Are you asking
us what McVay meant by what he said?

I studied semantics, communication theory, structural linguistics, historical linguistics and psycholinguistics, and still - I wander away from some of McVay's statements asking myself if he knew what he meant by what he said. I'm not sure wheter he knows, and if he does whether he wants us to know.

If he meant what he said they wouldn't have moved up in the draft to to get Fiske after drafting Verse, who was drafted because he was a great prospect at a position of need, or because he was liked and loved?
McVay is almost as good at delivering verbal smokescreens to obscure intent at draft time as Snead - but he's learning fast. Snead's style is to define a parameter so broad that, while it eliminates certain specifics, it leaves others wide open. McVay's is to conceal intent in a verbal barrage that starts one place and ends up somewhere else, drawing the listener's attention away from what might have been the original point of inquiry, while not quite remembering what it was.

When it's all over with, we can echo in chorus, "Ohh, so
that's what you mant. We just didn't understand. Very wise, master."
