Talib and Manningham Admit Marijuana Use; Draft Status Affected?

someone is getting a free pass here. this is 2 years in a row that news like this was " leaked". these interviews are supposed to be confidential. if you really want these guys to be open and honest, don't disclose their results. and i would think it would be an issue. some can stop smoking, some cant. how do you know which one you have?

Information leaks are inevitable in the world of 24/7 media coverage. That goes for sports, that goes for news, and it goes for shows like Access Hollywood.

Good point, who the hell is leaking this stuff out?

My guess is someone is targeting the two and are leaking the bad info. to get their draft stock to drop.

And that my friends, is why Schneed will never be a scout in the NFL.

I think you're having a hard time separating the issues here.

On one hand, some in this thread are tending to slant their arguments towards the idea that weed is no big deal, it won't affect performance, you can still work hard and smoke weed, ETC. Maybe so, maybe not, but that's not the friggin point.

The point is weed is illegal (I don't care whether it should be or not, again, not the point). It will get you suspended from the league if you test positive for it or are caught by the police possessing it. So guys who smoke it have an increased chance of missing games.

I mean isn't that the same thing as drafting a brittle player? Whether they smoke up or tend to get hurt, either way, they're a risk to be unavailable. If they might not be able to get on the field, why would I want them?

I happen to think my approach puts me a lot closer to the mindset of a real NFL scout than yours does. This is not a place to argue whether weed inhibits performance, or reflects upon character, or whether weed should be legal. It's cut and dry: you can get suspended for it. If that rule changes, then I'd change my thinking on it. But as long as that rule's in place, it seems pretty simple to me.

This current skins FO proved they would take a chance on a player who dropped becasue of marijuana concerns drafting Fred Smoot in the 2nd round of the 2001 draft. He's been clean as a whistle with the skins...

I think you're having a hard time separating the issues here.

On one hand, some in this thread are tending to slant their arguments towards the idea that weed is no big deal, it won't affect performance, you can still work hard and smoke weed, ETC. Maybe so, maybe not, but that's not the friggin point.

The point is weed is illegal (I don't care whether it should be or not, again, not the point). It will get you suspended from the league if you test positive for it or are caught by the police possessing it. So guys who smoke it have an increased chance of missing games.

I mean isn't that the same thing as drafting a brittle player? Whether they smoke up or tend to get hurt, either way, they're a risk to be unavailable. If they might not be able to get on the field, why would I want them?

I happen to think my approach puts me a lot closer to the mindset of a real NFL scout than yours does. This is not a place to argue whether weed inhibits performance, or reflects upon character, or whether weed should be legal. It's cut and dry: you can get suspended for it. If that rule changes, then I'd change my thinking on it. But as long as that rule's in place, it seems pretty simple to me.

Schneed, you are absolutely right. That said, I bet it still won't register.

My guess is someone is targeting the two and are leaking the bad info. to get their draft stock to drop.

Lol, maybe the Redskins did it, but yeah I wouldn't be surprised if thats what happened. At the same time I wonder if the Bengals would take a risk on Maningham, who aside from being a Michigan guy, would be going to a team with enough character issues as is.

Personally I don't think that marijuana use is that big a deal, if it was legal I would prefer players smoking pot instead of drinking alcohol a hundred times over (just for the record I don't smoke pot), but the fact that it's illegal makes using it a bigger risk and in turn a higher probablility that you could lose a player in this day and age of Roger trying to clean up the league.

So with that said I know that smoking pot isn't really that big of a deal, but my question is would a team that has as little room to work with (in terms of character issues) be willing to take on another head case like Maningham.

This is happening too late in the process to seriously affect their draft stock. If you test positive for pot at the combine, you will get quickly blacklisted and your stock will drop.

But now, most teams have their draft boards set already. Tell me, if Talib was your team's number one rated CB in the entire draft, that is to say, that his football skill graded out higher than every other CB in the draft, wouldn't you still pick him when you were on the clock, even now? Same with Manningham.

Maybe it could be the dealbreaker for some of those teams, and they might pick Jenkins instead, but for the players, it's a lot better for them that it came out in April, than back in February when it could have really jaded their evaluation as players.

This is happening too late in the process to seriously affect their draft stock. If you test positive for pot at the combine, you will get quickly blacklisted and your stock will drop.

But now, most teams have their draft boards set already. Tell me, if Talib was your team's number one rated CB in the entire draft, that is to say, that his football skill graded out higher than every other CB in the draft, wouldn't you still pick him when you were on the clock, even now? Same with Manningham.

You think? I'm not so sure those draft boards are written in stone and I'm not sure why boards are more difficult to change in April than in February or March. It would be one thing if the news broke on the eve of the draft, but teams still have 2 more weeks to evaluate the players and adjust their boards accordingly.

You think? I'm not so sure those draft boards are written in stone and I'm not sure why boards are more difficult to change in April than in February or March. It would be one thing if the news broke on the eve of the draft, but teams still have 2 more weeks to evaluate the players and adjust their boards accordingly.Well, yeah, and 2 weeks from now, if someone else admits to Pot usage, it will matter even less. Relative to the combine though, I think it means very little.

The problem, as I see it, is that if a prospect has known character flaws while he is being graded, any scout-based evaluation system will be biased against him for it, and his grade will be inaccurate. If he grades out top of the board and then admits to pot usage, I think teams will be totally willing to turn a blind eye, to what on the surface seems like a small character flaw.

The assumption here is that a majority of the scouting work is complete, the final prospect grades are in, and those who have had those run ins with the law in college have been blacklisted and dropped down while those who just recently admit to marijuana usage get a tiny, insignificant asterisk.

This is happening too late in the process to seriously affect their draft stock. If you test positive for pot at the combine, you will get quickly blacklisted and your stock will drop.

But now, most teams have their draft boards set already. Tell me, if Talib was your team's number one rated CB in the entire draft, that is to say, that his football skill graded out higher than every other CB in the draft, wouldn't you still pick him when you were on the clock, even now? Same with Manningham.

Maybe it could be the dealbreaker for some of those teams, and they might pick Jenkins instead, but for the players, it's a lot better for them that it came out in April, than back in February when it could have really jaded their evaluation as players.


I agree with this. If they tested positve at the combine itself, I think this is a big deal. If they are just admitting to smoking pot somewhere along the way, I really dont think it is a big deal at all. Plenty of people have used it in the past and I dont think its a very big deal that either of these two have used it. I almost respect that they answered the question with a yes, instead of just lying about it. I really dont think it is a big deal at all.