Mike Mayock's Top 32 Prospects

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301241510' post='980301']
there's certainly some concern with Fairley, but not nearly as much. There's also a HUGE difference in the positions they play and what's expected of both.

You don't need a DT to be as squeaky clean and role model as you do a franchise QB.
[/quote]

You mean squeaky clean and a role model like Big Ben?

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301241510' post='980301']
there's certainly some concern with Fairley, but not nearly as much. There's also a HUGE difference in the positions they play and what's expected of both.

You don't need a DT to be as squeaky clean and role model as you do a franchise QB.
[/quote]

you just said that you don't take boom/bust players in the top 10 and generally not even in the first round. Well, Fairley is the epitome of a boom/bust pick, does that mean you no longer consider him top 10?

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1301241805' post='980305']
You mean squeaky clean and a role model like Big Ben?
[/quote]


apples and oranges.


Ben now isn't what he was perceived to be in 2004. Here's the first link I found.


[quote]ANALYSIS:[b] A high-character prospect well liked and respected,[/b] Roethlisberger is gifted both physically and intellectually. Possesses the skills a franchise can build their team around for a winning future. May not offer early returns but has more upside potential than any other signal-caller in this draft.[/quote]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2004/draft/players/53419.html



There's concerns about Cam NOW. They may come to fruition, they may not. None of us know. You can only base it on what you know the day of the draft, that's why its a crapshoot. If the day of the draft you have concerns, pass.



Also, fwiw, Ben was a far more accomplished passer coming out. He was a 3 year starter in college, and his stats his final year were actually better than Newton's.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301242103' post='980307']
you just said that you don't take boom/bust players in the top 10 and generally not even in the first round. Well, Fairley is the epitome of a boom/bust pick, does that mean you no longer consider him top 10?
[/quote]





I suppose you didn't even read my post you quoted.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301242258' post='980308']
apples and oranges.


Ben now isn't what he was perceived to be in 2004. Here's the first link I found.




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2004/draft/players/53419.html



There's concerns about Cam NOW. They may come to fruition, they may not. None of us know. You can only base it on what you know the day of the draft, that's why its a crapshoot. If the day of the draft you have concerns, pass.



Also, fwiw, Ben was a far more accomplished passer coming out. He was a 3 year starter in college, and his stats his final year were actually better than Newton's.
[/quote]

So maybe the point should be that scouts and analysts opinions on player character should be scrutinized a bit more and repeated a bit less?

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1301242469' post='980311']
So maybe the point should be that scouts and analysts opinions on player character should be scrutinized a bit more and repeated a bit less?
[/quote]


what else should teams base the pick on then?

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301242364' post='980310']



I suppose you didn't even read my post you quoted.
[/quote]

So he can be a boom/bust player as long as he's not a QB?

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301240917' post='980297']
[b]He's a boom or bust player, as I said a day or two ago. [size="4"]You don't take those type of players in the top 10 of the draft (or first round in general).[/size]
[/b]
[/quote]

[bengaled]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301242103' post='980307']
you just said that you don't take boom/bust players in the top 10 and generally not even in the first round. Well, Fairley is the epitome of a boom/bust pick, does that mean you no longer consider him top 10?
[/quote]


i don't think NFL talent evaluators are looking at nick as a boom or bust type player. certainly, there's been false signals going on, hoping for an environment where his stock will drop. as with any player, there's a chance his ceiling might not be reached, but there's not much doubt that nick will at the very least end up an above average, and adequate, starting player...especially so if your team runs a 4-3 defense. maybe some of those supposed question marks pertain to whether he can convert to another position? i have no idea and am not concerned in that way. with that said, i couldn't be any more convinced that he will be one of the better 3 types in the league. he has the potential to do just that. if a player answers that question for you, he becomes a fairly safe pick... no matter where you're selecting him in the draft.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301242945' post='980315']
So he can be a boom/bust player as long as he's not a QB?
[/quote]


fail again.


1) Fairley's concerns aren't as big as Newton's

2) You're not asking Fairley to be the face of your franchise.

3) Not many are concerned about Fairley being a bust.




Like it or not, concerns about QB's are bigger red flags to teams than concerns at any other position. Fairley has less concerns, and at a less visible position.

