pundits on this issue, that's just plain foolish.

Did I check all the boxes here?

 

[redskinsfan]

nope it isnt adequately means exactly that . and bullock and kiem and brooks and davis have been hugely wrong . so have i

since when is challenging some one mean you think they are better ? challenging is exactly that

i like those guys but they dig their heels in . kiem believes the skins FO doesnt think the o/line need s fixing i disagree and my eyes tell me so

rbs and te's are part of it as is qb play but that POV could be influencing his opinion . he believes we need more pass rush , (we do ) but is that overiding his view ?

bullock on twitter said his dream draft would have scherf and gann in rounds 1 and 2

You are going around in circles. Again. The issue is whether Scherff is a guard or tackle. Bullock made very clear that he's a guard. Same with Keim. Same with just about everyone else out there, whether they be respectable, okay, or terribly flawed. The one key here is the near unanimity of opinion on this issue. While I agree with you regarding the Redskins FO's view on our o-line, there are others that agree with the FO. I'm thus really conflicted and have to, at least for now, trust what SM and Callahan have done in evaluating things.

 

[Sharkinva]

This is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to start. Let's do it with buying into others' opinions. News flash: lawyers do that every day with people called expert witnesses. The rub is making sure you rely on the right ones. I employed that construct when discussing who to rely on in terms of draft pundits. Far from uncritically approving any particular pundit, I noted that there are those I trust, some of whom made Cali's list in another thread.

Then there's the issue of conflating mock drafts and big boards. With Scherff, I've always have been discussing his place on the latter as opposed to the former. Why? For the very reason you mentioned, that being the fact that mock drafts factor in need and thus don't always reflect a BPA ranking.

Let's set all this aside, however. Irrespective of who's good and bad in terms of punditry, all of them seem to concur on the very issue we've been debating, which is that Sherff is an OG not an OT. All you've been able to come up with is the fact you yourself have developed your own analysis on this. That's completely fine, until you start elevating the worth of your analysis with reputable (i.e., not all) pundits like Keim. And when that analysis conflicts with the near unanimous consensus of pundits on this issue, that's just plain foolish.

Did I check all the boxes here?

So lets cut to the chase... how many of the Pundits you respect have listed some one other than Scherff as the best O-lineman in the draft? And of those how many have him ranked as atleast top two??

point two, can you honestly say that most of these pundits have not in some way shape or form stated that the Skins most pressing need in their "expert opinion" is to come up with a replacement for Orakpo and to increase the pass rush??

point three, would you as a lawyer ever put an "Expert witness" on the stand that totally disagreed with the opinion you are trying to get the jury to accept??

So as I have all along, I call into question YOUR objectivity on this because you have constantly stated that your most firm wish is to trade down and failing that take a "game changer". You have made it quite obvious that you find an OG beneath contempt as a possible pick at #5 and thus even if a week from now there are credible reports of the Skins even considering Scherff at five, I fully expect you to proclaim this as either a ruse, or a mistake.

Now I realize arguing with a lawyer once he has dug his heels in is about as productive as pissing up a rope. But we got 14 days to continue this particular debate... So lets have fun with it.

 

[skinsdad62]

You are going around in circles. Again. The issue is whether Scherff is a guard or tackle. Bullock made very clear that he's a guard. Same with Keim. Same with just about everyone else out there, whether they be respectable, okay, or terribly flawed. The one key here is the near unanimity of opinion on this issue. While I agree with you regarding the Redskins FO's view on our o-line, there are others that agree with the FO. I'm thus really conflicted and have to, at least for now, trust what SM and Callahan have done in evaluating things.

the issue is about multiple things one is he a RT and 2 if he is a OG should a OG be taken in the top 5

now does everyone mean everyone or just selective everyone or precedence everyone or what decade i am in or 2 weeks ago or 3 months ago or do i have to use the force in determining what you really mean because i have posted people who support my view

 

[redskinsfan]

So lets cut to the chase... how many of the Pundits you respect have listed some one other than Scherff as the best O-lineman in the draft? And of those how many have him ranked as atleast top two??

point two, can you honestly say that most of these pundits have not in some way shape or form stated that the Skins most pressing need in their "expert opinion" is to come up with a replacement for Orakpo and to increase the pass rush??

point three, would you as a lawyer ever put an "Expert witness" on the stand that totally disagreed with the opinion you are trying to get the jury to accept??

So as I have all along, I call into question YOUR objectivity on this because you have constantly stated that your most firm wish is to trade down and failing that take a "game changer". You have made it quite obvious that you find an OG beneath contempt as a possible pick at #5 and thus even if a week from now there are credible reports of the Skins even considering Scherff at five, I fully expect you to proclaim this as either a ruse, or a mistake.

Now I realize arguing with a lawyer once he has dug his heels in is about as productive as pissing up a rope. But we got 14 days to continue this particular debate... So lets have fun with it.

