Arthur Blank wants Calvin (1 Viewer)

[Ramblin Wreck]

At what point in the first round would you have drafted Rogers?

He wouldn't have been on my draft board. There are 22 positions to fill on the football people. Many of positions to fill with many good athletes.Stop and think about it. The guy couldn't stop smoking weed long enough to pass a known drug test, which typically would have a huge impact on draft position and $$$$$ (yes, he got lucky and the Lions bailed him out). I'm no weed expert, but I beleive if you put it up for a month, you'd pass most if not all drug tests. All he had to do was stop smoking it for a month. He couldn't do it.

So you're saying Charles Rogers wasn't worth a 7th round pick?Ok. :X

Do you know anything about management and building a team? Chemistry is important and if one considers a player to be a Round 1 Cancer, isn't he a cancer in Round 7 too? You've made some mind-boggling ignorant statements throughout this thread and have been called out by many on them. My advice is you should cut your losses and stop making it worse by trying to get the last word in.

Are you saying you agree that, without the benefit of hindsight, Rogers shouldn't have been drafted? Seriously?

I am saying that there are clearly talented kids in every draft that should not be drafted as high as they are for many reasons including team chemistry, work ethic, etc... I am also saying that if one feels Rogers isn't worth having on the team for these reasons in Round 1 then he isn't worth it in Round 7 either. A guy doesn't work harder or become less of a cancer because he got drafted in a later round. You're smart enough to understand that.

When you look at on-field college stats, Rogers certainly compares with CJ. When you look at the person and total package, there is no comparison. None.

I also believe you're fishing at this point too.

Rogers had a great work ethic. He wasn't a cancer. He was a good teammate. You pretty much have nothing to back those negative statements up.

Yeah, a guy that can't stop doing drugs long enough to get himself ready for his job is a great guy to have on the team.

 

[Giggity]

At what point in the first round would you have drafted Rogers?

He wouldn't have been on my draft board. There are 22 positions to fill on the football people. Many of positions to fill with many good athletes.Stop and think about it. The guy couldn't stop smoking weed long enough to pass a known drug test, which typically would have a huge impact on draft position and $$$$$ (yes, he got lucky and the Lions bailed him out). I'm no weed expert, but I beleive if you put it up for a month, you'd pass most if not all drug tests. All he had to do was stop smoking it for a month. He couldn't do it.

So you're saying Charles Rogers wasn't worth a 7th round pick?Ok.

Do you know anything about management and building a team? Chemistry is important and if one considers a player to be a Round 1 Cancer, isn't he a cancer in Round 7 too? You've made some mind-boggling ignorant statements throughout this thread and have been called out by many on them. My advice is you should cut your losses and stop making it worse by trying to get the last word in.

Are you saying you agree that, without the benefit of hindsight, Rogers shouldn't have been drafted? Seriously?

I am saying that there are clearly talented kids in every draft that should not be drafted as high as they are for many reasons including team chemistry, work ethic, etc... I am also saying that if one feels Rogers isn't worth having on the team for these reasons in Round 1 then he isn't worth it in Round 7 either. A guy doesn't work harder or become less of a cancer because he got drafted in a later round. You're smart enough to understand that.

When you look at on-field college stats, Rogers certainly compares with CJ. When you look at the person and total package, there is no comparison. None.

I also believe you're fishing at this point too.

Rogers had a great work ethic. He wasn't a cancer. He was a good teammate. You pretty much have nothing to back those negative statements up.

Yeah, a guy that can't stop doing drugs long enough to get himself ready for his job is a great guy to have on the team.

Can you not follow a simple train of thought? You said he was undraftable. Which is 100% re-tard-ed.

He was not a cancer pre-draft. He did have a good work ethic in college. He was a good teammate in college. So why not draft him in the 1st? You said he was a cancer, bad work ethic. Which was completely wrong.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Charles Rogers WAS UNQUESTIONABLY considered a tier 1 WR prospect. I don't know how anyone could argue against that fact. However, there seems to be a flaw whereby people are saying, "because Charles Rogers was a top prospect and busted, Calvin Johnson is likely to be a top prospect and bust."

Just in case this was directed at me, I'd like to be clear that I've never once suggested this. I think Johnson is going to be awesome. My only point was that Millen deserves no flack for the Rogers pick, just like Al Davis deserves no flack if he drafts Calvin Johnson and Johnson stinks.

