Which Draft Mag do you like most?

[TealSox]

For the last two years, I went with the ESPN Draft mag. Prior to that, I have gone with the Sporting News and ProFootbal Weekly. The downfall of all these mags is that they come out too soon and don't take into account free agent moves.

For example, a lot of the Draft mags talk about the Pats needing help at WR.

So with that as an example, most mocks are going to be inherently off base and useless, as you would expect for any mock that comes out two months before the draft.

ESPN is good in the sense that it places very little emphasis on its mock. At the same time, it offered better depth of draftable players. The rest is just fluff and had little meaning. For example some dialogue between Golic and the other Mike. Worthless.

Which mags have you found most helpful?

 

[Pats726]

I still like Pro Football Weekly's....NOT talking about the mock but teh evaluation of players..very true that a LOT changes after the free agency run..not sure about the best mocks...I bet a site online has that down a lot better

 

[bevster]

I buy PFW, Sporting News, ESPN and Lindy's.

Sporting News is brutal this year. IMO, their player ratings are crazy, ie Brady Quinn is a 3rd round prospect.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I get all three. I like The Sporting News and it does give a different take on some players this year because GMjr is doing the player write ups and evaluations. Nothing wrong with seeing a diffferent take even if you don't agree. He has some other players rated lower than the other magazines or on line ratings.

I rely on the PFW "big book" more because it gets into the intangibles of players more. We all know by now what most players can do. I want to know if the player is smart, dumb, a leaders, a "head case", a Patriots type player, ect. Joel Bushbaum, who BB had a lot of respect for, and now Nolan get into that stuff more.

That should be out in a couple of weeks.

 

[BelichickFan]

Sporting News is brutal this year. IMO, their player ratings are crazy, ie Brady Quinn is a 3rd round prospect.

I don't know why an alternate opinion is "brutal". Maybe they're right. If the consensus opinion is right then one down the middle source is good enough, I guess.

 

[bevster]

I don't know why an alternate opinion is "brutal". Maybe they're right. If the consensus opinion is right then one down the middle source is good enough, I guess.

If it was just one or two players that seemed to be oddly rated then I would not make a point of it. However, IMO there are many players which have unusually high or low ratings. Let's face it. Brady Quinn will not get drafted lower than mid way through the first round. He is rated as a third rounder in the Sporting News magazine.

I am all for these publications providing different analysis of the players. However, I also expect the opinions therein to give the appearance of credibility.

I consider the Quinn analysis to be as credible as rating Reggie McNeal the best pro prospect in the 2006 draft.

Do not forget the question initially posed was "which draft mag do you like most?"

If the only "mag" I buy is the Sporting News draft edition for 2007, then IMO the buyer is not getting a good source of information. IMO there are more helpful sources. The actual draft will unfold much diifferently that where the players are rated in that magazine.

And for the record, there are some alternate opinions which are "brutal" ie: racism. I dare you to tell me that racist opinions are not "brutal" opinions.

 

[BelichickFan]

I consider the Quinn analysis to be as credible as rating Reggie McNeal the best pro prospect in the 2006 draft.

And for the record, there are some alternate opinions which are "brutal" ie: racism. I dare you to tell me that racist opinions are not "brutal" opinions.

Well the McNeal thing was a bigger joke and had nothing to do with the Sporting News.

You'd have to give me a couple of the players involved in the racist comments for me to look up, I didn't notice them but there's lots I haven't read.

 

[TealSox]

First of all, I think it is obscene that these draft mags cost nearly $8. For free, I can get all the information from the internet and print it out to make my own version and I know it will have more information than all the over price mags together.

Still, I have to go with the mag that gives me the most depth and coverage. 30 QBs is a lot to include and they probably only need to cover 10 of them in the new ESPN mag. Still, its good to see as many of the players as possible. For example, most mags last year didn't even mention a guy by the name of Marques Colston (ranked 47 by ESPN). Then again, they had Greg Lee, Hank Baskett and Martin Nance ranked in the top 12. None of them were even drafted.

Maybe you all can confirm since you all bought them all, but it seemed to me that CB is the most disputed position in the draft in terms of ranking the players. Houston is high on one and Hughs is low. Or both are high and Leon Hall takes a backseat one or both.

And Quinn in the 3rd? Not unless he undergoes Tommy John surgery! In two weeks!

 

[BelichickFan]

I have the Pro Football Weekly and Lindy's and they're both very good, I can't pick between them as a recomendation.

