why would people be upset w/ Michael Griffin?

[Bob Sacamano]

I didn't bring it up. And this isn't really politics per se, it's law.

eh, it's all politics

 

[jobberone]

If Griffin is really as good in man coverage as some here are saying then I change my opinion of him. I haven't seen enough of him to justify a hard core opinion. I'd be happy to have another option for us at FS. And I mean an option as having a FS that has played safety in college. That would make four players in that first tier of safeties.

 

[cobra]

As someone who talks to lawyers every day

Funniest retort I have heard today. Good job. Since you aren't a lawyer, then I guess its forgiveable that you make such an elementary mistake of botching a cite even though you attempted to append one to the case name.

I'm not going to write you a thesis on a message board. Go read a law review article about it.

Oh, trust me. I have. I'm just pretty sure you haven't. Which is why I was asking you to try to make the argument so I could point and laugh at how uninformed it was. I'm quite confident I could make the argument you are wanting to make much better than you could even if I was on empty side of a fifth of Crown.

Odd how we managed to get through 150 years of US history without deceiving the people about the law and still managed to survive, though.

LOL. Seriously. If you want to put on airs and pretend you have a clue what you are talking about with regards to law, learn it first. If you think there was not an expansive view of the Commerce clause until Wickard, then your knowledge is as superficial as a I first anticipated. Let me help you: Look at Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824) [that's a little earlier than "150 years of US history"]. That's where Chief Justice Marshall is credited with creating an expansive interstate commerce power that reaches activity that does not expressly effect interstate commerce. (And you might be interested in knowing that Gibbons is cited in Wickard).

That's funny, last time I checked, there are other Supreme Court Justices who are textualists.

Ahh, textualists! I've been published on the topic of textual interpretation. So I am so glad you brought this up. I'd love to hear more about your theory on this. Also, as you may or may not be aware, Scalia is considered the pre-eminent textualist on the Supreme Court. And yet, when you read his concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich, guess which case Scalia cites approvingly? Wickard.

This is going exactly as I anticipated, and it is the reason that I suggested you looked silly by having it in your signature. You are merely confirming that.

 

[masomenos]

He he takes missteps, mental errors, bad angles, etc.

Those are things that all safeties do at times. Are you saying that Griffin is more prone to do those things than a good starting FS in the NFL? If that's the case then please provide some quotes from your source. You may not care about changing peoples opinions, but simply for the sake of having a good debate on Griffin's competence can you type a few lines from one of the draft magazines?

As far as the Wickard v. Filburn and the Gonzalez v. Raich case, this is my understanding of it: Wickard v. Filburn was ruled on correctly. Filburn's wheat was in competition with wheat sold in interstate commerce. The Gonzales v. Raich case was ruled on a similar premise, that Raich's homegrown marijuana for medicinal use was in competition with marijuana that would otherwise have to be purchased. That's been my understanding ever since the ruling. There are more issues with the Raich case however than simple issues of interstate commerce control and I'm inclined to agree with you that the government used the Wickard v Filburn case in order to control something that they otherwise would have been pressed to find legitimate legislation for. By using the Wickard v Filburn case as a precedent they were able to keep the growth of medicinal marijuana under control without having to simply say that Raich didn't have a right to live because medicinal marijuana was keeping muscle spasms near her spin under control. Like I said, that's been my understanding, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I speak with lawyers very often.

 

[masomenos]

If Griffin is really as good in man coverage as some here are saying then I change my opinion of him. I haven't seen enough of him to justify a hard core opinion. I'd be happy to have another option for us at FS. And I mean an option as having a FS that has played safety in college. That would make four players in that first tier of safeties.

Here are Griffin's main man coverage assignments from each game, as recorded by NFL Draft Scout.

TE Beau Davidson North Texas- 1 catch 6 yards
TE Rory Nicol Ohio State - 1 catch for 2 yards
TE Chance Talbot Rice - 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Ben Barkema Iowa St - 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Blake Martin Sam Houston St - 3 catches for 39 yards
TE Joe Finley Oklahoma -2 catches for 3 yards
TE Mike Miller Baylor- 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Matt Herrian Nebraska - 2 catches for 11 yards
TE Robert Johnson Texas Tech - 9 catches for 98 yards
TE Justin Waller Oklahoma St - 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Rashad Norwood Kansas St - 3 catches for 52 yards
TE Martel Bennett Texas A&M - 1 catch for 4 yards
TE Scott Chandler Iowa - 2 catches for 36 yards

totals: 24 catches for 251 yards
or about: 2 catches for 19 yards per game

 

[Bob Sacamano]

totals: 24 catches for 251 yards
or about: 2 catches for 19 yards per game

so he didn't even account for 1% of Texas' average yards per game given up?

 

[ndanger]

Something isn't right. I keep seeing what our board members say, but...

nfldraftcountdown (already posted): "Griffin is exceptional in coverage."