I don't underatand that. By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack". Rogers was picked very highly by Millen, Rogers was a bust. That's the bottom line isn't it? Yeah, it's an imperfect science, but even so, GMs are and should be held accountable for their selections. The Rogers pick was REASONABLE, I think most would give you that, but it's not even like he was the only option that year. Johnson was as impressive physically, and he didn't fail a drug test. But Millen went with Rogers, despite the drug test failure and the opportunity to quiz the guy about it in an interview. It may not always be possible, but it's the GM's responsibility, difficult or not, to home in on issues like that before they really manifest themselves. It wasn't an unforgiveable or utterly ridiculous mistake given Rogers' potential, but it was a mistake nonetheless. And if that were the ONLY (very similar) mistake he made, it would be easier to dismiss. But the BMW fiasco was a MUCH more easily avoidable mistake that was bashed by most knowledable folks almost immediately, even BEFORE BMW "busted".Bottom line, we are in basic disagreement over Millen's responsibility for these issues. He is paid to make good acquisitions for his club, and he has some pretty mixed results.

 

[Chase Stuart]

GMs are and should be held accountable for their selections.

GMs, like everyone else, should be held accountable for what they control. If Calvin Johnson falls to 8, and the Patriots trade up and draft him, and he busts, Scott Pioli shouldn't be blamed for selecting Johnson any more than Tom Brady should receive credit for Adam Vinatieri hitting a FG. You judge a person on what they do, what they control, and what their options are. Not on luck or things out of their control.

 

[BigRed]

quote name='Drunken Cowboy' date='Apr 26 2007, 01:00 AM' post='6667319']

Not why he was a bust. He was a bust because he got hurt. There is no way Millen could have seen that coming.

Hindsight's 20/20. If I were to claim right now that Calvin Johnson is an enormous character risk, I'd probably be laughed out of the thread. If he turns out to be one, everyone and their brother will look back at the pot comment and say that the writing was on the wall.Rogers was not viewed as a risk at the time anymore than Johnson is now.

A few people get it. No even Rogers wasn't quite as hyped as CJ is now, but he was VERY highly regarded and extremely few if any blinked an eye when DET took him. Ditto Roy Wms. And there was plenty of applause when he traded back up to nab Kevin Jones. etc etc.

I'm no big Millen fan, just sick of the stupid Millen-is-clueless bandwagon (in hindsight) BS.

That's the most ridiculous statement ever made on this website.

Think about that for a moment

Boy, I do think some players aren't on draft boards. I thought many GM's said they wouldn't touch M. Clarrett. This isn't basketball where one player is the difference between winning an NBA championship andd finishing out of the playoffs. This is football with 22 positions to fill in seven rounds.

Good point :Colts fan: Anyway lol @ even implying Rogers was undraftable. buh bye credibility.

 

[Chase Stuart]

By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack".

I don't think my logic brings you to that conclusion, but I agree far fewer picks deserve flack than receive flack. We should expect NFL scouts and GMs to be excellent talent evaluators, and should have top notch draft strategies. But they shouldn't be expected to own crystal balls.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

At what point in the first round would you have drafted Rogers?

He wouldn't have been on my draft board. There are 22 positions to fill on the football people. Many of positions to fill with many good athletes.Stop and think about it. The guy couldn't stop smoking weed long enough to pass a known drug test, which typically would have a huge impact on draft position and $$$$$ (yes, he got lucky and the Lions bailed him out). I'm no weed expert, but I beleive if you put it up for a month, you'd pass most if not all drug tests. All he had to do was stop smoking it for a month. He couldn't do it.

So you're saying Charles Rogers wasn't worth a 7th round pick?Ok.

Do you know anything about management and building a team? Chemistry is important and if one considers a player to be a Round 1 Cancer, isn't he a cancer in Round 7 too? You've made some mind-boggling ignorant statements throughout this thread and have been called out by many on them. My advice is you should cut your losses and stop making it worse by trying to get the last word in.

Are you saying you agree that, without the benefit of hindsight, Rogers shouldn't have been drafted? Seriously?

I am saying that there are clearly talented kids in every draft that should not be drafted as high as they are for many reasons including team chemistry, work ethic, etc... I am also saying that if one feels Rogers isn't worth having on the team for these reasons in Round 1 then he isn't worth it in Round 7 either. A guy doesn't work harder or become less of a cancer because he got drafted in a later round. You're smart enough to understand that.

When you look at on-field college stats, Rogers certainly compares with CJ. When you look at the person and total package, there is no comparison. None.

I also believe you're fishing at this point too.

