How does an Orchard treat QBs?
-
If it makes you happy to believe that Gip, then so be it....
It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what he does.
So, if you dont believe it, why promote it???
SBNation is a "blog" site....look it up, your good at that......just a place for people to submit their pieces.....so, yeah, Id consider a blogger just another [ersons opinion and not a "credible site"....
The same can be said for EVERY fucking draft prognosticator. ESPN is nothing but a venue for Kiper and McShay to express THEIR opinions.....which may be no more relative or authoritative that what is put on SBNation
Correct. There are a million of em. And they all have different opinions. So, I think most people form some opinions of their own and work toward understanding the consensus. When just one guy, who nobody knows, says something....is it instantly credible and fact?...what about the 50 others that say the opposite?....how do you work through that?
And the second CBS article you quote doesnt have Pullard as a top 100. They list him as one of many Pac-12 players....
It said the Browns had 8 of the Top 100 players in this draft.....and it gave 8 names...what does that tell you?
Well, I actually read it.....and it told me that we drafted 8 playes from the Pac-12....thats what it says.....or are we top assume that Telfer, Mayle and Pullard are all 3 now in the top 100....cause thats what your list of 8 says......here, read it again...
The Browns were very active with Pac-12 players (58-percent of their draft class) with Shelton, Utah pass rusher Nate Orchard, Washington State defensive tackle Xavier Cooper, Washington State wide receiver Vince Mayle, USC tight end Randall Telfer, USC linebacker Hayes Pullard and Oregon cornerback Ifo Ekpre-Olomu.
Chris has already said twice that "CBS" had him at #288, so how could they also have him in the Top 100?.....I dont know who wrote your second article, but it wasn't "CBS Sports".......
The FUCK it wasn't. It was on the goddamn CBS Sports website. Now fucking explain that!
It was written by a writer(not CBS)....
Im a drop it. You can believe whatever you read and it's no consequence to me,,I guess......But if you're gonna insist he's a second round talent, just because 2 bloggers said so(and when 100's said otherwise), then remind me to no longer trust your information or sources....
My sources are the same goddamn sources that everyone of you assfucks use. You just decide to give credibility to those that agree with you, and to discredit those who do not.
I tend to give credibility to those that have some kind of track record or those who's opinions Ive learned to trust. CANT give credibility to someone Ive never even heard of....why would I do that?? Now, if you want to believe anything you read, then go for it. And if I give cred to some one who "agrees with me"...that means at least I have an opinion of my own and am not just taking anyones word for it just because it's in an article on-line....
Bottom line....you misread your own article.....
If it makes you happy to believe that Gip, then so be it....
It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what he does.
So, if you dont believe it, why promote it???
Because it confirms my belief that the Browns did as well or better than any other team in the draft. If they really did get 7-8 of the Top 100 players....that may be double the number that nearly every other team got.
SBNation is a "blog" site....look it up, your good at that......just a place for people to submit their pieces.....so, yeah, Id consider a blogger just another [ersons opinion and not a "credible site"....
The same can be said for EVERY fucking draft prognosticator. ESPN is nothing but a venue for Kiper and McShay to express THEIR opinions.....which may be no more relative or authoritative that what is put on SBNation
Correct. There are a million of em. And they all have different opinions. So, I think most people form some opinions of their own and work toward understanding the consensus. When just one guy, who nobody knows, says something....is it instantly credible and fact?...what about the 50 others that say the opposite?....how do you work through that?
Show me the 50 other. I saw one....by CBS...and another by CBS that put him higher.
And the second CBS article you quote doesnt have Pullard as a top 100. They list him as one of many Pac-12 players....
It said the Browns had 8 of the Top 100 players in this draft.....and it gave 8 names...what does that tell you?
Well, I actually read it.....and it told me that we drafted 8 playes from the Pac-12....thats what it says.....or are we top assume that Telfer, Mayle and Pullard are all 3 now in the top 100....cause thats what your list of 8 says......here, read it again...
