Kiper - Round 1 winners and question marks

[Risen Star]

If Williams Is the better prospect, then logically he is the BPA at pick 5 over Scherff.

I asked you to show me where I said Scherff was the better prospect. You made that claim. Show me where I said it.

If you got that from reading my responses you are completely incapable of having a rational discussion about it.

 

[Risen Star]

Thanks for posting this and sharing with the rest of board. Love that Kiper high on Jones and one of my best friends that lives in Cleveland likes their DT. He pulls for Dallas and I cheer for his team The Browns. We have a very important thing in common we both hate the steelers more than anything.

Mel is a bit of a corner fiend. (I have to use "fiend" here instead of the proper term for it) I knew he would love the pick. Pfffft.

 

[dallasdave]

This is great -love Kiper and love this vid.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I asked you to show me where I said Scherff was the better prospect. You made that claim. Show me where I said it.

If you got that from reading my responses you are completely incapable of having a rational discussion about it.

The implication is if you have no problem with Scherff being taken over Williams who has been nationally considered a top 5 player, then did the Commanders take BPA?

Williams was clearly the BPA and since you have argued otherwise by implication you think Scherff was BPA.

You are not being rational, quite the opposite, you should refrain from your approach and framework of discussion by attempting to call someone irrational or a homer simply because they disagree with your logic and evaluation.

The issue is your evaluation of Williams and Scherff, Williams was the BPA at pick 5.

Scherff was in the conversation in this range but no way was he BPA over Williams on any level.

They picked for need instead of trading out or simply taking the BPA. They signed DL heavy in free agency and thus went for need, most of us know this information.

 

[dallasdave]

Mel is a bit of a corner fiend. (I have to use "fiend" here instead of the proper term for it) I knew he would love the pick. Pfffft.

As Mel would say great value pick at 27.

 

[CowboyChris]

You are just a Cowboys fan incapable of looking at it fairly. It stings to see the Commanders get a great player. So this is about the only avenue you can use to try to discredit a great pick.

it wouldve stung worse had they took Williams, but taking an OL at #5 that projects inside to a guard, is stupid .

 

[Risen Star]

The implication is if you have no problem with Scherff being taken over Williams who has been nationally considered a top 5 player, then did the Commanders take BPA?

Williams was clearly the BPA and since you have argued otherwise by implication you think Scherff was BPA.

You are not being rational, quite the opposite, you should refrain from your approach and framework of discussion by attempting to call someone irrational or a homer simply because they disagree with your logic and evaluation.

The issue is your evaluation of Williams and Scherff, Williams was the BPA at pick 5.

Scherff was in the conversation in this range but no way was he BPA over Williams on any level.

They picked for need instead of trading out or simply taking the BPA. They signed DL heavy in free agency and thus went for need, most of us know this information.

So again you failed to show me where I said Scherff was a better prospect than Williams. We'll chalk that up as more complete irrational nonsense from a sensitive Cowboys fan looking to discredit the Commanders.

No. I didn't say that. In fact, I said several times that I had 6 elite prospects in the draft. If you bypass one for any of the other 6 I wouldn't consider it a reach. Both Williams and Scherff are in this group of 6. Where am I losing you here?

So if what you say is true, I'd think people will criticize for the Commanders for the pick. I see nothing but praise.

You asked, recited off the fan manual, why I...gasp.....criticize the Cowboys selection and not the evil Commanders. There is your answer. Because I do not believe the Commanders passed up a superior prospect. I do believe the Cowboys did and since I'm an adult capable of being honest, I don't think the Cowboys pick was a great pick. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great, IMO.

I hope that in no point in this response did I say Scherff is a better player than Williams. Kindly disregard it if I did. It's like a nervous tick I have.

 

[Risen Star]

it wouldve stung worse had they took Williams, but taking an OL at #5 that projects inside to a guard, is stupid .

Williams, Scherff...either way they were getting a great player. It sucks but hey. That's what happens when you have the 5th pick.

Unless you're the Cowboys in the year 2003.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Kiper likes him? That means his agent must have gave him a fat payday.

 

[CowboyChris]

Williams, Scherff...either way they were getting a great player. It sucks but hey. That's what happens when you have the 5th pick.

Unless you're the Cowboys in the year 2003.

Please tell us how you came to that conclusion..... that an OT thats projected to go inside as a guard, warrants a blue chip player in the entire draft??
I remember everyone clamoring for DeCastro a few years ago, we all saw him slide right by us.

