First, Robert Griffin III. Now this.
One scout said on Friday, via Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
Not one of my faves. More of it is just his character. He doesn’t have an offensive lineman’s character, especially when you take into account how good his brother is in that way. He’s got a real sense of entitlement. Hey, he’s got a lot of talent. He’ll overcome some of those things if he doesn’t want to wash out, if he doesn’t want to end up being Robert Gallery.
Wow. That's all I have to say. Not only is Kalil the unquestionable top tackle in the 2012 NFL Draft, but none of these character concerns have come out before. Why? Because if you said such a thing about Kalil and put your name on it, you would get run out of town and possibly fired by the organization.
There is, of course, no supporting evidence provided in this claim. It's easy to take a random dig at a prospect—it means absolutely nothing if you don't at least back it up.
It's yet another example of how scouts and experts are becoming overly critical of prospects these days. With more information and video available than ever, there's naturally more to pick apart, and it can lead people to forget about the positives a prospect brings to the field.
Do you believe the scout's analysis on Matt Kalil?
You can hear one thing from a "person close to the team" and try to find that deficiency in a prospect. It doesn't matter who this source is; people will instantly start breaking down that aspect of a prospect, and sometimes, it goes too far.
There's a reason why these scouts won't come out of hiding—they have little basis for their claims and are spouting off dribble for what I'm assuming is ulterior motives.
With Griffin, and now this, people need to start being more critical of what these unnamed sources are saying. We should analyze commentary about prospects as much as we break down the prospects themselves.
Follow me on Twitter. We can talk about the 2012 NFL Draft together.