Gil Brandt: http://nfl.com/draft/analysis/expert/brandt/s

Michael Griffin was the Longhorns' leading tackler the past two seasons.[SIZE=-3] [/SIZE]2. Michael Griffin, Texas (5-11¾, 202, 4.48)
Griffin had a complete workout at the Combine, where he recorded a 38-inch vertical jump, 10-foot long jump, 4.10 short shuttle, 6.60 three-cone drill and 16 bench presses. At the Texas Pro Day on March 21, he ran 4.43 in the 40-yard dash. Griffin played running back and defensive back in high school. He ran for 2,127 yards and 25 touchdowns and earned honors statewide on both offense and defense. Griffin played as a true freshman at Texas, starting two games, and went on to start 25 games over the last two years. He had over 120 tackles each season and also blocked four kicks in 2005. Griffin has very good athletic ability and has good ball skills. He can play either safety position and has kick-blocking ability. He needs to tackle better but has talent. He could be a cornerback prospect and will be a very good special teams player. He has great character and will play a long time at a high level.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=8763
Griffin is effective against the pass.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007/prospects/michael_griffin.html
In pass coverage, he has the athleticism to cover and ball skills to make plays on the ball.

http://www.draftboardinsider.com/position/S/griffin-m.html
He’s surprisingly smooth in coverage and delivers a wallop. Very fast, particularly field speed, and goes after anyone with a football with a total lack of respect. Probably the best all around safety in this draft, being able to drop in coverage with great technique and speed. Very versatile, Griffin looks to be able to play either safety spot in the NFL and even some corner if need be.

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=211&p=8&c=1&nid=2424857
Explosive safety who is an intimidating force in centerfield. Diagnoses the action, fires up the field in run defense and aggressively lays his shoulders into ball handlers. Displays outstanding sideline-to-sideline range and gets to the flanks to help cornerbacks. Shows a burst of speed and ability to recover.

But here on Cowboyszone, we got:

"Can't cover a lick."
"Can't cover a lot of ground."
"No ball skills."
"Can't be a centerfielder."
"Worse than Roy in coverage."

I think I have identified the source of the discrepancy here. It's not that our fans are that much wiser than the professionals. It's that the people here have... what's the words... agendas about who they want so they talk down people they don't want and say stupid stuff like you have seen here.

Now I don't want Griffin at #22. But I think it is absolutely asinine for you guys to be making crap up about him merely because you want someone else. Quit talking out of your arses.


(PS-whoever the guy is with Wickard v. Filburn in your sig line... ditch it. Most people won't get it and to those of us who do, you look ignorant for having it in there.)

Why are you even worried about anybody "GETTING" case law from 1942? What are you the cerebral sig. police?

 

[masomenos]

so he didn't even account for 1% of Texas' average yards per game given up?

Oh, well that's just man coverage. I'm sure he was responsible for some mistakes in zone.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh, well that's just man coverage. I'm sure he was responsible for some mistakes in zone.

true, true

 

[mschmidt64]

Funniest retort I have heard today. Good job. Since you aren't a lawyer, then I guess its forgiveable that you make such an elementary mistake of botching a cite even though you attempted to append one to the case name.

It's not a mistake.

The full cite isn't always necessary.

I'd think someone who claims to be a lawyer would know that.

Oh, trust me. I have. I'm just pretty sure you haven't. Which is why I was asking you to try to make the argument so I could point and laugh at how uninformed it was. I'm quite confident I could make the argument you are wanting to make much better than you could even if I was on empty side of a fifth of Crown.

It'd probably be easier to go up to all of them and tell them they are pretentious and ignorant to their faces when you're sloshed as well. Because being drunk helps you ignore reality.

LOL. Seriously. If you want to put on airs and pretend you have a clue what you are talking about with regards to law, learn it first. If you think there was not an expansive view of the Commerce clause until Wickard, then your knowledge is as superficial as a I first anticipated.

Who said there wasn't?

Wickard is merely the most egregious.

Ahh, textualists! I've been published on the topic of textual interpretation. So I am so glad you brought this up. I'd love to hear more about your theory on this. Also, as you may or may not be aware, Scalia is considered the pre-eminent textualist on the Supreme Court. And yet, when you read his concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich, guess which case Scalia cites approvingly? Wickard.

Hey, guess what? You're not talking to someone who hasn't read the opinion!

Thomas didn't. Rehnquist didn't.

Scalia is also on record as saying he prefers stare decisis to fixing constitutional misinterpretation, meaning he's thus not as pure as he'd claim to be no matter how he's portrayed.

This is going exactly as I anticipated, and it is the reason that I suggested you looked silly by having it in your signature. You are merely confirming that.

That's not surprising, since you are clearly the type who thinks that convention should take precedence over right.

I'm quite aware that I advocate a radical shift.

You can scoff at it and call it "silly," but, again, it's a theory endorsed by people ten times as smart as you are, since you seem intent on bringing up the experience card.

