Originally posted by vikesfan
[QUOTE>>>>As to Mac being "horrible" as a talent evaluator, I would disagree with that on at least 2 counts.
#1 - While I would suppose Mac certainly had a significant input on draft selections, he didn't make those decisions in a complete vacuum. I believe Stone was drafted before Graves "got promoted", but to simply diss Mac as the sole "horrible" draft picker, I think is an overly exaggerated simplification,.
#2- I simply don't agree on how "horrible" some of the picks under Mac's regime were. Personally I don't think Mac was as bad an evaluator as you claim. No one ever proves to be a 100% genius in drafting. "mispicks" are common to everyone.
Here's the Card's draft picks during Mac's tenure:
2001:
1 (2) - Leonard Davis
DRAFTED AS A T CAN'T PLAY T.
NOT EVEN A PROBOWL G.
So he "hasn't lived up to his potential"...isn't potential what you draft? And how many guards are all pro each year? Does that make all the rest "horrible"?
Yes, being drafted at #2, I don't think it overly unfair to expect him to be. Are you a K9 in sheeps clothing?
2 (34) - Kyle Vanden Bosch
HORRIBLE.
HORRIBLE? Because he's been injured? Or because they've kept him, after seeing how he came back from the 1st injury? This was a HORRIBLE pick? c'mon. now.
2 (54) - Michael Stone
HORRIBLE.
That's SUPPOSED to be the topic of discussion here.....right?
3 (64) - Adrian Wilson
DECENT PICK. HOW DECENT?
Or conversely.....how HORRIBLE???
4 (123) - Bill Grammatica
DON'T DRAFT A K. DUMB.
I'm not a big Grammatica fan, at this point. But to say drafting him was dumb, I can't agree with either, especially in the game "as it's getting played" "today". Good Kickers are very, very valuable. No, I certainly don't call drafting him where they did....dumb. Now dumb, to me, is creating a self-induced "accident", like he did. He showed the leg strength before, but just not since.
5 (133) - Marcus Bell
6 (166) - Mario Fatafehi
7 (202) - Reynaldo Hill
7 (246-Mr irrelevant)- Tevita Ofahengaue
NOTHING SPECIAL. SOME PEOPLE LIKE BELL. HILL WAS A GOOD PICK AT 7.
This was a "horrible" draft???
YES.
I simply disagree ! While it probably won't certify as the greatest draft in history, I certainly wouldn't call it "HORRIBLE".
2002:
1 (12) - Wendall Bryant
HAS NOT PRODUCED A LICK.
But still might. Your homey Dennis Green seems to think so anyway, it seems.
2 (49) - Levar Fisher
DECENT PICK IF HE CAN START.
IF NOT BAD PICK.
He WAS the strong side starter all year. Some homework seems missing here.
3 (81) - Josh McCown
GOOD PICK AT THAT POINT.
3 (98) - Dennis Johnson
HAS NOT PRODUCED A LICK.
Me thinks you have been/are getting a little fast and loose with the term "not produced a lick" . Definitely an exaggeration here, in my opinion. Personally I was very pleasantly surprised with how he was one of the few draftees to show decent development this year.
4 (113) - Nate Dwyer
5 (149) - Jason McAddley
6 (185) - Josh Scobey
7 (223) - Mike Banks
NOTHING SPECIAL.
This, too, was "horrible"???
YES
Again, I simply diagree.....not 'HORRIBLE" by any means.
2003:
1 (17) - Bryant Johnson
1 (18) - Calvin Pace
HORRIBLE. Especially giving up Suggs Gross Lefwich.
2 (54) - Anquan Boldin
GREAT ASTUTE MOVE.
3-(70) - Gerald Hayes
DECENT PICK.
5 (141) - Kenny King
6 (177) - Reggie Wells
6 (210) - Tony Gilbert
NOTHING SPECIAL.
Again...this is "horrible"???
YES.
Again I simply disagree. For starters, I don't think you can ever dis any draft as horrible after 1 year, unless none of them ever made the team to begin with. Secondly, "hitting" on a pick like Quan they way they did, in -and-of-itself, to me, eliminates any possibility of labeling this draft "horrible". Bryant Johnson is certainly far from a "bust" yet. Pace is a concern, but again, its still way, way to soon to label him a bust. Hayes, King and Well were GREAT picks to me, especially where they got them. And even Tony Gilbert, I thought was a decent pick, in fact, I think a case could possibly be made that he didn't make the team, not due to lack of talent, necessarily, but because of the amount/level of competition at the LB position. (the result of horrible drafting? )
It suddenly struck me...are you maybe just running down the pre-Green drafts in an attempt to make him look better?
I hope you haven't contracted K9 poisoning.
...and finallly...from this point on....in regard to the "effective communication".....its really difficult, based on how you posted to know for sure which comments are yours and which are mine, without having to go back and compare the original posts.
No real biggie...but like I said...just a suggestion. 
This is hardly stellar drafting. If he had had great drafts the last 3 years the team would not be the worst team in the NFL. Lack of solid starters throughout.
3 years. I'm not sure about Tony Gilbert, but he may be the only one not still in the NFL (plus Mr. Irrelevant, but I don't consider that particular choice a "bad" one)
If anything these look like 3 fairly decent drafts to me. If you're going to hammer Mac, then I think you could make a case for how some of the talent didn't get developed under his tutelege like it should have, but to say he was simply "horrible" is barking up the wrong tree, and maybe even in the wrong forrest, to me.
It also never ceases to amaze me how some of you are so prone to trot out your simplified, black & white, "absolutisms". . .
such as here:
"his hips are WAy too stiff for the NFL". (how has this been "proven"....and by whom?)
"he is almost totally useless as a cornerback". (thank you for your input mr K9. You have expressed YOUR opinion. That's all it is. It certainly isn't written in stone yet.)
the same goes for the comment:
"He'll be the third safety on the depth chart at either position"
"As a defensive back, Stone's NFL career is finished." ( and Swamie K9 evidently knows something no one else does, or has a crystal ball....or something. )
His career isn't "finished" until "if and when" he IS cut. Until then...its only "opinion"...nothing more.
About the only thing I might agree with in your comments is that he does seem to be a decent special teamer, and "Stone has a lot to prove this camp".
He does have a lot to prove. I've never denied that for a second.
As to the contract situation. I never claimed to "know for sure" on that. But I do know that he and Wilson essentially signed about the same contracts....both for 3 years, AND that when he was put on IR at the beginning of last season, there was some comment made, (and not just from a poster here) that it would not "use up" his 3rd year. Also, if it doesn't, then that would make him an RFA, just like Wilson, and he is not listed as such.
I didn't just make that up.
Does anyone actually know for sure exactly what the situation is there?
