Bj Raji not invited to NFL Draft???

[broncofansd]

With the post in Sports Illustrated reporting that he tested positive for a drug(marijuana) it is interesting that BJ Raji wasn't invited to The Draft considering he was consider at top 10 Pick.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/news/story?id=4060012

Mark Sanchez - declined
Matthew Strafford - accepted
Brian Cushing - accepted
Josh Freeman - accepted
Aaron Curry - expected
Michael Crabtree - expected
Eugene Monroe - expected
Jason Smith - expected
Michael Ohr - expected.


You would expect The NFL to invite Bj Raji but this is sounding more and more like his name is on the April 20th Combine list for drug violation.







The question is "IF" Bj Raji is found to have failed a drug test at the combine do The Broncos select him with the 12th or 18th Pick????


I highly doubt that any top 10 team would pick him due to the LARGE amount of Guaranteed Bonus Money involved.


My personal feeling is that Marijuana should be legalized(I don't smoke) and the U.S. Govt should make all the money off of it to reduce the deficit.



As far as drafting BJ , I would still draft him with explicit language written into contract about failing drug test and bonus money.

[Den615]

I'd still take him at 12. Like you i dont smoke, but i really dont think its a big deal

I would gladly welcome Raji to this team

[-Rod-]

If available, he is a no brainer pick at 12. Can play NT and DE in the 3-4. And looks like our current defensive linemen smoked tons of grass when they are on the field anyway. The report has not been confirmed, might just be a rumour.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d80fa9631&template=without-video&confirm=true

The agents representing one of the NFL draft's top prospects, defensive tackle B.J. Raji, strongly disputed a report that the former Boston College player failed a drug test at the league's scouting combine in February.

n an e-mail sent to The Associated Press on Tuesday, Brian Murphy and Mark Humenik referred to the reports as "cowardly" and "malicious," noting their client has not been notified by the NFL of any failed test.

"The media reports accusing B.J. of a failed drug test at the Combine are false," Murphy and Humenik wrote. "Given the cowardly attacks and damage to B.J.'s character as a result of these vicious rumors, we sincerely hope the responsible parties are discovered and held accountable for their actions."

Murphy and Humenik, based in Irvine, Calif., also noted that the NFL has issued a statement challenging the report initially posted on SI.com on Thursday.

The SI.com report, which did not identify the drug, was attributed to unidentified NFL team sources. The Web site reported that Raji's name will be on a list of players who tested positive.

In a statement released by the NFL last week, the league said neither its 32 teams nor the league office know the results of drug or steroid tests taken at the combine. Instead, players who test positive are notified in writing by the independent medical advisers who perform the testing.

"Unfortunately, rumors about draft-eligible players, including rumors about test results, begin to circulate every year at this time," the league statement said. "Many of these rumors are circulated for self-serving reasons, and they are terribly unfair to the players and their families."

Raji's agents said their client has not been contacted by the league or a medical adviser regarding a positive test. Raji disputed the report in an interview with The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa, Calif., in a story posted on the newspaper's Web site late Monday night.

"I couldn't understand how this rumor became such a big splash in the media when there was no evidence -- there was no substance to believe it," Raji was quoted as saying. "Now, I'm happy the truth is out."

[broncofansd]

Tony Pauline “Stands By What His Sources Told Him” On Raji


I still think Denver drafts him at 12 regardless , just write drug clause into contract , where he losses some of his signing bonus.

[-Rod-]

SI on B.J. Raji Drug Test Story: We Took It Down While We Continue to Report

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/04/10/si-on-b-j-raji-drug-test-story-we-took-it-down-while-we-contin/

Eight days after Sports Illustrated reported that NFL draft prospect B.J. Raji had failed a drug test, the magazine says it has removed the story from its web site while it continues to investigate.

The story, which is still available via the Google cache, said that Raji, a former Boston College defensive tackle, "had a positive drug test" at the league's scouting combine in February. The information was attributed to unnamed "NFL team sources." Raji's agent disputed the report, and Sports Illustrated removed the story from its web site.

But SI didn't post a correction or retraction. On Friday I asked an SI spokesman for an explanation, and I got this statement:

"We have investigated the claims of Mr. Raji's agent and although we have several credible sources for the report we have decided to take it down while we continue reporting the story."

That statement is puzzling because media outlets aren't in the habit of withdrawing stories that have "several credible sources." I have attempted to contact Tony Pauline, the writer whose byline appeared on the story, and have not been able to get in touch with him. I have also left a message with Raji's agent.

The bottom line, though, is that if Sports Illustrated were completely confident that its sources were credible, it wouldn't have taken the report off the site. Both Raji and SI's readers deserve a more thorough explanation.

Sports Illustrated Owes Explanation for B.J. Raji Story

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/04/08/sports-illustrated-owes-an-explanation-for-b-j-raji-story/

Last week, Sports Illustrated reported on its web site that B.J. Raji, a former Boston College defensive lineman who is expected to be a first-round NFL draft pick, had failed a drug test at the NFL's scouting combine. Raji and his agents said that report is false, and now the report no longer appears on Sports Illustrated's web site.

