Nolan Nawrocki at it again.

[Mr. Scot]

Well if stirs and Mr Scot say someone's not racist...

Can you actually show evidence that he is?

I've read plenty of positive reviews of black quarterbacks from PFW over. Also read some pretty scathing ones of white QBs (Clausen was one of them).

Can you actually show something to back up the notion that he is, or is the accusation enough?

[fieryprophet]

Can you actually show evidence that he is?

I've read plenty of positive reviews of black quarterbacks from PFW over. Also read some pretty scathing ones of white QBs (Clausen was one of them).

Can you actually show something to back up the notion that he is, or is the accusation enough?

The racism issue aside, what the hell is up with his claim about Geno's film studies and work ethic? I've been doing a lot of research on Geno for a draft writeup of my own and NOWHERE has this ever come up. The exact opposite in fact, everyone raves about his studious nature and obsession with film study, and that comes from sources outside of WVU. This is the only profile I've ever read that suggested otherwise, even NFL.com and Walterfootball say different.

[Mr. Scot]

Agree 100%

Rarely do I see draft profilers get all into personality flaws in ways that border on personal attacks.

I've actually read stuff way nastier than the profiles of Newton or Smith.

PFW profiles get into the personal details on pretty much everyone (you should see some of the stuff they wrote about Rhett Bomar). The rationale is that actual pro scouts dig into pretty much everything, so they do too.

I can see that as logical, but yeah, it has the potential to really piss a lot of people off.

[Herbert The Love Bug]

I'm a mixture of Zach Galifianakis and John C. Reilly

[Kurb]

I can see that as logical, but yeah, it has the potential to really piss a lot of people off.

Then allow me to suggest that while "white knight'ing"for this douchebag you provide solid evidence he has done similar smear jobs to all types of prospects and not just the 2 we are discussing here.

[Delhommey]

I've actually read stuff way nastier than the profiles of Newton or Smith.

PFW profiles get into the personal details on pretty much everyone (you should see some of the stuff they wrote about Rhett Bomar). The rationale is that actual pro scouts dig into pretty much everything, so they do too.

I can see that as logical, but yeah, it has the potential to really piss a lot of people off.

SOMEONE FOUND NEGATIVES ABOUT RHETT BOMAR?!!!!!

[Mr. Scot]

Then allow me to suggest that while "white knight'ing"for this douchebag you provide solid evidence he has done similar smear jobs to all types of prospects and not just the 2 we are discussing here.

See, that's the fun part. I'm not "white knighting". Just pointing out the stupidity of attributing these profiles to racism on Nawrocki's part. Having read the PFW Draft Preview on an annual basis for years, I know the whole idea is pretty much crap.

If people want to talk about the analysis being wrong, there are points to be made, but apparently some folks are too intellectually lazy to actually look at anything except what fits their argument.

[fieryprophet]

I've actually read stuff way nastier than the profiles of Newton or Smith.

PFW profiles get into the personal details on pretty much everyone (you should see some of the stuff they wrote about Rhett Bomar). The rationale is that actual pro scouts dig into pretty much everything, so they do too.

I can see that as logical, but yeah, it has the potential to really piss a lot of people off.

Let me put it this way: anyone who writes these kinds of profiles, pro scout, draft writer, whatever, needs to do something less dickholish for a living. First, this isn't the old NFL that felt like it owned its players for life and had to know their every little detail so they could perform amateur psychoanalysis and justify their paychecks by handing out half-assed opinions. Secondly, if they absolutely feel that they have to be self-righteous pricks and and judge people, AT LEAST GET THE GODDAMN DETAILS RIGHT! They completely whiff on prospects both for good and bad I have no clue how the vast majority are gainfully employed anymore. And finally, nothing infuriates me more than the fact that there us never a single mea culpa with these people, they just sweep their mistakes under the rug and act as if they were right all along rather than manning up and owning their crap. I have no respect for these idiots and can't fathom how anyone could.

[Mr. Scot]

The racism issue aside, what the hell is up with his claim about Geno's film studies and work ethic? I've been doing a lot of research on Geno for a draft writeup of my own and NOWHERE has this ever come up. The exact opposite in fact, everyone raves about his studious nature and obsession with film study, and that comes from sources outside of WVU. This is the only profile I've ever read that suggested otherwise, even NFL.com and Walterfootball say different.

Doesn't jibe with what I've heard about him either.

Here's a thread Squirrel started in the draft forum a while back:

I had started one in the College Football forum too.

In the first one, we linked to an article by Pat Forde that's still online.

Air Raid's Most Powerful Disciple

That article included this section...

After every West Virginia practice, Geno Smith drops off an iPad for the Mountaineers video staff to download video. He gets all the cut-ups of the offense and takes them home to study.

"He's already watched it three or four times before I've even met with him," said quarterbacks coach Jake Spavital. "He's been that way since day one when we got here."

The Air Raid offense does not work from an inches-thick playbook. But it requires a quarterback who can think on his own, and quickly – probably the biggest difference between what Holgorsen and others are doing today from what Mumme was doing in the 1990s is tempo. Huddles are for stallers in today's Air Raid.

