[ColoradoTree]

I dunno, I didn't see anything outrageous in those scouting reports.  I was pleasantly surprised by the Hogan and Cajuste ones and a little less pleasantly surprised at the Hooper, Garnett, and Martinez ones, but nothing crazy.  And again, opinions differ.  Hard to complain about the scout who thought Garnett was the best guard, even if we complain about the scout that "doesn't think he moves very well," which is insane given how great of a pulling guard Garnett was. 

I wonder if Hooper could have boosted his draft stock with another great year.  My hunch is yes, though he's supposed to be the #2 TE off the board, so it may be difficult to improve on that. 

Idle thought: it frustrates me to see a player that we've grown to love as a fierce competitor described as merely "OK," but I suppose we have to take the context into account.  These guys are studying all of the best potential NFL rookies out there, so to be described as just OK isn't that bad of a ding.  It has to be hard to truly differentiate between hundreds of players every year, all of whom are really good.  And obviously, the NFL system and coaching staff the player goes into will either make these scouts look very smart or very silly, and the crazy part is that it doesn't mean the scout whose opinion looks bad in hindsight was wrong.  Those flaws could well be there, but the coaching staff worked around them to develop a terrific NFL player. 

[ColoradoTree]

I dunno, I didn't see anything outrageous in those scouting reports.  I was pleasantly surprised by the Hogan and Cajuste ones and a little less pleasantly surprised at the Hooper, Garnett, and Martinez ones, but nothing crazy.  And again, opinions differ.  Hard to complain about the scout who thought Garnett was the best guard, even if we complain about the scout that "doesn't think he moves very well," which is insane given how great of a pulling guard Garnett was. 

I wonder if Hooper could have boosted his draft stock with another great year.  My hunch is yes, though he's supposed to be the #2 TE off the board, so it may be difficult to improve on that. 

Idle thought: it frustrates me to see a player that we've grown to love as a fierce competitor described as merely "OK," but I suppose we have to take the context into account.  These guys are studying all of the best potential NFL rookies out there, so to be described as just OK isn't that bad of a ding.  It has to be hard to truly differentiate between hundreds of players every year, all of whom are really good.  And obviously, the NFL system and coaching staff the player goes into will either make these scouts look very smart or very silly, and the crazy part is that it doesn't mean the scout whose opinion looks bad in hindsight was wrong.  Those flaws could well be there, but the coaching staff worked around them to develop a terrific NFL player.