Like has been said, Sporting News' isn't a prediction of the draft but a prediction of how they'll do which is why they have Quinn as a 3rd rounder and Michael Griffin as about the 13th best Safety. The guy who did most of it, GM Jr. Russ Lande, has a solid reputation.

 

[PATSNUTme]

If it was just one or two players that seemed to be oddly rated then I would not make a point of it. However, IMO there are many players which have unusually high or low ratings. Let's face it. Brady Quinn will not get drafted lower than mid way through the first round. He is rated as a third rounder in the Sporting News magazine.

I am all for these publications providing different analysis of the players. However, I also expect the opinions therein to give the appearance of credibility.

I consider the Quinn analysis to be as credible as rating Reggie McNeal the best pro prospect in the 2006 draft.

Do not forget the question initially posed was "which draft mag do you like most?"

If the only "mag" I buy is the Sporting News draft edition for 2007, then IMO the buyer is not getting a good source of information. IMO there are more helpful sources. The actual draft will unfold much diifferently that where the players are rated in that magazine.

And for the record, there are some alternate opinions which are "brutal" ie: racism. I dare you to tell me that racist opinions are not "brutal" opinions.

When you buy any draft publications you are purchacing the opinion of the author or authors.

How many first round bust have there been? Answer: many! So, if one knowledgable scout has a different opinion of a player, I like to know it. It will take 3 years (or less in some cases) to see who is right or wrong.

I dare you to tell me which opinion of players is based in racism? Being s a racist is one of the worst things that a person can be. It is brutally stupid to imply that about anyone unless there is something to back it up.

Let's see it!!!!

 

[TealSox]

Sporting News has me all messed up. Good articles, but Kevin Kolb a first rounder? Antonio Pittman ranked second for running backs? They hated on Dewayne Jarrett, but so do I. Adam Carriker a 2nd-3rd rounder?

I understand that they might want to grade players based on how they will finish their career or something like that, but how can you do even that when you don't take into account the team they will play for. Quinn might amount to a third round pick if drafted by the Raiders, but for the Patriots he might be a first rounder (if not for another Brady). Carriker is big for a 3-4 defense, but in a 4-3 he might be worth less.

Smith and Street or whatever it is called was poor. The mag was falling apart in my hands as I was looking through it and depth was shallow.

 

[BelichickFan]

Sporting News has me all messed up. Good articles, but Kevin Kolb a first rounder? Antonio Pittman ranked second for running backs? They hated on Dewayne Jarrett, but so do I. Adam Carriker a 2nd-3rd rounder?

I understand that they might want to grade players based on how they will finish their career or something like that, but how can you do even that when you don't take into account the team they will play for.

They aren't predicting the draft nor the success of careers. They are just ranking the talent as they see it. That's it. Ourlads does the same thing, a few years ago they had Charlie Frye ranked ahead of Alex Smith. It's a perfectly viable way to do it - not everyone's opinion has to be the same.

 

[captain stone]

I have bought, but usually don't, The Sporting News Draft Preview. It goes to print just after the combine, but before the pro days. Ergo, much of the player info is somewhat outdated. This year, I might buy it just to see if, in 3-4 years, Lande knew about what he was talking. TSN also has a Draft Preview section in its last issue before the draft, with updated rankings. I always buy that one. I also have bought a one-month online membership in their WarRoom, but was not very impressed; Their printable overall rankings go only as high as "Super 99".

Instead of buying PFW's "big book", I wait for the Draft Preview issue. It has an updated Player Printout, with rankings both overall and by position. Not as detailed as the big book, but I'm on a budget.

I also buy the Draft Preview issue of USA Today's Sports Weekly. It uses NFLDraftScout for its info and rankings. Although obviously not as detailed as its website, NFLDraftScout.com, it's a lot less expensive. Besides USAToday.com, FoxSports.com and NFL.com are using NFLDraftScout's rankings.

I also agree with Teal re: Street and Smith.

Lindy's has The Best regular season preview magazine; I was not as impressed, however, with its Draft Preview mag. There were no player rankings, either overall or by position.

In a couple of weeks, I will try to "Take a Free Tour" of espn's Insider for 30 days. The "Tour" includes 2 issues of espn mag; I don't believe their Draft Preview is one of them. I will have to use a different Username and Password than I did last year, and the year before that. If I'm unsuccessful, then I'll just pay the one-month charge.

 

[bevster]

When you buy any draft publications you are purchacing the opinion of the author or authors.

How many first round bust have there been? Answer: many! So, if one knowledgable scout has a different opinion of a player, I like to know it. It will take 3 years (or less in some cases) to see who is right or wrong.