 

[Rogerthat12]

So again you failed to show me where I said Scherff was a better prospect than Williams. We'll chalk that up as more complete irrational nonsense from a sensitive Cowboys fan looking to discredit the Commander



No. I didn't say that. In fact, I said several times I believe that I had 6 elite prospects in the draft. If you bypass one for any of the other 6 I wouldn't consider it a reach. Both Williams and Scherff are in this group of 6. Where am I losing you here?

So if what you say is true, I'd think people will criticize for the Commanders for the pick. I see nothing but praise.

You asked, recited off the fan manual, why I...gasp.....criticize the Cowboys selection and not the evil Commanders. There is your answer. Because I do not believe the Commanders passed up a superior prospect. I do believe the Cowboys did and since I'm an adult capable of being honest, I don't think the Cowboys pick was a great pick. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great, IMO.

I hope that in no point in this response did I say Scherff is a better player than Williams. Kindly disregard it if I did. It's like a nervous tick I have.

First, you need to refrain from your approach of everyone is irrational because they disagree with your logic and evaluation or that they can not be objective because they are a homer because quite frankly it is a stupid strategy that does not work on intelligent posters.

You must learn that attacking the man by using "irrational" type comments does nothing to make the proposition of your argument true nor does it make your argument valid.

Quite frankly, attacking the poster with such pejorative language is simply a logical fallacy in itself, in addition to the logic of your evaluation.

You need to learn what "implication" means, let me explain this to you so I can be helpful.

You claim Williams is not superior to Scherff which of course is a poor evaluation but your evaluation non the less.

Your words: "Because I do not believe the Commanders passed up a superior prospect".

So if the Commanders took the pure BPA in your opinion, by implication Scherff is the superior selection because if not you take Williams or someone else.

The problem in your logic is Scherff was not the BPA and Williams is the superior prospect. The problem is your proposition is false thus your argument ultimately invalid.

Scherff is an outstanding prospect but Williams is considered the best in the draft and a top 5 prospect unlike Scherff nationally speaking.

We all know the Commanders added DL in free agency, so they passed the actual BPA at 5 and went with Scherff to fill a need on the offensive line.

You can play the subjectivity line but all you are doing is grounding your evaluation in your opinion, nothing more.

I could care less about discrediting the Commanders, it could be an empty signifier and I would still think whoever passed on Williams for Scherff failed to take the BPA with the selection.

You apparently are beat down by the homers to the extent that you can not recognize you are lumping everyone on this site in this same false category if they disagree with you.

Scherff is an excellent player but he is not equal to or superior to Williams and many people commented that although Scherff is a solid player the Commanders passed on BPA with reference to Williams.

It was less about how much of a reach he was to the fact that he was not the BPA and was a need selection.

 

[CowboyChris]

First, you need to refrain from your approach of everyone is irrational because they disagree with your logic and evaluation or that they can not be objective because they are a homer because quite frankly it is a stupid strategy that does not work on intelligent posters.

You must learn that attacking the man by using "irrational" type comments does nothing to make the proposition of your argument true nor does it make your argument valid.

Quite frankly, attacking the poster with such pejorative language is simply a logical fallacy in itself, in addition to the logic of your evaluation.

You need to learn what "implication" means, let me explain this to you so I can be helpful.

You claim Williams is not superior to Scherff which of course is a poor evaluation but your evaluation non the less.

Your words: "Because I do not believe the Commanders passed up a superior prospect".

So if the Commanders took the pure BPA in your opinion, by implication Scherff is the superior selection because if not you take Williams or someone else.

The problem in your logic is Scherff was not the BPA and Williams is the superior prospect. The problem is your proposition is false thus your argument ultimately invalid.

Scherff is an outstanding prospect but Williams is considered the best in the draft and a top 5 prospect unlike Scherff nationally speaking.

We all know the Commanders added DL in free agency, so they passed the actual BPA at 5 and went with Scherff to fill a need on the offensive line.

You can play the subjectivity line but all you are doing is grounding your evaluation in your opinion, nothing more.

I could care less about discrediting the Commanders, it could be an empty signifier and I would still think whoever passed on Williams for Scherff failed to take the BPA with the selection.

You apparently are beat down by the homers to the extent that you can not recognize you are lumping everyone on this site in this same false category if they disagree with you.

Scherff is an excellent player but he is not equal to or superior to Williams and many people commented that although Scherff is a solid player the Commanders passed on BPA with reference to Williams.