[spicoli]

I think the big fear with NFL talent evaluators with Fairley is not so much what he can do on the field, but what's going to happen when they turn the kid into an instant millionaire. He has maturity issues and that is a big red flag for teams that have to sign over the checks. That's why Fairley is considered a boom/bust player.

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301243186' post='980317']
fail again.


1) Fairley's concerns aren't as big as Newton's

2) You're not asking Fairley to be the face of your franchise.

3) Not many are concerned about Fairley being a bust.




Like it or not, concerns about QB's are bigger red flags to teams than concerns at any other position. Fairley has less concerns, and at a less visible position.
[/quote]

Fairley is still considered a boom/bust pick and YOU WERE THE ONE that said that you DO NOT take those players in the top 10.

[bengaled]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301242258' post='980308']
apples and oranges.


Ben now isn't what he was perceived to be in 2004. Here's the first link I found.




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2004/draft/players/53419.html



There's concerns about Cam NOW. They may come to fruition, they may not. None of us know. You can only base it on what you know the day of the draft, that's why its a crapshoot. If the day of the draft you have concerns, pass.



Also, fwiw, Ben was a far more accomplished passer coming out. He was a 3 year starter in college, and his stats his final year were actually better than Newton's.
[/quote]


ben was taken with the #11 pick, too...not the #4 overall pick as we're considering with cam newton. at the time everyone knew ben appeared to be a prototype prospect at the position. there weren't nearly as many question marks as there are surrounding cam newton this year. anyone that says there were is only fooling themselves. that situation just didn't exist.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301243475' post='980319']
[b]Fairley is still considered a boom/bust pick[/b] and YOU WERE THE ONE that said that you DO NOT take those players in the top 10.
[/quote]


I know this may come as a shock, but just because YOU say it, doesn't make it true.

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301243594' post='980321']
I know this may come as a shock, but just because YOU say it, doesn't make it true.
[/quote]

Lol, it's not just me. The boom/bust tag has been associated with Fairley from the get go. Again, not because of physical ability, but because of maturity. You even just said yourself that there were certainly questions about him. Well, if that's the case how can you justify using the #4 pick on the guy?

The same issues that make Cam boom or bust are the same issues that make Fairley boom/bust. It's never been about physical ability, it's always been about character/maturity question marks. If you say one doesn't belong in the top 10, then why does the other?

[bengaled]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301243944' post='980323']
Lol, it's not just me. The boom/bust tag has been associated with Fairley from the get go. Again, not because of physical ability, but because of maturity. You even just said yourself that there were certainly questions about him, well if that's the case how can you justify using the #4 pick on the guy?
[/quote]

the thing i've heard more than that is the "one year wonder" label they've tried to attach on him. the best argument i've heard against that, and one i entirely endorse, is even if he did accomplish those stats in one year, the totals he accumulated far exceeded the next DT's career numbers. when you consider both these guys played against the same competition, you get a fair measure of their value and how they stack up against one another.

if you want a versatile player that can play well at any position on the DL in any defense, then marcell dareus should be your pick. however, if you want the clearly best 3 type for your 4-3 defense, nick fairley is the pick you should make. so to answer that question, do you see us changing defenses all of a sudden? do you see us having a need to replace domata peko? or are you instead looking for a guy that can rush the QB on passing downs alongside of geno (basically replacing an aging tank or sims), while at the same time providing a great twosome alongside of peko playing the run (again replacing an aging tank or sims). the latter role is what i would expect them doing with fairley. i think he'd be a difference maker if they assigned him to that role.

[spicoli]

[quote name='bengaled' timestamp='1301244994' post='980326']
the thing i've heard more than that is the "one year wonder" label they've tried to attach on him. the best argument i've heard against that, and one i entirely endorse, is even if he did accomplish those stats in one year, the totals he accumulated far exceeded the next DT's career numbers. when you consider both these guys played against the same competition, you get a fair measure of their value and how they stack up against one another.

if you want a versatile player that can play well at any position on the DL in any defense, then marcell dareus should be your pick. however, if you want the clearly best 3 type for your 4-3 defense, nick fairley is the pick you should make. so to answer that question, do you see us changing defenses all of a sudden? do you see us having a need to replace domata peko? or are you instead looking for a guy that can rush the QB on passing downs alongside of geno (basically replacing an aging tank or sims), while at the same time providing a great twosome alongside of peko playing the run (again replacing an aging tank or sims). the latter role is what i would expect them doing with fairley. i think he'd be a difference maker if they assigned him to that role.
[/quote]