The Browns were very active with Pac-12 players (58-percent of their draft class) with Shelton, Utah pass rusher Nate Orchard, Washington State defensive tackle Xavier Cooper, Washington State wide receiver Vince Mayle, USC tight end Randall Telfer, USC linebacker Hayes Pullard and Oregon cornerback Ifo Ekpre-Olomu.
OK....but the article said we had 8 top 100....and he gave 8 names. So, explain that,
Chris has already said twice that "CBS" had him at #288, so how could they also have him in the Top 100?.....I dont know who wrote your second article, but it wasn't "CBS Sports".......
The FUCK it wasn't. It was on the goddamn CBS Sports website. Now fucking explain that!
It was written by a writer(not CBS)....
Uh...Duh.....are you saying that The Black Rock building wrote it? No. Everything that comes out of every network/website/paper/magazine comes from some writer. Do you think these articles appear out of the ether?
Im a drop it. You can believe whatever you read and it's no consequence to me,,I guess......But if you're gonna insist he's a second round talent, just because 2 bloggers said so(and when 100's said otherwise), then remind me to no longer trust your information or sources....
My sources are the same goddamn sources that everyone of you assfucks use. You just decide to give credibility to those that agree with you, and to discredit those who do not.
I tend to give credibility to those that have some kind of track record or those who's opinions Ive learned to trust. CANT give credibility to someone Ive never even heard of....why would I do that?? Now, if you want to believe anything you read, then go for it. And if I give cred to some one who "agrees with me"...that means at least I have an opinion of my own and am not just taking anyones word for it just because it's in an article on-line....
Bottom line....you misread your own article.....
TCPO says Dane Brugler is a well respected analysts. So...YOU may have never heard of him....but apparently many, many other people have. So maybe the problem is with you not knowing who is or is not credible...and not with the writer.
And if I misread the article....the article allowed for that misreading by talking about 8 players and then giving 8 names
-
OK....but the article said we had 8 top 100....and he gave 8 names. So, explain that
TCPO says Dane Brugler is a well respected analysts. So...YOU may have never heard of him....but apparently many, many other people have. So maybe the problem is with you not knowing who is or is not credible...and not with the writer.
And if I misread the article....the article allowed for that misreading by talking about 8 players and then giving 8 names
The quote you posted above, about the 8 players in the top-100 is from Dane Brugler...a respected CBS columnist. Unfortunately, Pullard was not one of those players in the top 100. That list has:
Danny Shelton
Cameron Erving
Duke Johnson
Vince Mayle
Nate Orchard
Charles Gaines
Ifo Ekpre-Olomu
Xavier Cooper
So, seems like Mud has it covered on both counts?
-
I'm talking about Pullard, the guy Gips keeps erroneously claiming is a second round pick.
I'm excited for Orchard, I think he's going to be a damn solid player.
You're the one making inane, unwarranted, unsubstantiated assumptions. Pullard is not one of the top 70 players in this draft. You're just flat out wrong...again.
TWO motherfuckers that put this shit out say he is. Why don't you call them....and disagree with them.
You and me neither have NO FUCKING idea who the top 70 players in this draft are.......Tom Brady was only the 199th best player the year he was taken.
CBS Sports has him ranked 288th overall - 14th best interior linebacker, and a 7th round pick or UDFA.
One CBS Sports writer has him there....another has him #69. You merely choose to choose the one you agree with.
NFL.com has him ranked as the 23rd best linebacker and the 10th best interior linebacker, and a 7th round pick.
And SBNation had him ranked #69....so what we have is dueling dickheads.
You seem to have read one blogger's opinion and then run with it as fact. As Mud said earlier, SBNation is just a collection of bloggers - the same as Bleacher Report...and everybody here gave Mike H. shit for writing for Bleacher Report.
And NFL.com and ESPN are just "bloggers". That is EXACTLY what Kiper and McShay were before they were hired by ESPN.
The quote you posted above, about the 8 players in the top-100 is from Dane Brugler...a respected CBS columnist. Unfortunately, Pullard was not one of those players in the top 100. That list has:
Danny Shelton
Cameron Erving
Duke Johnson
Vince Mayle
Nate Orchard
Charles Gaines
Ifo Ekpre-Olomu
Xavier Cooper
The list is here: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfl-draft-scout/25139156/nfl-draft-draft-board-30-expands-to-top-100
So...once again...Hayes Pullard is not a second round pick. He's not in anyone's top 100. The list that you've been basing your entire argument off of does not mention Pullard. Pullard is special teams fodder.
