So we were taking Kelly

[j_y19]

All we or more accurately I was saying is Tandler's article isn't proof. I don't remember seeing anyone say dean was wrong other than to say he had proof. I am sticking with that. Kelly could have been a good pick but to say he was SM's first choice is unknown. I won't change my mind that Tandler knew that and no one else did.

Bingo. This is my point also.

 

[gkekoa]

You can listen to Scot on the audio vault on ESPN 980 with the redskins app. He spoke to Kevin and Cooley this morning. Here's what he said regarding Kelly...

"I like Ryan Kelly a lot. Not saying for sure I would have pulled the trigger but he's a really good football player. Again, another guy who stepped on campus from day 1 at a big university and a big time program and played well. That would have been a good pick. If we had went that route, that would have been a good pick, yes"

Well...let's see...I think this is our point. Only SM knows what he would have done.

 

[deanpet21]

I just remember getting a lot of flak for wanted Kelly at 21 and saying he was a 2nd round talent.

 

[Sharkinva]

I just remember getting a lot of flak for wanted Kelly at 21 and saying he was a 2nd round talent.

OK Dean... IM going to give you what you are actually looking for here.

You were right. Kelly was picked in the first round, thus making him a first round talent in the eyes of the world.

Robinson, Reed and most of the D-lineman we figured there were picked in the 2nd round or later... thus making them NOT first round talents in the eyes of the world.

Just remember.... even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

 

[gkekoa]

I just remember getting a lot of flak for wanted Kelly at 21 and saying he was a 2nd round talent.

Most on here stated we had seen several "so-called experts" call him a second round talent. At one point I was fine with him at 21. Then i wanted Billings and Reed, and Robinson, and Doctson, and the kitchen sink. Based on what I know of SM and what I heard from most experts, there was ten top players and a big drop after that. My guess is we got the player we wanted if we couldn't trade back. I think this was a pretty weak draft of top players but a good draft for solid ones.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Well...let's see...I think this is our point. Only SM knows what he would have done.

Again SM and most every GM gives vague replies when reporters ask for specifics about certain players. And again NO GM will ever harp on the guy he missed, it is disrespectful to the guy he took. Jerry Jones may not understand this, and his comments about failing to get into position to draft Lynch are not the same as this situation, but a guy like SM certainly does.

Has anyone given me a reason for those insiders to lie about the pick to the reporter who covers the team and has many inside sources? Anyone?

Now Dean is being accused of wanted to be right more than have his team's picks contribute. That's again ridiculous and unfair. He is simply defending his position the same way the Scherff guys jumped on me last year. I had no problem with it. What's the problem here again?

 

[j_y19]

Again SM and most every GM gives vague replies when reporters ask for specifics about certain players. And again NO GM will ever harp on the guy he missed, it is disrespectful to the guy he took. Jerry Jones may not understand this, and his comments about failing to get into position to draft Lynch are not the same as this situation, but a guy like SM certainly does.

Has anyone given me a reason for those insiders to lie about the pick to the reporter who covers the team and has many inside sources? Anyone?

Now Dean is being accused of wanted to be right more than have his team win. That's again ridiculous and unfair. He is simply defending his position the same way the Scherff guys crowed at me last year. What's the problem?

surely you are not that dense. You are now just being obstinate. Are you actually reading the replies from GK, Sportster or I? Not one of us ever said Tandler was lying or that even his analysis was not correct. Our issue had nothing to do with what Tandler wrote.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

surely you are not that dense. You are now just being obstinate. Are you actually reading the replies from GK, Sportster or I? Not one of us ever said Tandler was lying or that even his analysis was not correct. Our issue had nothing to do with what Tandler wrote.

Wait wait wait. From the very beginning you have been questioning the Tandler article. First you called it an "opinion" when it wasn't that at all, he was reporting what he had heard from his inside sources. In the next post you began to question those sources. Seems like most of your argument has been based on discrediting that article as no form of proof.

 

[gkekoa]

I can't tell you why people misrepresent the truth in articles and statements. But they do...a lot. Most people in the media do.

Again, the reason Dean gets sooo much crap is he speaks in definitives.

 

[gkekoa]

Wait wait wait. From the very beginning you have been questioning the Tandler article. First you called it an "opinion" when it wasn't that at all, he was reporting what he had heard from his inside sources. In the next post you began to question those sources.

SM did state he was surprised Doctson was there when we picked. So my question would then become, if he wanted Kelly at 21, was that because he wasn't considering Doctson in the convo because he expected him to be gone? I mean...I'm sure Kelly wasn't number one on his board in the entire draft.

 

[deanpet21]

SM did state he was surprised Doctson was there when we picked. So my question would then become, if he wanted Kelly at 21, was that because he wasn't considering Doctson in the convo because he expected him to be gone? I mean...I'm sure Kelly wasn't number one on his board in the entire draft.

It is interesting if Kelly and Doctson were there @21 which one he would take. But I do think that he wasn't going DL. lol

 

[gkekoa]

It is interesting if Kelly and Doctson were there @21 which one he would take. But I do think that he wasn't going DL. lol

I think that is a safe bet. Maybe if Buckner was there because wasn't he the only one taken before 21?

 

[j_y19]

Wait wait wait. From the very beginning you have been questioning the Tandler article. First you called it an "opinion" when it wasn't that at all, he was reporting what he had heard from his inside sources. In the next post you began to question those sources. Seems like most of your argument has been based on discrediting that article as no form of proof.