I would prefer Dareus, but i'm not going to bitch about Nick Fairley if they pick him. I'd rather have him over any offensive player on the board that's for sure. Again though, if he starts sliding down the board (which is entirely possible), it's not going to have anything to do with what he can do on the field, but rather, it's going to be because the GM's at the top are scared to death of how he'll handle the responsibilities that go along with being a top 5 pick.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301243385' post='980318']
I think the big fear with NFL talent evaluators with Fairley is not so much what he can do on the field,[b] but what's going to happen when they turn the kid into an instant millionaire. [/b]He has maturity issues and that is a big red flag for teams that have to sign over the checks. That's why Fairley is considered a boom/bust player.
[/quote]



when evaluating prospects, I'm pretty confident that how the players spend their money isn't high on teams' lists of concerns, as long as they aren't using it on anything illegal (and Fairley has no criminal past). Further, in the past the Bengals have offered financial management assistance to players who want it, so they can handle it that way if they so choose.


How a draft pick spends his money (legally) is not a major red flag.

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301245311' post='980329']
when evaluating prospects, I'm pretty confident that how the players spend their money isn't high on teams' lists of concerns, as long as they aren't using it on anything illegal (and Fairley has no criminal past). Further, in the past the Bengals have offered financial management assistance to players who want it, so they can handle it that way if they so choose.


How a draft pick spends his money (legally) is not a major red flag.
[/quote]

but maturity issues ARE and it's all tied together.

look, I know you've seen plenty of mock drafts out there that have Fairley taking a slight tumble down the boards. I'm saying he will or won't, but if he does, do you really think it's going to have anything to do with his ability on the football field?

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301245530' post='980330']
but maturity issues ARE and it's all tied together.
[/quote]


I welcome sources that demonstrate his immaturity off the field, or how it's negatively effected his on-field performance.

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301245661' post='980331']
I welcome sources that demonstrate his immaturity off the field, or how it's negatively effected his on-field performance.
[/quote]

Lol, I'm not the one doing the background checks, but usually where there's smoke, there's fire. Not always, but usually.

Again, [b]IF[/b] he starts sliding, what do you think the reason will be? It's certainly not going to be because of physical ability on the field.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301246255' post='980335']
Lol, I'm not the one doing the background checks, but usually where there's smoke, there's fire. Not always, but usually.

Again, [b]IF[/b] he starts sliding, what do you think the reason will be? It's certainly not going to be because of physical ability on the field.
[/quote]


this read would do you good.


http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=59364

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301246510' post='980336']
this read would do you good.


http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=59364
[/quote]

Lol, I've read it and I don't disagree with it. GM's do stupid shit every year that goes against that logic...especially the ones near the top.

That's the fun of trying to predict where these guys are going to end up. You've never seen me say this guy is going to suck as a pro, or that this guy is going to be great...I've simply only tried to predict where they might end up.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='spicoli-2' timestamp='1301246255' post='980335']
Lol, I'm not the one doing the background checks, but usually where there's smoke, there's fire. Not always, but usually.

Again, [b]IF[/b] he starts sliding, what do you think the reason will be? It's certainly not going to be because of physical ability on the field.
[/quote]


you don't have to be doing background checks.



No one was talking about Fairley's immaturity before he declared for the draft. Tis the season.

[go_cats]

This sounds like Andre Smith all over again

[spicoli]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1301247140' post='980340']
you don't have to be doing background checks.



[b]No one was talking about Fairley's immaturity before he declared for the draft. Tis the season.[/b]
[/quote]

Well that's certainly not true. I tried to tell you back in January that Fairly was going to have a hard time making it through the process as the top DT, and probably wouldn't hold onto the top spot because of it. Hell, I heard rumblings of character issues back in November. Again, [b]usually[/b] where there's smoke, there's fire. All we can do is wait and see how it plays out, but if Fairley takes the tumble I suspect he might, it'll simply be due to concerns that have nothing to do with on-field performance.