Rogers had a great work ethic. He wasn't a cancer. He was a good teammate. You pretty much have nothing to back those negative statements up.

Yeah, a guy that can't stop doing drugs long enough to get himself ready for his job is a great guy to have on the team.

Can you not follow a simple train of thought? You said he was undraftable. Which is 100% re-tard-ed.

He was not a cancer pre-draft. He did have a good work ethic in college. He was a good teammate in college. So why not draft him in the 1st? You said he was a cancer, bad work ethic. Which was completely wrong.

I didn't say he was undraftable. I said if one removed him from their board because of issues unrelated to on-field performance in Round 1, then they remove him from their board altogether. It's not re-tard-ed and I don't appreciate your use of the word either a-s-s hole.He was a cancer predraft. we'll agree to disagree on that.

 

[JimboJim]

By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack".

I don't think my logic brings you to that conclusion, but I agree far fewer picks deserve flack than receive flack. We should expect NFL scouts and GMs to be excellent talent evaluators, and should have top notch draft strategies. But they shouldn't be expected to own crystal balls.

Look back at at the first couple rounds of any draft; a bunch of what are expected to be impact players are busts. There is no way around it; some teams are going to draft players that just don't work out.I think the teams that hit on a fair percentage of impact picks are the ones that are regarded highly.A good example is a team like the Ravens. They are regularly though of as one of the better drafting teams. However, look at some of their first rounders like Travis Taylor and Kyle Boller that turned out to be busts.The Lions get a lot of flack, and rightly so. Harrinston was a bust, so was Rogers and Mike Williams is almost there.Let's say for example that Mike Williams would have turned out as predicted my most analysts and observers. They would have two decent WRs and nobody would be ripping them for that pick. They knew Rogers was toast when they picked Williams and that wasn't the worst move at the time.I think it's more what a team does over the long run than a single pick or two.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack".

I don't think my logic brings you to that conclusion, but I agree far fewer picks deserve flack than receive flack. We should expect NFL scouts and GMs to be excellent talent evaluators, and should have top notch draft strategies. But they shouldn't be expected to own crystal balls.

I think it's hard for us to know which picks deserve flack and why. We don't have access to as much information as NFL scouting departments, and even if we did we're not necessarily competent to second-guess their actual scouting analyses. In some cases, e.g., Lawrence Phillips, it's not so hard to second-guess the pros because the concerns about the player were evident even to non-experts. In other cases, like maybe Andre Wadsworth or someone, if the signs of busting were there they were hard for a lay person to see, so it's hard to know how blameworthy the Cards were.There are two questions here with Charles Rogers.

1. Were the signs of busting evident? I know someone who was at MSU at the time and said that it was generally "known" (i.e., rumored) that he did lots of coke. Combine that with the fact that he failed the drug test and maybe the signs were there. It's arguable, at least.

2. Even if the signs weren't sufficient to present a grave concern, does that mean his character was on par with Calvin Johnson's? I don't see how anyone can answer affirmatively with a straight face. I can't find the quote now, but I saw one scout/commentator (I think it was John Murphy, but it could have been Mike Mayock or Pat Kirwin or someone else) say that CJ gets the highest grade in character that they've ever given. There are whole articles written about his great character. link1, link2, link3. The comparison to Charles Rogers in that respect makes no sense to me.

Also, while perhaps an argument can be made that we couldn't have known about Rogers' character concerns ahead of time (although I disagree), some people in this thread have gone farther and suggested even in hindsight that Rogers' character wasn't the reason for his failure (attributing it instead to injury). As another poster correctly pointed out, however, Rogers' collar bone isn't the reason he is running a 4.9.

Edit to add the original point of this post: If we as lay people cannot accurately evaluate the scouting analyses of NFL teams, we can evaluate their results. Obviously there's some luck involved, and it's possible for a team to pick several busts in a row just by bad luck. But with each bust it becomes increasingly likely that it's not just bad luck. The Lions have a recent pattern of poor drafting.

 

[Chase Stuart]

By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack".

I don't think my logic brings you to that conclusion, but I agree far fewer picks deserve flack than receive flack. We should expect NFL scouts and GMs to be excellent talent evaluators, and should have top notch draft strategies. But they shouldn't be expected to own crystal balls.