You apparently have some trouble either reading or comprehending what I've said in the past.

1. I've always said that Scheff was the best o-lineman in the draft and, in fact, that he'd be one of the safest picks in it. The issue isn't his ranking among o-linemen; rather, it's the fact that he's an OG and that picking him in that capacity is way too high with our fifth overall pick.

2. Yes, most of the pundits have said that, and there's a lot of merit to that view. But both they and I have also said that o-line, in particular RT, is a huge need.

3. No comment.

As to your last point, you couldn't be more wrong. I've stated that, in the end, I'll trust McCloughan. If he believes that Scherff is an OG and still worthy of the fifth overall pick, I'll agree as well.

Let me ask you this then: if we stay at #5 and pick Fowler, will you back McCoughlan? And if you don't, tell us all why. And don't float the Shark The Pundit's analysis either.

 

[redskinsfan]

the issue is about multiple things one is he a RT and 2 if he is a OG should a OG be taken in the top 5

now does everyone mean everyone or just selective everyone or precedence everyone or what decade i am in or 2 weeks ago or 3 months ago or do i have to use the force in determining what you really mean because i have posted people who support my view

Most everyone I've seen including those I view as idiots like Pete Prisco.

 

[Sharkinva]

You apparently have some trouble either reading or comprehending what I've said in the past.

1. I've always said that Scheff was the best o-lineman in the draft and, in fact, that he'd be one of the safest picks in it. The issue isn't his ranking among o-linemen; rather, it's the fact that he's an OG and that picking him in that capacity is way too high with our fifth overall pick.

2. Yes, most of the pundits have said that, and there's a lot of merit to that view. But both they and I have also said that o-line, in particular RT, is a huge need.

3. No comment.

As to your last point, you couldn't be more wrong. I've stated that, in the end, I'll trust McCloughan. If he believes that Scherff is an OG and still worthy of the fifth overall pick, I'll agree as well.

Let me ask you this then: if we stay at #5 and pick Fowler, will you back McCoughlan? And if you don't, tell us all why. And don't float the Shark The Pundit's analysis either.

If he picks Fowler, I will hope it works out. But my opinion of the player wont change until he proves himself on the field. And that is, we are taking a D-lineman with no real set position and converting him to an OLB to try and bolster the pass rush. Which on the surface is a fine idea. But I dont see this guy as being more than a pass rush specialist, a more heralded version of Orakpo.

So I will hope for the best, but I will expect...well lets just say I dont think he is even remotely the best pick for this team.

 

[skinsdad62]

you guys do realize that SM thought alex smith was a better football player the AARON rodgers dont you ?

he thought kentwan balmer was a better pick the jordy nelson (taken 7 picks later ) dont you ?

so now the debate is if we trust SM and he picks fowler then he and you are right ?

my position will be to support the pick hope for the best and prepare for the worst

 

[Stymietee]

Following the give and take between you guys has been indeed interesting, especially since the force that kept you two going has been primarily based on merit while declining to answer the one true question upon it is all based on. On many occasions, someone has declared that they trust SM to do the job that no one prior to his arrival seemed capable of. The real question is......do we? Sure, we can all say, "what choice do we have?," but, if we were truly honest about it, nearly 15 years of irrelevance might have caused too much damage to the individual and collective psyche to have that much faith in one guy.

So, what's going on here? Before I go on, let me be clear that NEITHER of you are wrong here. One says take the OLman, while the other says take the OLB and both agree that a trade down is merited if a particular circumstance presents itself. How can you both be right?, Well, in essence what you two are doing is placing a caveat on your trust of the GM.

We will all applaud and give praise to his efforts no matter how he approaches this, if, the final result is what we all want. However, isn't it also true that taking the route that each of you defend, on a very personal level would, at the very least, give you a little more confidence that (although not fully trusted) your way is a necessary step towards eradicating 15 seasons of abuse?

 

[j_y19]

Following the give and take between you guys has been indeed interesting, especially since the force that kept you two going has been primarily based on merit while declining to answer the one true question upon it is all based on. On many occasions, someone has declared that they trust SM to do the job that no one prior to his arrival seemed capable of. The real question is......do we? Sure, we can all say, "what choice do we have?," but, if we were truly honest about it, nearly 15 years of irrelevance might have caused too much damage to the individual and collective psyche to have that much faith in one guy.

So, what's going on here? Before I go on, let me be clear that NEITHER of you are wrong here. One says take the OLman, while the other says take the OLB and both agree that a trade down is merited if a particular circumstance presents itself. How can you both be right?, Well, in essence what you two are doing is placing a caveat on your trust of the GM.