You provided a list. If that is the case then why when he said the Browns had 8 of his Top 100 did he give 8 names in the article....one of them being Hayes Pullard. All this does is detract from this guys credibility. He says one thing one time and then contradicts himself later.
Can we put this to rest finally?
Sure. But I am still right when I said: Two sources had Hayes Pullard ranked in the Top 100 players in this draft.
And that is a fucking fact. You can deal with it....or STFU about it however you choose.
TWO motherfuckers that put this shit out say he is. Why don't you call them....and disagree with them.
You and me neither have NO FUCKING idea who the top 70 players in this draft are.......Tom Brady was only the 199th best player the year he was taken.
I still haven't seen any "motherfucker" say he was a top 100 pick. You haven't provided that at all...the above quote clearly does not state that and I'm starting to think you made the other one up.
One CBS Sports writer has him there....another has him #69. You merely choose to choose the one you agree with.
Which CBS writer is that? I haven't seen that anywhere. I'd love to see where.
And SBNation had him ranked #69....so what we have is dueling dickheads.
I have him ranked at 424th. And I have just as much credibility as anyone who writes for SBNation, since it's a website where random joe's submit their own blogs.
And NFL.com and ESPN are just "bloggers". That is EXACTLY what Kiper and McShay were before they were hired by ESPN.
Sure, that's what Mel Kiper was....30 years ago. That's like saying the 19 year old kid on the city council in Myrtle Beach is akin to the president, because they are both in government. That's like saying your middle school nephew is the same as Tom Brady, because he plays QB for his Pop Warner team. We're arguing about the opinions of other people, sure...but I'm going to go ahead and side with the person who is infinitely more qualified, who's been doing this at a professional level for 30 years and has all of the scouting tools available to him. You can hitch your wagon to Joe Nobody all you want, that's your prerogative. Just don't get offended when literally everyone else disagrees with you.
You provided a list. If that is the case then why when he said the Browns had 8 of his Top 100 did he give 8 names in the article....one of them being Hayes Pullard. All this does is detract from this guys credibility. He says one thing one time and then contradicts himself later.
No, it doesn't. Brugler listed the Pac-12 players by name (and since USC is in the Pac-12, Pullard would be a part of that). He then went on to say there were also 8 players in the Top 100 that the Browns drafted. The two statements weren't connected. It doesn't detract from his credibility in the least. It just puts your comprehension into question.
I highly doubt you're actually that dense...and you're just arguing minute points because you don't want to be wrong.
Sure. But I am still right when I said: Two sources had Hayes Pullard ranked in the Top 100 players in this draft.
And that is a fucking fact. You can deal with it....or STFU about it however you choose.
Where? You've still yet to show us where anyone has said that. So I'll just go ahead and look for you. Here's what I've found.
Where Pullard should be drafted:
Mike Mayock of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
Lance Zierlein of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Chad Reuter of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Charlie Campbell of Walter Football listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
The DraftTek computer algorithm listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
People who don't have him in the top 100 (or more):
- DraftTek has him as the 154th best player.
- Newsday does not have him in their top 100.
- Mike Mayock does not have him in his top 100.
- CBS Sports, the site as a whole, has him at 288th. (This isn't a personal writer's opinion, this isn't attributed to any specific person, this is the rankings from NFL Draft Scout...the service that CBS Sports owns and uses.)
- Josh Norris of NBC Sports/Rotoworld does not have Pullard in his Top 100.
- DraftInsider does not have in their top 225.
- Michael Middlehurst-Scwartz of USA Today does not have him in his top 100.
- This writer for SportsGrid does not have him in the Top 100.
- This FFtoolbox blog doesn't have him in the top 100.
- Draft Countdown has him ranked 142nd.
People who do have him in the Top 100:
- This personal site has him ranked 85th. It also has Jameis Winston ranked 36th (well behind #2 Mariota) - so take that information as you may.