I think it's hard for us to know which picks deserve flack and why. We don't have access to as much information as NFL scouting departments, and even if we did we're not necessarily competent to second-guess their actual scouting analyses. In some cases, e.g., Lawrence Phillips, it's not so hard to second-guess the pros because the concerns about the player were evident even to non-experts. In other cases, like maybe Andre Wadsworth or someone, if the signs of busting were there they were hard for a lay person to see, so it's hard to know how blameworthy the Cards were.There are two questions here with Charles Rogers.

1. Were the signs of busting evident? I know someone who was at MSU at the time and said that it was generally "known" (i.e., rumored) that he did lots of coke. Combine that with the fact that he failed the drug test and maybe the signs were there. It's arguable, at least.

2. Even if the signs weren't sufficient to present a grave concern, does that mean his character was on par with Calvin Johnson's? I don't see how anyone can answer affirmatively with a straight face. I can't find the quote now, but I saw one scout/commentator (I think it was John Murphy, but it could have been Mike Mayock or Pat Kirwin or someone else) say that CJ gets the highest grade in character that they've ever given. There are whole articles written about his great character. link1, link2, link3. The comparison to Charles Rogers in that respect makes no sense to me.

Also, while perhaps an argument can be made that we couldn't have known about Rogers' character concerns ahead of time (although I disagree), some people in this thread have gone farther and suggested even in hindsight that Rogers' character wasn't the reason for his failure (attributing it instead to injury). As another poster correctly pointed out, however, Rogers' collar bone isn't the reason he is running a 4.9.

1. How many NFL teams wouldn't have drafted Charles Rogers in the top five, in your opinion? Zero? Three? Ten?2. How important is your answer to that question, to the question of whether Millen made a bad pick?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

1. How many NFL teams wouldn't have drafted Charles Rogers in the top five, in your opinion? Zero? Three? Ten?2. How important is your answer to that question, to the question of whether Millen made a bad pick?

(See my edit that I added to the end of my last post.)1. I don't know. There probably were some. I don't know how many, but the teams drafting down around #25-#30 may not even be able to answer that question because they hadn't looked at him and the other top prospects closely enough. But there are players that teams decide not to target. As I mentioned, Bobby Beathard said before the Lawrence Phillips draft that he wouldn't have taken him even if were available in the seventh round. He just wasn't on the draft board at all. That's an extreme example, but what a lot of teams do is focus on four or five players they really like who are expected to be available when they are picking. There could easily have been teams that, had they been picking in the top four or five, wouldn't have had Charles Rogers in the group of four or five players that they really liked.2. It's quite relevant. Top two or three would be more relevant.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1. How many NFL teams wouldn't have drafted Charles Rogers in the top five, in your opinion? Zero? Three? Ten?2. How important is your answer to that question, to the question of whether Millen made a bad pick?

(See my edit that I added to the end of my last post.)1. I don't know. There probably were some. I don't know how many, but the teams drafting down around #25-#30 may not even be able to answer that question because they hadn't looked at him and the other top prospects closely enough. But there are players that teams decide not to target. As I mentioned, Bobby Beathard said before the Lawrence Phillips draft that he wouldn't have taken him even if were available in the seventh round. He just wasn't on the draft board at all. That's an extreme example, but what a lot of teams do is focus on four or five players they really like who are expected to be available when they are picking. There could easily have been teams picking in the top four or five picks that didn't have Charles Rogers in the group of four or five players that they really liked.2. It's quite relevant. Top two or three would be more relevant.

Fair enough. It's my contention that a majority of teams would have selected Rogers with that 2nd pick. A majority of experts would have, as well. I think we both agree that assuming that to be the case, you shouldn't fault Millen for Rogers turning out to be a bust. As someone else correctly pointed out earlier, he was playing very well as a rookie before the injury.

 

[jdraiders]

I'm sure he does want him. Better yet, Atl actually has a play for him. I originally had them trading up to 3 to grab CJ, but that isn't looking like a probable place to get him now. I think they need to move up to at least 2 but will still try and keep him near Peachtree.

And when the Raiders take CJ what does ATL do? The Raiders draft CJ and rape TB in a trade as they really want him

 

[massraider]

I'm sure he does want him. Better yet, Atl actually has a play for him. I originally had them trading up to 3 to grab CJ, but that isn't looking like a probable place to get him now. I think they need to move up to at least 2 but will still try and keep him near Peachtree.

And when the Raiders take CJ what does ATL do? The Raiders draft CJ and rape TB in a trade as they really want him

In that case Atlanta moves to #6 for Landry. But Oakland ain't taking CJ, they goin' JR.

 

[grind]

At what point in the first round would you have drafted Rogers?