We will all applaud and give praise to his efforts no matter how he approaches this, if, the final result is what we all want. However, isn't it also true that taking the route that each of you defend, on a very personal level would, at the very least, give you a little more confidence that (although not fully trusted) your way is a necessary step towards eradicating 15 seasons of abuse?

What choice do we have?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

so for me this conversation is over . i will try to avoid anymore responses to this or any other threads dealing with this

Shark and I have been saying the same and we just can't do it either. I see you lasted all of 7 minutes, LOL.

As for your last post cherry picking some of SM's bad picks is a bullshit argument. Every GM has misses. GMSM's hit rate blows away the majority of the league and that's why I will support whomever he picks and everyone else should as well.

And again I agree Scherff is the best OL in the draft and will have a long, solid career. So I don't want this thrown back in my face in 2 years if he turns out good, still does not mean he would be a smart pick at 5.

 

[redskinsfan]

If he picks Fowler, I will hope it works out. But my opinion of the player wont change until he proves himself on the field. And that is, we are taking a D-lineman with no real set position and converting him to an OLB to try and bolster the pass rush. Which on the surface is a fine idea. But I dont see this guy as being more than a pass rush specialist, a more heralded version of Orakpo.

So I will hope for the best, but I will expect...well lets just say I dont think he is even remotely the best pick for this team.

I agree with that. He's not a pure pass rusher as he lacks the explosive first step that others like Gregory have. But one key thing that Fowler has is that he fits in Barry's system. The only two guys I'd feel safe about picking high are Williams and Scherff. If Williams is available at five, we take him. Scherff, as I've discussed before, isn't worth the #5 but will be worth it shortly thereafter. That's why I've said that if we don't have Williams, we should trade down. Until a short time ago, I never thought Williams would be available. But now, a lot of people are thinking/guessing that the two QBs will be picked at #1 and #2. At #3, some still are thinking/guessing Williams goes to the Jags, but a lot are now saying Fowler goes there. At #4, the Raiders will be picking a WR, which is consistent with most mocks so far. That leaves us with Williams. Not sure if this will materialize, but there are some that think it just might.

 

[redskinsfan]

Following the give and take between you guys has been indeed interesting, especially since the force that kept you two going has been primarily based on merit while declining to answer the one true question upon it is all based on. On many occasions, someone has declared that they trust SM to do the job that no one prior to his arrival seemed capable of. The real question is......do we? Sure, we can all say, "what choice do we have?," but, if we were truly honest about it, nearly 15 years of irrelevance might have caused too much damage to the individual and collective psyche to have that much faith in one guy.

So, what's going on here? Before I go on, let me be clear that NEITHER of you are wrong here. One says take the OLman, while the other says take the OLB and both agree that a trade down is merited if a particular circumstance presents itself. How can you both be right?, Well, in essence what you two are doing is placing a caveat on your trust of the GM.

We will all applaud and give praise to his efforts no matter how he approaches this, if, the final result is what we all want. However, isn't it also true that taking the route that each of you defend, on a very personal level would, at the very least, give you a little more confidence that (although not fully trusted) your way is a necessary step towards eradicating 15 seasons of abuse?

I've always said I'll trust the GM . . . until he can't be trusted anymore. Since that's yet to occur, I'll continue to trust him. And that trust has worked wonders in terms of FA.

 

[Sharkinva]

I agree with that. He's not a pure pass rusher as he lacks the explosive first step that others like Gregory have. But one key thing that Fowler has is that he fits in Barry's system. The only two guys I'd feel safe about picking high are Williams and Scherff. If Williams is available at five, we take him. Scherff, as I've discussed before, isn't worth the #5 but will be worth it shortly thereafter. That's why I've said that if we don't have Williams, we should trade down. Until a short time ago, I never thought Williams would be available. But now, a lot of people are thinking/guessing that the two QBs will be picked at #1 and #2. At #3, some still are thinking/guessing Williams goes to the Jags, but a lot are now saying Fowler goes there. At #4, the Raiders will be picking a WR, which is consistent with most mocks so far. That leaves us with Williams. Not sure if this will materialize, but there are some that think it just might.

And i have said all along, if Williams is there, you take him. If the Browns call up and say, treat us like a dizzy blonde, we roll with that. If Scot REALLY thinks White is the better pick, take it.

But i stand by the thinking that Scherff is both the safest and best pick for this team If Williams is not there.

 

[redskinsfan]

And i have said all along, if Williams is there, you take him. If the Browns call up and say, treat us like a dizzy blonde, we roll with that. If Scot REALLY thinks White is the better pick, take it.

But i stand by the thinking that Scherff is both the safest and best pick for this team If Williams is not there.

It's a pipe dream, but I've always been hoping to get the Browns to fork up their two first rounders for ours. Or if they want to trade swap their #12 for our #5, it's a first rounder next year -- and perhaps a bit more. But I'm thinking any trade will be made on draft day. And that ought to be a circus if it does.