It was less about how much of a reach he was to the fact that he was not the BPA and was a need selection.

simply an excellent response. i agree 100% on this situation.

 

[Risen Star]

First, you need to refrain from your approach of everyone is irrational because they disagree with your logic and evaluation or that they can not be objective because they are a homer because quite frankly it is a stupid strategy that does not work on intelligent posters.

I'm calling you irrational because you have been. Saying things I never said and then offering a lame response to dodge that fact. Check it out....

You must learn that attacking the man by using "irrational" type comments does nothing to make the proposition of your argument true nor does it make your argument valid.

When you criticize a team (rival team) for taking a consensus elite talent because you feel they could have traded down some, despite having no knowledge of whether those teams wanted to trade up, you are being irrational. You are looking to criticize the team. You have an agenda. I guarantee you if the Cowboys did this same thing you'd support it. You won't admit it now, but you would be on board.

Quite frankly, attacking the poster with such pejorative language is simply a logical fallacy in itself, in addition to the logic of your evaluation.

You need to learn what "implication" means, let me explain this to you so I can be helpful.

Why do I need to learn what implication means? You didn't say implication. You didn't say imply. You said that I said Scherff was better than Williams, which I did not and you can not find it anywhere in this discussion.

You need to learn what moving the goalposts mean.

You claim Williams is not superior to Scherff which of course is a poor evaluation but your evaluation non the less.

Your words: "Because I do not believe the Commanders passed up a superior prospect".

So if the Commanders took the pure BPA in your opinion, by implication Scherff is the superior selection because if not you take Williams or someone else.

So the Commanders didn't pass up a superior prospect means, to you, that the player they took was the superior prospect?

How about it's exactly what I said several times in this thread. That I had 6 guys at the top grouped together. All elite blue chip grades. I don't care what order those 6 went in, none were reaches to me. If the Commanders had taken Todd Gurley I wouldn't have called it a reach.

You just can't stand the Commanders got a stud.

We all know the Commanders added DL in free agency, so they passed the actual BPA at 5 and went with Scherff to fill a need on the offensive line.

You keep stating this as if it's fact. Who says Williams was the clear cut BPA? You? So?

This all started when you asked me why I don't have a problem with what the Commanders did over the Cowboys and what they did. I answered you. With MY evalutation of it. I don't base my opinion off of what you think. If you had Williams higher, that's you. Though I suspect (know) it's complete fanatic nonsense. Evil Commanders, and all.

I could care less about discrediting the Commanders, it could be an empty signifier and I would still think whoever passed on Williams for Scherff failed to take the BPA with the selection.

Riiight.

Go Cowboys, bro.

Bro? Go Cowboys.

You apparently are beat down by the homers to the extent that you can not recognize you are lumping everyone on this site in this same false category if they disagree with you.

I call it as I see it. Bring an intelligent argument and I'll handle it as such. Bring complete nonsense like the Commanders should just trade down regardless of whether a team wants to move up and hope their elite player is still on the board despite the Giants chomping at the bit to select him a few picks later is complete and total nonsense. You won't read that anywhere except someone with an axe to grind with the Commanders.

Scherff is an excellent player but he is not equal to or superior to Williams

That's your opinion. Which means jack and squat to me. I believe they're about equal as prospects. I'd take either. So I'll go with my opinion and you go with yours and the next time you ask me why I think a certain way, understand I'm not adopting your thought process.

and many people commented that although Scherff is a solid player the Commanders passed on BPA with reference to Williams.

Scherff is not a solid player for the Commanders. He's a blue chip, cornerstone piece for the franchise. Every bit the quality of any of our offensive linemen.

They got a stud.

Roll around it.

It was less about how much of a reach he was to the fact that he was not the BPA and was a need selection.

Interesting you say that because that's exactly why I criticized the Cowboys selection.

Did I answer your question?

 

[Rogerthat12]

I'm calling you irrational because you have been. Saying things I never said and then offering a lame response to dodge that fact. Check it out....



When you criticize a team (rival team) for taking a consensus elite talent because you feel they could have traded down some, despite having no knowledge of whether those teams wanted to trade up, you are being irrational. You are looking to criticize the team. You have an agenda. I guarantee you if the Cowboys did this same thing you'd support it. You won't admit it now, but you would be on board.



Why do I need to learn what implication means? You didn't say implication. You didn't say imply. You said that I said Scherff was better than Williams, which I did not and you can not find it anywhere in this discussion.