He wouldn't have been on my draft board. There are 22 positions to fill on the football people. Many of positions to fill with many good athletes.Stop and think about it. The guy couldn't stop smoking weed long enough to pass a known drug test, which typically would have a huge impact on draft position and $$$$$ (yes, he got lucky and the Lions bailed him out). I'm no weed expert, but I beleive if you put it up for a month, you'd pass most if not all drug tests. All he had to do was stop smoking it for a month. He couldn't do it.

So you're saying Charles Rogers wasn't worth a 7th round pick?Ok.

Do you know anything about management and building a team? Chemistry is important and if one considers a player to be a Round 1 Cancer, isn't he a cancer in Round 7 too? You've made some mind-boggling ignorant statements throughout this thread and have been called out by many on them. My advice is you should cut your losses and stop making it worse by trying to get the last word in.

Are you saying you agree that, without the benefit of hindsight, Rogers shouldn't have been drafted? Seriously?

I am saying that there are clearly talented kids in every draft that should not be drafted as high as they are for many reasons including team chemistry, work ethic, etc... I am also saying that if one feels Rogers isn't worth having on the team for these reasons in Round 1 then he isn't worth it in Round 7 either. A guy doesn't work harder or become less of a cancer because he got drafted in a later round. You're smart enough to understand that.

When you look at on-field college stats, Rogers certainly compares with CJ. When you look at the person and total package, there is no comparison. None.

I also believe you're fishing at this point too.

Rogers had a great work ethic. He wasn't a cancer. He was a good teammate. You pretty much have nothing to back those negative statements up.

Yeah, a guy that can't stop doing drugs long enough to get himself ready for his job is a great guy to have on the team.

Can you not follow a simple train of thought? You said he was undraftable. Which is 100% re-tard-ed.

He was not a cancer pre-draft. He did have a good work ethic in college. He was a good teammate in college. So why not draft him in the 1st? You said he was a cancer, bad work ethic. Which was completely wrong.

The fact is, Charles Rogers had a craving for pot dating back to his high school days. Now is pot a huge issue? I say not, but the NFL says yes.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack".

I don't think my logic brings you to that conclusion, but I agree far fewer picks deserve flack than receive flack. We should expect NFL scouts and GMs to be excellent talent evaluators, and should have top notch draft strategies. But they shouldn't be expected to own crystal balls.

Picking up on character issues is PART of talent evaluation and having a draft strategy. Regardless of whether or not some OTHER GMs would have made the same mistake, Millen blew it on Rogers. I concede that it is possible more than a few would have made that same mistake, but I also believe more than a few would NOT have made that mistake given the same situation. Avoiding those mistakes as often as possible is a big part of what makes the difference between good GMs and bad ones. You keep talking about Rogers' sky-high (no pun intended) potential, but no one disagrees with you on that. The question is whether a GM is responsible for the other side of that coin projecting downside and knowing when to roll the dice. I say he is, otherwise he is no different from some random schmo like you or me reading Kiper's write up. I'm not saying he should or CAN be perfect in that regard, but it IS part of his responsibility.If we can't judge GMs on actual results (for example 3 big busts in a 4 or 5 year span), what can you judge them on? Or are you saying they above reproach somehow?

 

[Chase Stuart]

By that logic, almost NO pick deserves "flack".

I don't think my logic brings you to that conclusion, but I agree far fewer picks deserve flack than receive flack. We should expect NFL scouts and GMs to be excellent talent evaluators, and should have top notch draft strategies. But they shouldn't be expected to own crystal balls.

Picking up on character issues is PART of talent evaluation and having a draft strategy. Regardless of whether or not some OTHER GMs would have made the same mistake, Millen blew it on Rogers. I concede that it is possible more than a few would have made that same mistake, but I also believe more than a few would NOT have made that mistake given the same situation. Avoiding those mistakes as often as possible is a big part of what makes the difference between good GMs and bad ones. You keep talking about Rogers' sky-high (no pun intended) potential, but no one disagrees with you on that. The question is whether a GM is responsible for the other side of that coin projecting downside and knowing when to roll the dice. I say he is, otherwise he is no different from some random schmo like you or me reading Kiper's write up. I'm not saying he should or CAN be perfect in that regard, but it IS part of his responsibility.If we can't judge GMs on actual results (for example 3 big busts in a 4 or 5 year span), what can you judge them on? Or are you saying they above reproach somehow?