West Virginia coach Dana Holgorsen learned the Air Raid offense at Iowa Wesleyan. (Getty Images)So a quarterback like Smith, who has a perfectionist streak and a penchant for preparedness, suits the system well. Especially if he also has abundant physical gifts.

"He loves the game of football," Holgorsen said. "I've never been around a guy who has just developed his entire game like him. His confidence is at an all-time high. Physically he's better, he's bigger, he's faster, he's stronger. Escapability in the pocket is unbelievable, arm strength, accuracy.

"He's a student of the game. Very cerebral."

On a teleconference this week, Smith said, "I can make every throw. That's not a cocky statement or anything like that, that's just how I am." What he really wanted to brag about was the work he's put in from the neck up.

"I'm all about the mental aspect of the game," he said. "That's what puts me ahead, I think."

Squirrel and I have both been accused of looking through WVU homer glasses (in fairness, probably a valid charge) but I do at least try to be objective on stuff like this. that's why I'm willing to admit the there are elements of this profile that are probably accurate. As to whether he'll transition well to the pros, unknown. Sad to say that very few WVU quarterbacks have :(

The questions about work ethic and mental stuff though? That made my jaw drop. Pat Forde sure didn't think there were any issues on that front. So either Forde's wrong or Nawrocki's sources are wrong. I don't know who PFW's sources are, but I know Forde is a pretty good writer.

Who's right? Ask me this time next year.

I'd like to think Smith can succeed. Though admittedly (full disclosure) I thought Pat White would too. I do believe Smith is a much better pro prospect than White was because he's a far more accomplished passer.

[Mr. Scot]

Let me put it this way: anyone who writes these kinds of profiles, pro scout, draft writer, whatever, needs to do something less dickholish for a living. First, this isn't the old NFL that felt like it owned its players for life and had to know their every little detail so they could perform amateur psychoanalysis and justify their paychecks by handing out half-assed opinions. Secondly, if they absolutely feel that they have to be self-righteous pricks and and judge people, AT LEAST GET THE GODDAMN DETAILS RIGHT! They completely whiff on prospects both for good and bad I have no clue how the vast majority are gainfully employed anymore. And finally, nothing infuriates me more than the fact that there us never a single mea culpa with these people, they just sweep their mistakes under the rug and act as if they were right all along rather than manning up and owning their crap. I have no respect for these idiots and can't fathom how anyone could.

I've seen a load of draft analysts get stuff wrong over the years. Can't recall a single one apologizing or taking it back. If it happened, I missed it.

Maybe they think it'd damage their rep too much. I'd say the rep's damaged more by the mistake itself than the admission of it. Though to be fair, I'm not in the business.

For what it's worth, the guys who are giving them the info on these prospects - scouts, font office people, GMs, etc - do suffer actual consequences for being wrong.

[Delhommey]

See, that's the fun part. I'm not "white knighting". Just pointing out the stupidity of attributing these profiles to racism on Nawrocki's part. Having read the PFW Draft Preview on an annual basis for years, I know the whole idea is pretty much crap.

If people want to talk about the analysis being wrong, there are points to be made, but apparently some folks are too intellectually lazy to actually look at anything except what fits their argument.

When you show up to your signing day in a stretch limo, you get labeled arrogant. When you get kicked out of a program for taking money for a job you never showed up to (and you were subpar to begin with), you get stuck with a few character concerns.

Geno Smith stares down receivers. Geno Smith forces the ball especially when he's behind. But tell me one solitary thing that points to Smith not controlling a huddle or being a character issue.

Really, the onus is on you as you're defending. Give one example of a top tier white QB on whose personality Nawrocki's done a hit piece without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up.

[TheRed]

Just a few gems. Courtesy of Mr. Scot. Not white knighting for the guy or anything though, nope not at all.

He's reporting what people tell him. He got reports with negative words like 'fraud' and 'con artist' from three different sources. What would be the motivation for burying reports like that when you're supposed to be writing a scouting type profile?

"He's a nice kid so I don't want to hurt him"? Should he take that track with every kid he hears negative stuff about (which would be all of them) or only on certain guys?

Actually, Zierlein's profile of him dismissed that idea, but go beyond that and look at it logically.

- A draft preview is sold to very much a niche market. Media types, draftniks and football fanatics are gonna buy it, and that's about it.

- Do you seriously think anyone believes you could get people who wouldn't already be inclined to buy this anyway to do so by posting something inflammatory? People are gonna buy a whole book just to read one preview? Come on :nonod:

- And let's say you did believe that. Then what was the point of publishing the full profile online? If this was written to sell books, why put it out there for free? PFW's website has subscriber content too, but this was just placed out there as part of the regular draft coverage. They didn't hype it at all.

- Throw in that I actually have my copy of this year's preview now (I'm a PFW subscriber) and I can tell you that not only is Newton's picture not on the cover, his name isn't even listed. Aeven other names and three pictures (Green, Miller and Peterson) are, but Newton's nowhere to be found. Don't you think if you were using a particular prospect to sell books, you might want to put him on the cover somewhere?