You need to learn what moving the goalposts mean.



So the Commanders didn't pass up a superior prospect means, to you, that the player they took was the superior prospect?

How about it's exactly what I said several times in this thread. That I had 6 guys at the top grouped together. All elite blue chip grades. I don't care what order those 6 went in, none were reaches to me. If the Commanders had taken Todd Gurley I wouldn't have called it a reach.

You just can't stand the Commanders got a stud.



You keep stating this as if it's fact. Who says Williams was the clear cut BPA? You? So?

This all started when you asked me why I don't have a problem with what the Commanders did over the Cowboys and what they did. I answered you. With MY evalutation of it. I don't base my opinion off of what you think. If you had Williams higher, that's you. Though I suspect (know) it's complete fanatic nonsense. Evil Commanders, and all.




Riiight.

Go Cowboys, bro.

Bro? Go Cowboys.




I call it as I see it. Bring an intelligent argument and I'll handle it as such. Bring complete nonsense like the Commanders should just trade down regardless of whether a team wants to move up and hope their elite player is still on the board despite the Giants chomping at the bit to select him a few picks later is complete and total nonsense. You won't read that anywhere except someone with an axe to grind with the Commanders.



That's your opinion. Which means jack and squat to me. I believe they're about equal as prospects. I'd take either. So I'll go with my opinion and you go with yours and the next time you ask me why I think a certain way, understand I'm not adopting your thought process.



Scherff is not a solid player for the Commanders. He's a blue chip, cornerstone piece for the franchise. Every bit the quality of any of our offensive linemen.

They got a stud.

Roll around it.




Interesting you say that because that's exactly why I criticized the Cowboys selection.

Did I answer your question?

All that hot air and your proposition is still false and your argument is still invalid.

Your evaluation is piss poor and everyone except you knows it!

I repeat:

First, you need to refrain from your approach of everyone is irrational because they disagree with your logic and evaluation or that they can not be objective because they are a homer because quite frankly it is a stupid strategy that does not work on intelligent posters.

You must learn that attacking the man by using "irrational" type comments does nothing to make the proposition of your argument true nor does it make your argument valid.

Quite frankly, attacking the poster with such pejorative language is simply a logical fallacy in itself, in addition to the logic of your evaluation.

You need to learn what "implication" means, let me explain this to you so I can be helpful.

You claim Williams is not superior to Scherff which of course is a poor evaluation but your evaluation non the less.

Your words: "Because I do not believe the Commanders passed up a superior prospect".

So if the Commanders took the pure BPA in your opinion, by implication Scherff is the superior selection because if not you take Williams or someone else.

The problem in your logic is Scherff was not the BPA and Williams is the superior prospect. The problem is your proposition is false thus your argument ultimately invalid.

Scherff is an outstanding prospect but Williams is considered the best in the draft and a top 5 prospect unlike Scherff nationally speaking.

We all know the Commanders added DL in free agency, so they passed the actual BPA at 5 and went with Scherff to fill a need on the offensive line.

You can play the subjectivity line but all you are doing is grounding your evaluation in your opinion, nothing more.

I could care less about discrediting the Commanders, it could be an empty signifier and I would still think whoever passed on Williams for Scherff failed to take the BPA with the selection.

You apparently are beat down by the homers to the extent that you can not recognize you are lumping everyone on this site in this same false category if they disagree with you.

Scherff is an excellent player but he is not equal to or superior to Williams and many people commented that although Scherff is a solid player the Commanders passed on BPA with reference to Williams.

It was less about how much of a reach he was to the fact that he was not the BPA and was a need selection.

• Bryan Fischer
• Writer | NFL.com
• + Follow On Twitter

Commanders' reach on Brandon Scherff left me scratching my head
I was shocked to see the Commanders remain where they were with the No. 5 overall pick and select Iowa offensive lineman Brandon Scherff instead of USC's Leonard Williams. I know there might be some small medical issues with the D-lineman's shoulder, but it's tough to pass on a guy who was nearly a consensus pick as the No. 1 overall talent in the 2015 NFL Draft.

GM Scot McCloughan is a highly respected evaluator, but I'm left scratching my head over his decision to grab an O-lineman best suited to play guard with intentions of slotting him at right tackle -- and doing so with a valuable, top-five pick, no less. Maybe the trade market didn't develop and the Commanders really want to establish a physical offensive line, but this is the most surprising development of Round 1.