But if the editors at Sports Illustrated think the story will end there, then they're stunningly ignorant of the way the media works. A report that an athlete tested positive for drugs lives forever. Just because the URL where Sports Illustrated posted the story has gone dead doesn't mean people can't read the story, and it doesn't erase the fact that several newspapers picked up the SI report. How on earth can Sports Illustrated simply pull the story from its web site and think all will be forgotten?

It's quite simple, really: Either Sports Illustrated should tell its readers it stands by its reporting on the Raji story, or it should tell its readers that it no longer stands by its reporting on the Raji story. There's no middle ground here. Sports Illustrated's report was either right or it was wrong. Simply pretending the story doesn't exist and never existed is unacceptable.

And it goes beyond just Tony Pauline, the writer whose byline appeared on the original Sports Illustrated report, and his editors. When SI's top NFL reporter, Peter King, addressed the Raji story, he wrote, "I applaud SI.com for breaking the story, and it deserves to be reported." Does King still applaud SI.com for breaking the story? If he doesn't, he should say so.

Sports Illustrated owes its readers and B.J. Raji an account of exactly how this report ended up on its web site, and exactly why the report was pulled. If the story was wrong, simply deleting it isn't enough.

[Red-Falcon]

I don't see what the big deal with this guy! In 2009 our team will play 3-4... and we have some good defensive linemen... Plus McD's new additions, Reid and Fields... So, do we really need him? I never understood why people are so hyped about a guy that misses a lot of tackles and is way overrated. I think we would better get a Linebacker, or cornerback... Let Raji go somewhere else... Who needs him, anyway?

[Botan]

They usually only invite the top 6 prospects to the Draft. This year I think they invited the top 6 plus 3 that are good stories.

I'm really glad Oher got invited.

[Atwnbroncfan]

Freeman? ..........NFL better pray Jets take him or he may not get taken till 2nd rd.

[broncofansd]

Sports Illustrated refused to deny it also.


Pauline “Stands By What His Sources Told Him” On Raji
Posted by Mike Florio on 4/11/09, 5:32 p.m.
In a Friday appearance with our pal Mike Dempsey of 1010XL in Jacksonville, Tony Pauline of SI.com addressed his now-yanked (but not retracted) report that Boston College defensive tackle B.J. Raji tested positive for marjiuana at the Scouting Combine.

Pauline reiterated his belief that Raji tested positive, based on the fact that Pauline was told the same thing on several occasions.

“I stand by what my sources told me,” Pauline said.

Pauline said that he contacted Raji’s agent throughout the process of reporting on the story, and that Pauline was not trying to smear Raji.

“People should know this was not a rush to get this story out,” Pauline said. “This story was developed over the course of almost a month, from several different sources.”

So where will this story go?

“It’s going to have to be a wait-and-see game,” Pauline said, which implies that — as we suspected — SI.com will continue to sit on Pauline’s report until the NFL teams get the official report, and that SI.com will officially retract the report if Raji’s name isn’t on the list, and that SI.com will resurrect the report if his name appears on the list.

And we continue to struggle with the propriety of this approach. Either SI.com stands behind the story or it doesn’t. It’s not enough, in our view, to put it in mothballs until the story is later confirmed or debunked.

[CoryWinget81]

Can the kid play football?

Do we need a good NT?

Is he capable of being that NT?

These are the questions that should be asked. Who CARES if he smokes pot. It's so unbelievably stupid that its illegal in the first place. Smoking weed doesn't make you a bad person, and if anything, playing high can actually ENHANCE your level of play.

[GridironChamp]

Cushing and Freeman?

Then Oher being invited?

Those 3 shouldn't have been invited, and Raji should be.

[broncofansd]

QUOTE=GridironChamp;2705859]Cushing and Freeman?

Then Oher being invited?

Those 3 shouldn't have been invited, and Raji should be.[/QUOTE]


Just speculating but if he was clean he would have been. I saw Bj Raji's interview on the NFL network and he has alot of charisma!!!


I am sure they don't want to invite him and then he gets BLASTED on Network TV in front of the Nation.

[myoung]

I wouldn't read too much into it.

What about Smith and Maclin not being invited? Obvioulsy Smith upset teams the way he acted at the combine... But what would be the reason that you think Maclin got skipped as well? I have seen Maclin getting picked right with Raji in most mocks...

[broncofansd]

The reporter for SI stands by his sources and 3 players who are projected to be drafted after BJ Raji were invited.


Josh Freeman , Brian Cushing and Michael Ohr.


We will find out hopefully on the 20th when all NFL teams get the list.

[draco193]

[QUOTE=CoryWinget81;2705848]

These are the questions that should be asked. Who CARES if he smokes pot. It's so unbelievably stupid that its illegal in the first place. Smoking weed doesn't make you a bad person, and if anything, playing high can actually ENHANCE your level of play.[/QUOTE]

Cory, if you could explain to me how this is true it would be greatly appreciated. Because everyone who has ever talked to me about legalizing it has said pretty much the opposite of making you a better player (relaxing, decreases aggression etc).