The argument that "this was just to sell books" has no legs at all, but I'm sure people will continue to believe that regardless of the fact that the facts don't actually support it.

And for the record, this is nothing new. Prospects get negative reviews like this every year and no one bats an eyelash, except now OMG HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT CAM HE'S SUCH A MEANIE :rolleyes:

It's like Zierlein said. That's the kind of report scouts give to teams.

People forget this is a business. If some scout held something back because he felt it was 'over the top' or he didn't want to say something mean about a kid, and then it turned out to be true after his employer blew a high draft pick on the kid, it'd be his ass. They can't afford to be "nice guys".

And to be clear, this is not something I'm "worked up' over (I've explained that already). "Worked up" is a way more accurate description of some of the negative reaction people are having to this stuff. Which again makes me laugh because if we don't take Newton, those same folks will turn on him in a heartbeat.

Did PFW actually hype this themselves or did some media guy grab it and run with it?

Newton not only isn't on the cover. He's not on the inside cover or anywhere prominently featured other than in his profile. If you're using a guy to sell magazines, you don't hide him.

And like I said, I've been reading these profiles for years and didn't bat an eyelash when I read Newton's because it's no different than what I've heard from loads of prospects before. That includes Clausen just last year, when the words "disingenuous", "staged" and "scripted" were applied.

Guys have been getting these kinds of writeups for years and no one made a big deal out of it. But now OMG HE WAS MEAN TO CAM HE CAN'T DO THAT WHAT A BIG MEANIE WE HAVE TO STOP HIM!! :frown2:

How exactly would they have known that? Did their negative review of JaMarcus Russell hit the media like this? Or the one of Jimmy Clausen?

And like I said, if this seems out of the ordinary, I can tell you that the scouting reports you've been reading haven't been the PFW versions. They've been writing this same kind of report for over a decade. Newton's is nothing special.

He writes the negative stuff that he hears on every single draft prospect in the book, including personal stuff.

Why exactly would it require an agenda to do the same thing with Newton that he's done with pretty much every prospect he's profiled?

Was it an agenda with Jimmy Clausen and Rhett Bomar, or is Cam the only guy that's above such criticism?

Consequences are he loses credibility, something that's pretty important to what he does.

Lose enough credibility and yes, you start losing money because your sales go down.

PFW's been wrong before (everybody is) but they're right way more than they're wrong. And a big reason for that is that they take everything they hear into account.

I think it was probably mild compared to some of the stuff scouts say to teams privately (in general, not just about Newton).

Answer me this. Should he pull back on the negatives for everybody they scout, or just Newton?

Didn't answer my question.

Do they need to not be negative on every prospect, or is Cam newton the only one who's being treated unfairly?

(I can tell you there's some very personal stuff reported on Marcell Dareus, for one)

Do you actually have any idea how much research they did, or is your assumption that they didn't do enough based on the fact that they had a negative assessment of a guy you like?

[fieryprophet]

PFW can't lick PFF's balls anyways. And at least those guys will engage detractors on Twitter and attempt to have some sort of coherency behind their grading.

Hell, even NFL.com is calling shenanigans: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000156411/article/geno-smiths-work-ethic-questioned-in-scouting-report

Pro Football Weekly used to be one of the most influential, if not the most influential draft publications. That influence has waned since the late, great Joel Buchsbaum passed, but the publication still can make waves.

It's surprising to hear Smith is not a "student of the game" and that his work ethic is suspect. This is the first we've heard of that about Smith, who has a great reputation for his film study.

Here's the way this works: Nawrocki will get hammered for publicly saying what others might privately be saying. We aren't in the position to say if his assessment is fair. But when you are attacking a player's work ethic and love of the game, you better be confident you are right.

[Mr. Scot]

When you show up to your signing day in a stretch limo, you get labeled arrogant. When you get kicked out of a program for taking money for a job you never showed up to (and you were subpar to begin with), you get stuck with a few character concerns.

Geno Smith stares down receivers. Geno Smith forces the ball especially when he's behind. But tell me one solitary thing that points to Smith not controlling a huddle or being a character issue.

Really, the onus is on you as you're defending. Give one example of a top tier white QB on whose personality Nawrocki's done a hit piece without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up.

If you mean top tier in college, that's an easy one. Jimmy Clausen. He pretty much ripped Clausen a new one.

Other examples: Said Ryan Mallett was immature and made lousy decisions. Wasn't that big a fan of Jake Locker either. Had questions about Andy Dalton. Said Christian Ponder wasn't good enough to be a starter.

On the flipside, thought Colin Kaepernick had intriguing upside, and had plenty of good things to say about Josh Freeman. They did say that JaMarcus Russell was lazy though. Guess that must have been racist, huh? :unsure:

As far as the stuff you quoted above on Geno Smith, look above. I have no idea where that stuff is coming from. It runs counter to what I've heard, and as a WVU fan, I've read plenty about Smith.

My personal belief: That information is wrong, but taking the additional leap to say it's race-based? Not buying it. I've cited my evidence above as to why. Do you have any evidence to counter with>