It was an opinion of Tandler based on talks he had with his contacts. But my issue was never the blog. My issue was the habit of Dean to take a blog and call it "fact" or "proof". Tandler's blog was neither. It was speculation. Now, he may be right. But he may also not be. In fact, that point is highlighted further if you read Cali's post above of SMs statement on Kelly. But no one ever had an issue with the Blog post. And I would have never had an issue if we took Kelly at 21. I always thought Kelly was a stud.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

SM did state he was surprised Doctson was there when we picked. So my question would then become, if he wanted Kelly at 21, was that because he wasn't considering Doctson in the convo because he expected him to be gone? I mean...I'm sure Kelly wasn't number one on his board in the entire draft.

Dean stole my thought. It would have been interesting had they both been there at 21.

 

[Sharkinva]

It is interesting if Kelly and Doctson were there @21 which one he would take. But I do think that he wasn't going DL. lol

But you will always wonder. Did he not go D-line because he didnt think any of these guys were worth it in the 1st, or did he gamble wrong that at least one of them would make it to the 53rd pick?? After all... 12 D-lineman went off the board between our first round, and second round pick. So there is depth at a position, and then there is ridiculous.

Or to put it another way, 1/4 of the players picked in the first two rounds were D-lineman.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

It was an opinion of Tandler based on talks he had with his contacts. But my issue was never the blog. My issue was the habit of Dean to take a blog and call it "fact" or "proof". Tandler's blog was neither. It was speculation. Now, he may be right. But he may also not be. In fact, that point is highlighted further if you read Cali's post above of SMs statement on Kelly. But no one ever had an issue with the Blog post. And I would have never had an issue if we took Kelly at 21. I always thought Kelly was a stud.

I get that, you said it several times about Dean. My point remains a guy on a message board has a right to defend his position when strong evidence comes out later backing that position. That's kind of what message boards are supposed to be all about and it's totally unfair to dismiss this evidence simply because you don't like his posting style.

As I said "proof" may have been too strong of a word. But with a second source (Grant Paulson) reporting the same thing his evidence is certainly a lot stronger than your vague quote from SM, a guy who had no choice but to be vague for the reason I already explained.

 

[j_y19]

I get that, you said it several times about Dean. My point remains a guy on a message board has a right to defend his position when strong evidence comes out later backing that position. That's kind of what message boards are supposed to be all about and it's totally unfair to dismiss this evidence simply because you don't like his posting style.

As I said "proof" may have been too strong of a word. But with a second source (Grant Paulson) reporting the same thing his evidence is certainly a lot stronger than your vague quote from SM, a guy who had no choice but to be vague for the reason I already explained.

Then what the f*** are we debating? We agree. It was not proof. It's how Dean presents his opinions that get folks sideways, not that he has them and offers support. I have absolutely no issue with that. It's the absolute terms he uses. As Dad always says, if a source Won't put his name to it, then it should be viewed as unfounded. I, nor Dean, have no idea who Tandlers sources are. Could be the guy that cleans the hot tub every night. Oh, as for Paulson, it's quite common for these bloggers to talk and use each other's "finds" as the come up with blogs. Let's face it, guys like Tandler have to post 3-5 blogs a day. Finding new material for that many posts gets difficult. That's why, as you peruse the different bloggers/reporters, they often publish reports on the same topic during the same timeframe.

 

[gkekoa]

But you will always wonder. Did he not go D-line because he didnt think any of these guys were worth it in the 1st, or did he gamble wrong that at least one of them would make it to the 53rd pick?? After all... 12 D-lineman went off the board between our first round, and second round pick. So there is depth at a position, and then there is ridiculous.

Or to put it another way, 1/4 of the players picked in the first two rounds were D-lineman.

Well, McCloughan stated Doctson was the best player on his board at 22. That lines up with what he always says about taking BPA. He doesn't seem like a gambler and stated before the draft even started he thought the middle rounds had DL deals. He didn't sound that excited about the early DL in this draft.

 

[Sharkinva]

Well, McCloughan stated Doctson was the best player on his board at 22. That lines up with what he always says about taking BPA. He doesn't seem like a gambler and stated before the draft even started he thought the middle rounds had DL deals. He didn't sound that excited about the early DL in this draft.

Every GM says the guy they took in the first round was at the top of their board when it came time to pick. And it makes sense to situate your board based not only on who you plan to pick, but who you expect to be there when next you pick. Just like you dont normally expect to see a GM come out and say we wiffed on an attempted trade, so we ended up taking the next guy on our board, I would never expect a GM to say I took a calculated risk and it didnt pan out. I totally believe him when he says Cravens was the highest rated player on the board when we picked in the second, but that does not prove that a few guys got picked sooner than some expected. ell 90% of Deans argument for us taking Kelly was the known fact that there would be starting caliber D-lineman when we picked in the second.... only there really werent.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Then what the f*** are we debating? We agree. It was not proof. It's how Dean presents his opinions that get folks sideways, not that he has them and offers support. I have absolutely no issue with that. It's the absolute terms he uses. As Dad always says, if a source Won't put his name to it, then it should be viewed as unfounded. I, nor Dean, have no idea who Tandlers sources are. Could be the guy that cleans the hot tub every night. Oh, as for Paulson, it's quite common for these bloggers to talk and use each other's "finds" as the come up with blogs. Let's face it, guys like Tandler have to post 3-5 blogs a day. Finding new material for that many posts gets difficult. That's why, as you peruse the different bloggers/reporters, they often publish reports on the same topic during the same timeframe.

We are debating because you guys jumped on Dean pretty harshly for simply posting a link that supported his side of the argument. Again "proof" was too strong a word but if that's enough to get you guys all worked up to this point, well......

And again dismissing anonymous sources is a stupid argument. If Woodward and Bernstein had ignored their anonymous source American history would have been written differently. They are anonymous for a reason and that reason is obvious, it doesn't mean what they say is unfounded.