- This personal SBNation blog from last December has him ranked 94th.
- This SportingNews blog has him ranked 92nd.
The only three places I could find Pullard ranked in the top 100 were personal blogs not affiliated with any sort of major publication or network. Nowhere on CBS, NFL, ESPN, USA Today or NBC was I able to find anywhere where Pullard is ranked in the top 100.
The only credibility that's being lost here is yours...because you are A) refusing to admit that you are wrong or
hitching your wagon to the opinions of unqualified randoms. If it's , that's completely fine. Just don't expect anyone to ever trust your opinions on future players...since your "sources" are of great question.So I think it's you who can choose to deal with it or STFU.
-
TWO motherfuckers that put this shit out say he is. Why don't you call them....and disagree with them.
You and me neither have NO FUCKING idea who the top 70 players in this draft are.......Tom Brady was only the 199th best player the year he was taken.
I still haven't seen any "motherfucker" say he was a top 100 pick. You haven't provided that at all...the above quote clearly does not state that and I'm starting to think you made the other one up.
One CBS Sports writer has him there....another has him #69. You merely choose to choose the one you agree with.
Which CBS writer is that? I haven't seen that anywhere. I'd love to see where.
And SBNation had him ranked #69....so what we have is dueling dickheads.
I have him ranked at 424th. And I have just as much credibility as anyone who writes for SBNation, since it's a website where random joe's submit their own blogs.
And NFL.com and ESPN are just "bloggers". That is EXACTLY what Kiper and McShay were before they were hired by ESPN.
Sure, that's what Mel Kiper was....30 years ago. That's like saying the 19 year old kid on the city council in Myrtle Beach is akin to the president, because they are both in government. That's like saying your middle school nephew is the same as Tom Brady, because he plays QB for his Pop Warner team. We're arguing about the opinions of other people, sure...but I'm going to go ahead and side with the person who is infinitely more qualified, who's been doing this at a professional level for 30 years and has all of the scouting tools available to him. You can hitch your wagon to Joe Nobody all you want, that's your prerogative. Just don't get offended when literally everyone else disagrees with you.
You provided a list. If that is the case then why when he said the Browns had 8 of his Top 100 did he give 8 names in the article....one of them being Hayes Pullard. All this does is detract from this guys credibility. He says one thing one time and then contradicts himself later.
No, it doesn't. Brugler listed the Pac-12 players by name (and since USC is in the Pac-12, Pullard would be a part of that). He then went on to say there were also 8 players in the Top 100 that the Browns drafted. The two statements weren't connected. It doesn't detract from his credibility in the least. It just puts your comprehension into question.
I highly doubt you're actually that dense...and you're just arguing minute points because you don't want to be wrong.
Sure. But I am still right when I said: Two sources had Hayes Pullard ranked in the Top 100 players in this draft.
And that is a fucking fact. You can deal with it....or STFU about it however you choose.
Where? You've still yet to show us where anyone has said that. So I'll just go ahead and look for you. Here's what I've found.
Where Pullard should be drafted:
Mike Mayock of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
Lance Zierlein of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Chad Reuter of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Charlie Campbell of Walter Football listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
The DraftTek computer algorithm listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
People who don't have him in the top 100 (or more):
- DraftTek has him as the 154th best player.
- Newsday does not have him in their top 100.
- Mike Mayock does not have him in his top 100.
- CBS Sports, the site as a whole, has him at 288th. (This isn't a personal writer's opinion, this isn't attributed to any specific person, this is the rankings from NFL Draft Scout...the service that CBS Sports owns and uses.)
- Josh Norris of NBC Sports/Rotoworld does not have Pullard in his Top 100.
- DraftInsider does not have in their top 225.
- Michael Middlehurst-Scwartz of USA Today does not have him in his top 100.
- This writer for SportsGrid does not have him in the Top 100.
- This FFtoolbox blog doesn't have him in the top 100.
- Draft Countdown has him ranked 142nd.
People who do have him in the Top 100:
- This personal site has him ranked 85th. It also has Jameis Winston ranked 36th (well behind #2 Mariota) - so take that information as you may.
