CK on NFL Network's Path to the Draft w/ Video

Wow...no **** look how far things have come for those guys..its good to see the guys with true passion and insight getting some recognition and press from the game they obviously love.

 

Congrats Guys! Amazing what you all have accomplished! Now the world is on to what we all have known for a while. The best kept secret is out!

 

Way to stick it to Burmeister CK! He was an ***.

 

Paul ambushed him, no doubt. But he has a point, if Burmeister has spoken to GM's and scouts about Mallett and they say differently, it leads to an interesting discussion.

My issue with this is that in sound byte television, they don't allow for CK to actually get into any specifics about what they found and/or debunked.

Our differences aside, I am proud of CK for getting some recognition for the ridiculous amount of time he puts into this stuff.

 

IMO he should have used Dan Marino as an example as to how things work in the draft process. Alleged cocaine use anyone? Put that together with a low wonderlic score and boom a man can fall in the draft. Worked out well for us

 

What a terrible interview. Not Chris' fault.

Congrats CK.

 

That's awesome. Congrats guys.

Ck makes a good point about "off the record" talks. Like these GMs don't know a guy who hosts a show on the NFL network is going to spew their "off the record" talk. They may not quote the GM but they get the general points across.

I'd like to ask everyone who has character concerns over Mallet or any other QB what they think of Ben Roethlisberger. He seems to be at best a grade A *******, or at least was one. And pundits have no problem gushing over his QB play. I'm not saying character questions aren't legit concerns. I just want these people to think before spouting off these rumors in the lazy manner they do just so they have something to talk about. That's why I respect Ck and the universal draft guys and their effort to dig deep and think about how the info they find applies instead of just using cliches.

 

The actual interview was longer than what made it to television. And you could tell a lot of CK's responses were edited.

But I'm glad they left in the 'off the record' stuff. That was a nice retort.

Chris does good on TV and radio. Good on his feet. And they're certainly getting some practice as of late.

 

very cool to see a "local" in the national media. now if only they could get boomer to produce nfl total access at the draft.

 

I haven't seen the answer to this yet, but how much time have our guys spent with Mallett, himself?

The question that I was thinking during the interview:
Not EVERY team in the league needs a starting QB but have still looked at Mallett........ therefore, what do these particular teams have to lose by telling the truth if they in fact have strong concerns about him? There are plenty of teams who can afford to be forthright about the kid. If it's coming from a team who's in desperate need of a signal caller, then I could understand the subterfuge. This is where it's up to the person reporting it to make the distinction. Minnesota=disinformation. StLouis=probably honest.

Per Peter King:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/04/03/mmqb/index.html

 

Actually, it wasn't the Rams who said anything about Mallet. It was Tony Softli, who hasn't been with the Rams since June.

 

Great job Chris, you have a great face, for radio .

 

congrats chris. what a weird group you guys are, a brit, a beachbum and a southerner. you should have let confucis do the interview. He would still be answering the first question

 

Good work Chris.

Its good to have some perspective from an outsider. The interviewer just didn't get it. He actually thinks that just cause a conversation is "off the record", that its gonna be truthful. You shoulda taken the damn gloves off and said, "dude, do you really think that the GMs are not lying to you, just cause the conversation is "off the record"? The more confrontational you are, the more they'll love you on TV. Of course, if that's not your personality, then that's cool. It just seems that the only people on tv who get any attention are the ones who are controversial.

 

Way to go guys. It was a pleasure to see your vision finally realized throughout the process. From your posts here and before, to the idea for your site, and cross-promo...to this. Way to go.

 

I didn't say it was the Rams per say. I merely referenced the Rams as one example of many who shouldn't have a reason to spread disinformation about Mallett since they signed Bradford #1.

 

you know-- when you misspell his name like that, it phonetically sounds like a dirty word in there.

 

Christ, Burmiester is a douche.
Hopefully the next interview goes better.

 

fun stuff!

Awesome job...

 

I'm just thankful that my originial hunch was right that I am better looking than CK. That's special to me cause I can't say that about 99% of the population!

J/K CK! I thought you did fantastic and I'm really proud of you and Boom.

 

Good job sticking to your guns CK. And have to say, you look nothing like I pictured you would look like after reading your statements these past several years.(not in a bad way).

 

eh hmm..... would you like to book a hotel room sir?

 

I knew that would come out wrong after I typed it!

 

dont you hate that. lol.

 

Ultimately this is two guys who deeply believe they are right, arguing about who is correct. CK won with the off the record, on the record angle.

 

yeah i should just use Dick Lines from now on

 

Is there a waiting list for those?












Rocky wants to know. lol.

 

lol

 

He was just butt hurt over someone else presenting a contrary view. He can eat turd nuggets. He is nothing special and his connections are only going to tell him what they want him to say.

 

Gratz on getting on tv CK. Good interview. I'll still cry myself to sleep draft night if we take Mallet though. You can present all the "facts" you want. I live in SEC country, I see ~6-8 Arkansas games a year. The kid doesn't have what it takes. Look at the Alabama game last season where he cracked under the pressure. Look at the Ohio State game last season where he threw the game away at the end. These are just a couple of examples of how he can't win the big game. He doesn't have good composure and he freezes up when the pressure gets on him. I don't care how he looks in workouts or if Jesus Christ himself says he's worth a 1st round pick, I've watched the kid play for 3 years and I'm not buying it.