I guess this NFL.com writer is also a Cowboys Homer, what a dumb argument!

 

[Risen Star]

All that hot air and your proposition is still false and your argument is still invalid.

Your evaluation is piss poor and everyone except you knows it!

So I'll leave you with this because I have no more time for your nonsense.

You asked me why I praised the Commanders pick but not the Cowboys. I told you. You, as an irrational fan, can't accept that.

Have fun convincing the Cowboys checkers crowd how bad that pick was and enjoy Day 2 of the draft. I'll be calling as I see it. With no regard whatsoever for your fan sensitivities.

 

[big dog cowboy]

That's not really true. I had Jones at 27....but I also had Malcom Brown in my top 15. So does that mean I should support taking Jones there with a clearly higher rated player on my board?

Yes because the Cowboys board > your board. There is no debate who the Cowboys had ranked higher after all, they passed Brown to take Jones.

 

[Rogerthat12]

So I'll leave you with this because I have no more time for your nonsense.

You asked me why I praised the Commanders pick but not the Cowboys. I told you. You, as an irrational fan, can't accept that.

Have fun convincing the Cowboys checkers crowd how bad that pick was and enjoy Day 2 of the draft. I'll be calling as I see it. With no regard whatsoever for your fan sensitivities.

It was less about how much of a reach he was to the fact that he was not the BPA and was a need selection. Interesting you say that because that's exactly why I criticized the Cowboys selection.

Did I answer your question? You contradicted yourself right here, claiming Dallas did not take BPA and should have taken Brown but failed to be critical of the Commanders for doing the same exact thing by taking the need pick Scherff over BPA Williams that was my entire point, Thank you!

You call it wrong, as everyone else sees it save the Commanders, your approach to anyone that disagrees with your evaluation or argument is simply a logical fallacy of attacking the man, not the cogency of the argument.

No matter what you think or how many times you say it, Williams was and will always be the BPA available at # 5 and was basically the consensus best player in the draft.

I do not have to convince anyone else that Williams was a better player than Scherrf, it is a known fact by all evaluators except you and the Commanders.

Everyone knows the Commanders drafted for need over BPA except you.

Because your evaluation is wrong, so is your proposition in addition to the following argument.

Your logic and argumentation is irrational, you will not look at the reality outside of your own point of particularity and subjective personal opinion.

I am beginning to think you can not mentally escape the Cowboy homer jargon or the fact that most evaluators had Williams rated over Scherff nationally pretty much as a consensus.

I will call it like I see it and I call your evaluation poor and not corresponding to reality.

Enjoy the draft but if you spew more poor evaluations, people will engage you and not remain silent.

 

[Risen Star]

Yes because the Cowboys board > your board.

That's your opinion. It wouldn't be the first or 51st time I was right and they were wrong.

There is no debate who the Cowboys had ranked higher after all, they passed Brown to take Jones.

They passed Floyd to take Frederick too. So that doesn't definitively mean anything.

But your response was kind of besides the point. I was responding to a comment on why Mel had to support the Jones pick since he had him at 28 and CB was a need for the Cowboys. I don't think that's true and gave my board as an example. You can have a player 27th, as I had Jones, pre-draft and then by the time of that selection find yourself with higher rated players left. Like Malcom Brown.

 

[arglebargle]

The problem is you are telling me my own ratings. I think there were 6 elite blue chip prospects in this draft. Williams, Cooper, Gurley, Shelton, Winston and Scherff. I have no issue whatsoever with the Commanders passing on Williams for Scherff. None at all.

Now passing up Brown for Byron Jones? Yeah, that I don't like.

But Mighty MEL spaketh it as good! And thus it was the Word.....

 

[arglebargle]

That's your opinion. It wouldn't be the first or 51st time I was right and they were wrong.



They passed Floyd to take Frederick too. So that doesn't definitively mean anything.

But your response was kind of besides the point. I was responding to a comment on why Mel had to support the Jones pick since he had him at 28 and CB was a need for the Cowboys. I don't think that's true and gave my board as an example. You can have a player 27th, as I had Jones, pre-draft and then by the time of that selection find yourself with higher rated players left. Like Malcom Brown.

You can, however, make decisions based on other expectations. Like thinking there would be players who could deliver 90% of what Brown does available in the 2nd Round, but projecting DBs available then to be only 60% of Jones. Because the draft is pretty fluid.

And of course you were right. You've told us before you were always right. And you weren't even joking.