- This personal SBNation blog from last December has him ranked 94th.
- This SportingNews blog has him ranked 92nd.
The only three places I could find Pullard ranked in the top 100 were personal blogs not affiliated with any sort of major publication or network. Nowhere on CBS, NFL, ESPN, USA Today or NBC was I able to find anywhere where Pullard is ranked in the top 100.
The only credibility that's being lost here is yours...because you are A) refusing to admit that you are wrong or
hitching your wagon to the opinions of unqualified randoms. If it's , that's completely fine. Just don't expect anyone to ever trust your opinions on future players...since your "sources" are of great question.So I think it's you who can choose to deal with it or STFU.
TWO motherfuckers that put this shit out say he is. Why don't you call them....and disagree with them.
You and me neither have NO FUCKING idea who the top 70 players in this draft are.......Tom Brady was only the 199th best player the year he was taken.
I still haven't seen any "motherfucker" say he was a top 100 pick. You haven't provided that at all...the above quote clearly does not state that and I'm starting to think you made the other one up.
SBNation.....I thought I provided the link. Look it the fuck up
One CBS Sports writer has him there....another has him #69. You merely choose to choose the one you agree with.
Which CBS writer is that? I haven't seen that anywhere. I'd love to see where.
And SBNation had him ranked #69....so what we have is dueling dickheads.
I have him ranked at 424th. And I have just as much credibility as anyone who writes for SBNation, since it's a website where random joe's submit their own blogs.
Well, the Cleveland Browns had him rated highly enough to take him and I have him rated as a future starting MLB for the Cleveland Browns.......so where someone did or did not rate him will become irrelevent once he hits the field.
And NFL.com and ESPN are just "bloggers". That is EXACTLY what Kiper and McShay were before they were hired by ESPN.
Sure, that's what Mel Kiper was....30 years ago. That's like saying the 19 year old kid on the city council in Myrtle Beach is akin to the president, because they are both in government. That's like saying your middle school nephew is the same as Tom Brady, because he plays QB for his Pop Warner team. We're arguing about the opinions of other people, sure...but I'm going to go ahead and side with the person who is infinitely more qualified, who's been doing this at a professional level for 30 years and has all of the scouting tools available to him. You can hitch your wagon to Joe Nobody all you want, that's your prerogative. Just don't get offended when literally everyone else disagrees with you.
Kiper hasn't really changed what he does...at all. He is just a blogger. And he will tell you that. He just now gets more publicity.
And there is someone who agrees with me: Ray Farmer.
You provided a list. If that is the case then why when he said the Browns had 8 of his Top 100 did he give 8 names in the article....one of them being Hayes Pullard. All this does is detract from this guys credibility. He says one thing one time and then contradicts himself later.
No, it doesn't. Brugler listed the Pac-12 players by name (and since USC is in the Pac-12, Pullard would be a part of that). He then went on to say there were also 8 players in the Top 100 that the Browns drafted. The two statements weren't connected. It doesn't detract from his credibility in the least. It just puts your comprehension into question.
I highly doubt you're actually that dense...and you're just arguing minute points because you don't want to be wrong.
No, when I read it he said there were 8 Top 100....and he gave 8 names....and he noted they were from the Pac12. It was all one package. I may have misread it....but again, he didn't clarify well.
Sure. But I am still right when I said: Two sources had Hayes Pullard ranked in the Top 100 players in this draft.
And that is a fucking fact. You can deal with it....or STFU about it however you choose.
Where? You've still yet to show us where anyone has said that. So I'll just go ahead and look for you. Here's what I've found.
Where Pullard should be drafted:
Mike Mayock of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
Lance Zierlein of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Chad Reuter of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Charlie Campbell of Walter Football listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
The DraftTek computer algorithm listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
OK...a 4th rounder certainly can be considered Top 100....or on the cusp of it. Thanks for doing my research. SB Nation had him there. When I googled his ranking, they were the first to come up.
People who don't have him in the top 100 (or more):
- DraftTek has him as the 154th best player.
- Newsday does not have him in their top 100.
- Mike Mayock does not have him in his top 100.