The mere fact that you've practiced for 10 years would give you an edge on citing cases over me. It doesn't make the argument "pretentious" or "ignorant" merely because you say it is.

 

[mschmidt64]

As far as the Wickard v. Filburn and the Gonzalez v. Raich case, this is my understanding of it: Wickard v. Filburn was ruled on correctly.

Only correctly if you agree that the words "interstate commerce," can mean "things that aren't interstate commerce."

Filburn's wheat was in competition with wheat sold in interstate commerce.

Not his excess (which is what he was penalized for); it was used entirely within state boundaries, in fact, mostly privately.

Because the administration needed to maintain pricing stability, they needed absolute control on supply and used the "substantial affects" test as a manipulation of the previous standards. That test includes a provision to simply create a fictional scenario where no real scenario exists and to operate AS IF interstate commerce would be effected even when it isn't.

There are more issues with the Raich case however than simple issues of interstate commerce control and I'm inclined to agree with you that the government used the Wickard v Filburn case in order to control something that they otherwise would have been pressed to find legitimate legislation for.

Not just in Raich. The past 50 years have been an amalgam of legislation that otherwise they would not have been able to pass legitimately. Need more power to pass legislation that you think is necessary? Just change the test! Who cares what the Constitution says!

 

[jobberone]

Here are Griffin's main man coverage assignments from each game, as recorded by NFL Draft Scout.

TE Beau Davidson North Texas- 1 catch 6 yards
TE Rory Nicol Ohio State - 1 catch for 2 yards
TE Chance Talbot Rice - 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Ben Barkema Iowa St - 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Blake Martin Sam Houston St - 3 catches for 39 yards
TE Joe Finley Oklahoma -2 catches for 3 yards
TE Mike Miller Baylor- 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Matt Herrian Nebraska - 2 catches for 11 yards
TE Robert Johnson Texas Tech - 9 catches for 98 yards
TE Justin Waller Oklahoma St - 0 catches for 0 yards
TE Rashad Norwood Kansas St - 3 catches for 52 yards
TE Martel Bennett Texas A&M - 1 catch for 4 yards
TE Scott Chandler Iowa - 2 catches for 36 yards

totals: 24 catches for 251 yards
or about: 2 catches for 19 yards per game

Thanks. I'm afraid I'm not knowlegable enough to interpret the ino. It doesn't seem like much. As a safety does he have primary responsibility for a WR or TE?

Again all I can go on is where the consensus is on his draft tier and what I hear and read. I didn't come away with the opinion he was that good in man coverage. But it appears I was wrong.

I'm sure, as usual, we will find out how good he is over the next few years.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Thanks. I'm afraid I'm not knowlegable enough to interpret the ino. It doesn't seem like much. As a safety does he have primary responsibility for a WR or TE?

Again all I can go on is where the consensus is on his draft tier and what I hear and read. I didn't come away with the opinion he was that good in man coverage. But it appears I was wrong.

I'm sure, as usual, we will find out how good he is over the next few years.

for most safeties, the primary responsibility is covering a TE, you have to cover WRs on occasion though, it's basically either the TE or WR who enters your area who you have to account for

 

[WDN]

Did I forget to mention that Griffen is not a cover safety?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Did I forget to mention that Griffen is not a cover safety?

yes, we saw your uninformed opinion earlier

 

[masomenos]

Only correctly if you agree that the words "interstate commerce," can mean "things that aren't interstate commerce."
Not his excess (which is what he was penalized for); it was used entirely within state boundaries, in fact, mostly privately.

Well isn't the issue that even though it's grown intrastate that it's still in competition with interstate wheat because it shifts the supply curve to the right and therefor brings a new equilibrium point for the price of wheat? Even though the wheat was grown for personal consumption and never enters the market it still keeps a buyer out of the market and therefor has a direct effect on it. So the argument is that because it affects the market it can be ruled under interstate commerce laws. Cobra, if you're reading this then I'd like to see what you say too because like I said I can only claim to have a limited understanding of this stuff.

 

[masomenos]

Did I forget to mention that Griffen is not a cover safety?

:bang2:

I hate you...not just a superficial hate, but deep deep down.

 

[WDN]

yes, we saw your uninformed opinion earlier

It is just as uninformed as yours is.

 

[mschmidt64]

Those are things that all safeties do at times. Are you saying that Griffin is more prone to do those things than a good starting FS in the NFL? If that's the case then please provide some quotes from your source. You may not care about changing peoples opinions, but simply for the sake of having a good debate on Griffin's competence can you type a few lines from one of the draft magazines?

TSN:

"Lacks instincts and often gets caught flatfooted in the open field. Misreads too many pass routes and gets caught out of position."

"...will struggle with the mental part of the game and be terribly inconsistent."

 

[dbair1967]

yes, I have, and even if I haven't, I sure wouldn't take your word for it

do you have to work hard at being a prick, or does it come naturally?

David