Monroe misconception

Alot of people have been saying Monroe will drop out of the top 5 because of knee issues, this really doesn't make alot of sense to me because only two teams have failed him physically. Pete King of SI says
"Two teams I spoke with failed Monroe on their physical exams because of his knee history; one said Monroe would likely be fine for three or four years, minimum, but the team would be worried about relying on Monroe for a 10-year career. I hear this, but I think it's overly cautious. Anthony Munoz had 14 teams fail him on their team physicals in 1980, and he went on to be a durable Hall of Famer, maybe the best tackle of all time."

I hear you loud and clear, but when you say "overly cautious" i ask you compared to what? If you have two guys graded about the same (ie monroe and smith, or monroe and curry etc, whoever your preference is) and you think one has even a potential physical issue, why take the incremental risk, especially with the amount of guaranteed money involved. Is monroe really that much more talented than other guys in the top group? The fact that only two teams have failed him doesnt mean that other teams havent downgraded him on their boards based on some incremental physical risk.

At the end of the day, each team makes its own medical evaluation. If a team thinks his knee is fine and needs an offensive tackle, he isnt going to fall very far if at all. If however, the teams picking at the top have other equal needs, he may well drop out of the top five. Same is true regarding crabtree and the injury to his foot.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

If even 2 teams failed him physically, it's worth pause for consideration. I'm kind of surprised even that many did. The dislocated knee cap in 2006 sounds kind of bad, but he didn't even miss playing time over it. And I wouldn't think a sprained knee in 2007 would have any long-term effects.