- CBS Sports, the site as a whole, has him at 288th. (This isn't a personal writer's opinion, this isn't attributed to any specific person, this is the rankings from NFL Draft Scout...the service that CBS Sports owns and uses.)
- Josh Norris of NBC Sports/Rotoworld does not have Pullard in his Top 100.
- DraftInsider does not have in their top 225.
- Michael Middlehurst-Scwartz of USA Today does not have him in his top 100.
- This writer for SportsGrid does not have him in the Top 100.
- This FFtoolbox blog doesn't have him in the top 100.
- Draft Countdown has him ranked 142nd.
People who do have him in the Top 100:
- This personal site has him ranked 85th. It also has Jameis Winston ranked 36th (well behind #2 Mariota) - so take that information as you may.
- This personal SBNation blog from last December has him ranked 94th.
- This SportingNews blog has him ranked 92nd.
The only three places I could find Pullard ranked in the top 100 were personal blogs not affiliated with any sort of major publication or network. Nowhere on CBS, NFL, ESPN, USA Today or NBC was I able to find anywhere where Pullard is ranked in the top 100.
You listed NFL.com 3 times. Draftek etc.....why contradict yourself.....and here is a clue.....the guys that work for CBS/ESPN?USA etc.....are also just personal bloggers hired by someone else.
They really don't have any more credibility...just a steadier paycheck.
The only credibility that's being lost here is yours...because you are A) refusing to admit that you are wrong or
hitching your wagon to the opinions of unqualified randoms. If it's , that's completely fine. Just don't expect anyone to ever trust your opinions on future players...since your "sources" are of great question.So I think it's you who can choose to deal with it or STFU.
A....I may have misread an article....but I wasn't wrong. I reported a ranking that was one of the first that came up when I googled his name.....so blame Google. B. I never claimed to be a football scout.....so my personal opinion was never anything you should have relied on anyway. More fool you if you did. Again, I only reported this info.
C. Since you are so institution happy.....can we expect YOU to never quote SB Nation.....BleacherReport....or any such other forum for any information ever again? You promise to ONLY use Broadcast Network or USA Today sources for any data in the future? D. You should know by now that I will not STFU until I am dead....capiche?
E. Call me when Pullard makes the Pro Bowl.
-
TWO motherfuckers that put this shit out say he is. Why don't you call them....and disagree with them.
You and me neither have NO FUCKING idea who the top 70 players in this draft are.......Tom Brady was only the 199th best player the year he was taken.
I still haven't seen any "motherfucker" say he was a top 100 pick. You haven't provided that at all...the above quote clearly does not state that and I'm starting to think you made the other one up.
SBNation.....I thought I provided the link. Look it the fuck up
One CBS Sports writer has him there....another has him #69. You merely choose to choose the one you agree with.
Which CBS writer is that? I haven't seen that anywhere. I'd love to see where.
And SBNation had him ranked #69....so what we have is dueling dickheads.
I have him ranked at 424th. And I have just as much credibility as anyone who writes for SBNation, since it's a website where random joe's submit their own blogs.
Well, the Cleveland Browns had him rated highly enough to take him and I have him rated as a future starting MLB for the Cleveland Browns.......so where someone did or did not rate him will become irrelevent once he hits the field.
And NFL.com and ESPN are just "bloggers". That is EXACTLY what Kiper and McShay were before they were hired by ESPN.
Sure, that's what Mel Kiper was....30 years ago. That's like saying the 19 year old kid on the city council in Myrtle Beach is akin to the president, because they are both in government. That's like saying your middle school nephew is the same as Tom Brady, because he plays QB for his Pop Warner team. We're arguing about the opinions of other people, sure...but I'm going to go ahead and side with the person who is infinitely more qualified, who's been doing this at a professional level for 30 years and has all of the scouting tools available to him. You can hitch your wagon to Joe Nobody all you want, that's your prerogative. Just don't get offended when literally everyone else disagrees with you.
Kiper hasn't really changed what he does...at all. He is just a blogger. And he will tell you that. He just now gets more publicity.
And there is someone who agrees with me: Ray Farmer.