I dare you to tell me which opinion of players is based in racism? Being s a racist is one of the worst things that a person can be. It is brutally stupid to imply that about anyone unless there is something to back it up.

Let's see it!!!!

I believe that you have misread my comments. I am not implying that anyone in the Sporting News is racist.

Generally speaking, racist views are "alternate opinions", as opposed to mainstream.

My post was attacked because I suggested that an opinion different to mine was "brutal". Someone responded to my post and suggested that it was perhaps unfair to characterize an opinion as "brutal" just because it was different than mine.

I think that racist opinions are "brutal" to say the least. I was just challenging the poster to suggest that racist opinions, for example, are not "brutal" opinions.

 

[bakes781]

I have bought the Sporting News Draft Guide every year for the past 5 or so years. On the big board they do have Quinn rated below Kolb, but if you look at the mock draft they have Quinn selected 23rd & Kolb 48th overall. So there are multiple views given, but the individual player breakdowns are my favorite part.

 

[BelichickFan]

I think that racist opinions are "brutal" to say the least. I was just challenging the poster to suggest that racist opinions, for example, are not "brutal" opinions.

Put up or shut up with this stuff . . . give us a name of someone whose profile was racist, you don't have to type it in just the name is fine, and let us judge for ourselves.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I believe that you have misread my comments. I am not implying that anyone in the Sporting News is racist.

Generally speaking, racist views are "alternate opinions", as opposed to mainstream.

My post was attacked because I suggested that an opinion different to mine was "brutal". Someone responded to my post and suggested that it was perhaps unfair to characterize an opinion as "brutal" just because it was different than mine.

I think that racist opinions are "brutal" to say the least. I was just challenging the poster to suggest that racist opinions, for example, are not "brutal" opinions.

That is a huge stretch. All of us were talking about the draft adn rating players in certain draft publications. He never said or implied that racist opinions were not brutal.

He was asserting that alternate opinions were not "brutal". He was referring to draft publications rating players and nothing else.

You were the one who brought in the "racist" opinions being brutal, which has noting at all to do with what this thread was about.

 

[bevster]

That is a huge stretch. All of us were talking about the draft adn rating players in certain draft publications. He never said or implied that racist opinions were not brutal.

He was asserting that alternate opinions were not "brutal". He was referring to draft publications rating players and nothing else.

You were the one who brought in the "racist" opinions being brutal, which has noting at all to do with what this thread was about.

It may be a stretch, but my argument is still valid. IMO the Sporting News opinions were brutal. I am entitled to my opinion. BelichickFan can disagree. I merely suggested that IMO the player ratings in that publication were brutal. BelichickFan suggests that it is dubious for me to have that opinion.

Funny, I am being challenged on MY right to have a certain opinion on a draft publication. If BelichickFan thinks that I should be accepting of alternate opinions, then why is BelichickFan not accepting of my opinion that the ratings are "brutal".

IMO BelichickFan thinks that I am suggesting that a player profile is "racist". I do not know how that conclusion can be logically drawn. If my post was vague, then ask for clarification before chastizing my opinion about the Sporting News player ratings.

I have never suggested that any player rating is racist.

 

[BelichickFan]

It may be a stretch, but my argument is still valid. IMO the Sporting News opinions were brutal. I am entitled to my opinion. BelichickFan can disagree. I merely suggested that IMO the player ratings in that publication were brutal.

You can have whatever opinion you like, I don't care. I started a thread two weeks ago for a little feedback on the situation :

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=52693

I just don't think you can say his opinions are "brutal" when we have no idea yet, and won't for a few years, who is right. They are certainly different in some cases.

IMO BelichickFan thinks that I am suggesting that a player profile is "racist". I do not know how that conclusion can be logically drawn. If my post was vague, then ask for clarification before chastizing my opinion about the Sporting News player ratings.

I have never suggested that any player rating is racist.

In your post about the Sporting News you wrote : "And for the record, there are some alternate opinions which are "brutal" ie: racism."

What else was I, or someone else, to think ?

 

[bevster]

You can have whatever opinion you like, I don't care. I started a thread two weeks ago for a little feedback on the situation :

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=52693

I just don't think you can say his opinions are "brutal" when we have no idea yet, and won't for a few years, who is right. They are certainly different in some cases.


In your post about the Sporting News you wrote : "And for the record, there are some alternate opinions which are "brutal" ie: racism."

What else was I, or someone else, to think ?

Apology accepted.