 

Tremendous performance by CK, and I'm assuming he was briefed prior to the taping, of what general questions he would be fielding.

 

I completely agree, and I feel these issues will only become exacerbated in the NFL when defenses are faster and the pressure is more complicated and gets to him quicker & more often than he saw at Arkansas. His slower feet, lack of athleticism, and non-quick release will only serve to compound matters IMO.

I'd rather have Jake Locker if we're hypothetically forced to take a QB at 15. There are plenty of players who had accuracy problems in college but became great QBs in the NFL. Plus Locker has SERIOUS heart and passion. All the kid wants to do is help his team win. I love the play where he gets the snot beat out of him, is moaning in pain on the grass, and is complaining that he can't see...... and the first real sentence out of his mouth is "did WE get the first down?".

And unlike Newton, his talent has much less potential to go wasted.

 

Which QB's are you thinking of who have done this?

 

Brett Favre for one whose completion percentage, TDs, INTs, were virtually identical to Locker's..... and he came from a school that faced lesser competition.

 

IMO there's too much emphasis placed on this whole "Ryan Mallett disinformation conspiracy theory" stuff.

Honestly, it's not like he's the draft's hottest, cant-miss commodity that half the teams would clamor to jump into the top 5 for (character concerns aside). He's not a Peyton Manning, Sam Bradford, or Andrew Luck type prospect that would require a league full of "smoke screens". Heck, I'm sure some teams wouldn't draft him in the first round period.

So there's no reason to believe that everything teams are saying "off record" isn't true. None whatsoever.

 

Hey, everyone, some guy I know from the intrawebs is on TV!

Congrats guys!

 

You would think so, but unfortunately that's just not how it happened. We were in contact for two weeks leading up to the interview and never any word about the nature of the interview. I watched a lot of Path to the Draft to see how Burmeister interviews his people normally and it all seems very basic, he just tees them up to talk about what they're there to talk about. I've been on half a dozen radio shows as well, and the same is true of radio hosts...they tee you up to talk about certain aspects of your article. The night before taping the producer let me know that he was having Burmeister read the article. About 15 minutes before taping I received an email from the producer saying as a heads up Paul is going to want to ask what scouts and GMs we spoke to in coming to our conclusions, because he wants to get the point across that scouts and GMs hate the guy. That was literally my first warning that something was rotten in Denmark...15 minutes before taping. When we got into the interview, Paul interrupted me constantly, didn't cover hardly any of what we wrote in the article, just wanted to argue and shoot holes in it, discrediting us and the article. He was very aggressive. I had practically zero warning that this was going to be a critical interview/debate. Even the producer sort of apologetically emailed me after the fact and said Paul went a direction with it that he didn't want him to take.

So what you saw was me thinking on my feet, basically being surprised with a Frost-Nixon style interrogative interview when I had no reason to suspect it was coming. I try not to be mad at Burmeister because obviously he's just very impassioned and inflammatory about the subject of Mallett and if you watch enough Path to the Draft, you can see that in subtle ways. But when he says something like he was just trying to cover both sides, or when the producer says that to me, all I can do is grit my teeth because in my opinion that's not what he was doing. He was straight up trying to discredit us and our article, and trying very hard to shoot holes in my arguments. The producers had most of that edited out of the final product though. Unfortunately that meant that many of my good points were erased. But, that was fair...because they needed to make it look good enough for TV and I think the final product was more than fair.

Among the points that were edited out:

1. Buddy Nix has a quote saying it's generally accepted this time of year that teams are going to lie to media, and that only 10% of what you hear out there is the truth

2. I brought up Vontae Davis as an example of someone that was denigrated by the whisper campaigns, brought up quotes about him from actual scouts speaking anonymously and saying he's "a real jerk", "looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane", "thinks he's better than he is" and even one scout shooting a thinly veiled accusation of him cheating on the wonderlic. All of that couldn't be further from the truth based on what we've seen of him in Miami.

3. Brought up that the thing Vontae had going for him that ended up showing that these whispers were wrong, was his coach Ron Zook heavy in his corner backing him, and pointed out that Ryan Mallett similarly has Bobby Petrino going hard to bat for him on every front including character

4. When Burmeister shot back that Vontae's a corner and we're talking about the Quarterback position, would you want Vontae Davis to be the face of your franchise, I shot back that the quarterback position is one where you can see guys like Ben Roethlisberger serve an NFL suspension and represent his team in the Super Bowl the same year, the convicted felon Michael Vick can lead his team to the playoffs and get congratulatory phone calls from President Obama, Brett Favre can spend 6 weeks in rehab getting over drug addiction and never miss a beat in his Hall of Fame career.

5. Brought up the disconnect between how people in the huddle say he's a leader, people outside the huddle say he's not, people in the Broyles Athletic Center say he's a hard worker, people outside the Broyles Athletic Center say he's not.

There were other points but those were some of my best ones. They cut them out, and I can understand why. They needed to cram it into a small amount of time, and also the questions from Burmeister that brought up those responses were extremely aggressive, interrupting me and whatnot, and I think if they showed too many of those Q&A's it would have made the interview look awkward and way too confrontational (because that's what it was).

 

From my perspective, you kind of got the last shot in and he had no response to your comment about how those "off the record conversations" were making it on the record on that program. Great job!