You provided a list. If that is the case then why when he said the Browns had 8 of his Top 100 did he give 8 names in the article....one of them being Hayes Pullard. All this does is detract from this guys credibility. He says one thing one time and then contradicts himself later.
No, it doesn't. Brugler listed the Pac-12 players by name (and since USC is in the Pac-12, Pullard would be a part of that). He then went on to say there were also 8 players in the Top 100 that the Browns drafted. The two statements weren't connected. It doesn't detract from his credibility in the least. It just puts your comprehension into question.
I highly doubt you're actually that dense...and you're just arguing minute points because you don't want to be wrong.
No, when I read it he said there were 8 Top 100....and he gave 8 names....and he noted they were from the Pac12. It was all one package. I may have misread it....but again, he didn't clarify well.
Sure. But I am still right when I said: Two sources had Hayes Pullard ranked in the Top 100 players in this draft.
And that is a fucking fact. You can deal with it....or STFU about it however you choose.
Where? You've still yet to show us where anyone has said that. So I'll just go ahead and look for you. Here's what I've found.
Where Pullard should be drafted:
Mike Mayock of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
Lance Zierlein of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Chad Reuter of NFL.com listed Pullard as a 5th round prospect.
Charlie Campbell of Walter Football listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
The DraftTek computer algorithm listed Pullard as a 4th round prospect.
OK...a 4th rounder certainly can be considered Top 100....or on the cusp of it. Thanks for doing my research. SB Nation had him there. When I googled his ranking, they were the first to come up.
People who don't have him in the top 100 (or more):
- DraftTek has him as the 154th best player.
- Newsday does not have him in their top 100.
- Mike Mayock does not have him in his top 100.
- CBS Sports, the site as a whole, has him at 288th. (This isn't a personal writer's opinion, this isn't attributed to any specific person, this is the rankings from NFL Draft Scout...the service that CBS Sports owns and uses.)
- Josh Norris of NBC Sports/Rotoworld does not have Pullard in his Top 100.
- DraftInsider does not have in their top 225.
- Michael Middlehurst-Scwartz of USA Today does not have him in his top 100.
- This writer for SportsGrid does not have him in the Top 100.
- This FFtoolbox blog doesn't have him in the top 100.
- Draft Countdown has him ranked 142nd.
People who do have him in the Top 100:
- This personal site has him ranked 85th. It also has Jameis Winston ranked 36th (well behind #2 Mariota) - so take that information as you may.
- This personal SBNation blog from last December has him ranked 94th.
- This SportingNews blog has him ranked 92nd.
The only three places I could find Pullard ranked in the top 100 were personal blogs not affiliated with any sort of major publication or network. Nowhere on CBS, NFL, ESPN, USA Today or NBC was I able to find anywhere where Pullard is ranked in the top 100.
You listed NFL.com 3 times. Draftek etc.....why contradict yourself.....and here is a clue.....the guys that work for CBS/ESPN?USA etc.....are also just personal bloggers hired by someone else.
They really don't have any more credibility...just a steadier paycheck.
The only credibility that's being lost here is yours...because you are A) refusing to admit that you are wrong or
hitching your wagon to the opinions of unqualified randoms. If it's , that's completely fine. Just don't expect anyone to ever trust your opinions on future players...since your "sources" are of great question.So I think it's you who can choose to deal with it or STFU.
A....I may have misread an article....but I wasn't wrong. I reported a ranking that was one of the first that came up when I googled his name.....so blame Google. B. I never claimed to be a football scout.....so my personal opinion was never anything you should have relied on anyway. More fool you if you did. Again, I only reported this info.
C. Since you are so institution happy.....can we expect YOU to never quote SB Nation.....BleacherReport....or any such other forum for any information ever again? You promise to ONLY use Broadcast Network or USA Today sources for any data in the future? D. You should know by now that I will not STFU until I am dead....capiche?
E. Call me when Pullard makes the Pro Bowl.
Well, the Cleveland Browns had him rated highly enough to take him and I have him rated as a future starting MLB for the Cleveland Browns.......so where someone did or did not rate him will become irrelevent once he hits the field.
If he hits the field. Which could happen but, in my opinion, it won't be due to his talent but rather necessity.