Your character issues criterion is what enabled Dan Marino, Randy Moss and Warren Sapp to fall, too. It cuts both ways.GMs are not above reproach at all. But would you judge Jim Kelly based on whether Scott Norwood can hit a FG? That seems ludicrous to me. You judge a person on what they can control, not what they can't. (Even if Norwood hit that FG, you might "downgrade" Kelly because you think a better QB would have gotten them closer, or the game wouldn't have been so close, or whatever. But your evaluation of Kelly's performance shouldn't change in the five seconds it takes for Norwood to kick a FG.)

 

[jdraiders]

I'm sure he does want him. Better yet, Atl actually has a play for him. I originally had them trading up to 3 to grab CJ, but that isn't looking like a probable place to get him now. I think they need to move up to at least 2 but will still try and keep him near Peachtree.

And when the Raiders take CJ what does ATL do? The Raiders draft CJ and rape TB in a trade as they really want him

In that case Atlanta moves to #6 for Landry. But Oakland ain't taking CJ, they goin' JR.

I don't care if they take CJ or not, as long as they move down and get extra picks. If they don't trade down prior to drafting then they are fools if they don't take CJ and leverage him......and I will be one unhappy Raiders fan.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Grind, you're engaging in some revisionist history with Rogers. At the time of the draft, all that was known was that his urine sample had contained a suspicious amount of water. It did not test positive for drugs. The story promulgated by his agent was that he mistakenly drank too much water. Most press reports appeared to believe him.

Suspicious? Sure. Known drug use, let alone abuse? No way. Anybody who was paying attention was extremely surprised at Rogers' mental breakdowns over the last few years. I'm not saying he was a choirboy but absolutely nobody saw this coming. Any reasonable party circa the draft would have put Rogers roughly middle of the pack in terms of likelihood of having serious character issues.

The rumors about Sapp pre-draft were far more serious than the rumors about Rogers, for example.

 

[Bob Henry]

Calvin Johnson-WR- Player Apr. 25 - 6:56 pm et

SI.com's Don Banks reports that owner Arthur Blank has "pretty much ordered" GM Rich McKay to trade up for Calvin Johnson.

The Falcons have always made the most sense as a trading partner for Detroit because of their maverick owner, stockpile of draft picks, and local connection. Still, this is just another predraft rumor. It's just one that makes sense.

Source: SI.com

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpag...NFL&id=4153

So explain how Matt Millen gets crap for his trio of BMW, Rogers and Roy Williams but ATL doesnt for Roddy White, Mike Jenkins and Peerless Price.

Look at where they were drafted and you'll have your answer.

Roy Williams was a good draft pick.Charles Rogers was Calvin Johnson before Calvin Johnson. He set the NCAA record for consecutive games with a TD. He was an absolute monster in college. And both the Big 10 and MSU had pretty good WR pedigrees. He was as can't miss a WR prospect as there was.

Mike Williams was also a stud. After the draft, everyone thought Williams at 10 was a steal. And he was taken after the Lions realized Rogers was a sunk cost.

You can rip on Millen for a lot of things. But none of those three WR picks were anything but good at the time.

and part of the reason it hurts so bad

 

[Assani Fisher]

Calvin Johnson-WR- Player Apr. 25 - 6:56 pm et

SI.com's Don Banks reports that owner Arthur Blank has "pretty much ordered" GM Rich McKay to trade up for Calvin Johnson.

The Falcons have always made the most sense as a trading partner for Detroit because of their maverick owner, stockpile of draft picks, and local connection. Still, this is just another predraft rumor. It's just one that makes sense.

Source: SI.com

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpag...NFL&id=4153

So explain how Matt Millen gets crap for his trio of BMW, Rogers and Roy Williams but ATL doesnt for Roddy White, Mike Jenkins and Peerless Price.

Look at where they were drafted and you'll have your answer.

agree that the place they are drafted is important, however what also should be noted is that Roy is the only one that has panned outI think most people can let go of the Rogers and Roy picks, it's the Mike Williams pick that annoys most people. 3rd straight WR when he could have had somebody like Demarcus Ware, Merriman, etc. which was a bigger need.

the funny thing about the BMW pick is that its the same logic they're using with CJ this year- even though they don't need WR, hes clearly the BPA at that spot and they don't want to "miss out on Jordan to take a need player like Sam Bowie."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Suspicious? Sure. Known drug use, let alone abuse? No way. Anybody who was paying attention was extremely surprised at Rogers' mental breakdowns over the last few years.

I know some people who were paying attention who were not surprised.