No, when I read it he said there were 8 Top 100....and he gave 8 names....and he noted they were from the Pac12. It was all one package. I may have misread it....but again, he didn't clarify well.
He technically only gave seven names when talking about the Pac 12. He talked about their first round picks and gave two names. He talked about the Pac 12 and gave seven names. He then brought up the top 100. Even still, it could be confusing.
OK...a 4th rounder certainly can be considered Top 100....or on the cusp of it. Thanks for doing my research. SB Nation had him there. When I googled his ranking, they were the first to come up.
Good on them for having a strong organic search ranking for the query string [nfl draft top 100] or something related. Unfortunately, that's more due to the fact that they likely have a plethora of content with a high concentration of those keywords (due to the nature of their site).
You listed NFL.com 3 times. Draftek etc.....why contradict yourself.....and here is a clue.....the guys that work for CBS/ESPN?USA etc.....are also just personal bloggers hired by someone else.
They really don't have any more credibility...just a steadier paycheck.
I listed three different writers from the same organization, since you aptly pointed out that different writers within the same organization can have differing opinions. And they also got those jobs because of their credibility. It's the difference between getting a professionally created logo from a design firm or going to Fiverr and getting one from an amateur.
A....I may have misread an article....but I wasn't wrong. I reported a ranking that was one of the first that came up when I googled his name.....so blame Google. B. I never claimed to be a football scout.....so my personal opinion was never anything you should have relied on anyway. More fool you if you did. Again, I only reported this info.
C. Since you are so institution happy.....can we expect YOU to never quote SB Nation.....BleacherReport....or any such other forum for any information ever again? You promise to ONLY use Broadcast Network or USA Today sources for any data in the future? D. You should know by now that I will not STFU until I am dead....capiche?
E. Call me when Pullard makes the Pro Bowl.
Fair enough. Your stance is that you found Pullard rated in the top 100 - and he was. It just wasn't on any of the large networks or from any widely known analysts. I see your point.
I don't go off of any one person's opinion when analyzing or projecting draft picks. I watch film once on my own, I create a quick hit list of pros and cons, I read multiple sources on said prospect, then I go back into film a day or two later and see if what I originally noticed still holds true, or if I was approaching them with too critical of a mindset the first time. If I quote someone on a forum or in social media, I also try to let it be known what my opinion is as well -whether I agree with them or not.
I think you'll be waiting for that call for a long time.
-
I think you are all missing the point of my original post. That was that it appears that the Browns had one hell of a draft by outward appearances. I found a source that said that they had 7 of the Top 100 available players. Someone reported that another source said they had 8 of the Top 100....which source did not even include one of the players the other source said was in that group. So, cumulatively you could argue that the Browns picked up as many as 9 of the top 100 players available.
Most teams would be lucky to get three of those. I would have to check it to see where some of our rivals did in this area.
See my list under the 7 of Top 100 thread for the data on this.
-
Three 2014 games here...
http://draftbreakdown.com/players/nate-orchard/
Just looked at the Stanford game.
Nice rip-strip forced fumble and he got two sacks.
First sack (2:40) was a coverage sack, but 2nd (4:14) was a nice rush where he got a under Peat's pads.
Run D... not great... recognition issues.
Three 2014 games here...
http://draftbreakdown.com/players/nate-orchard/
Just looked at the Stanford game.
Nice rip-strip forced fumble and he got two sacks.
First sack (2:40) was a coverage sack, but 2nd (4:14) was a nice rush where he got a under Peat's pads.
Run D... not great... recognition issues.
Worth noting, Jim O'Neil said that our line Coaches (Moeller & DeLeone) informed him that film of Orchard was destroying intrigue for a lot of oline prospects he went up against. In particular, one has to wonder if his 3 sacks vrs Stanford made the Danny Shelton choice at #12 all the more easier. Orchard absolutely ragdolled Peat on one of the sacks so it certainly makes me wonder how he'd handle a matchup with T. Suggs in any game he's sloppy with bending and pad height.
Elite Left Tackles in the NFL have been able to go through a 16 game season giving up something like 1-2 sacks all season against some excellent athletes off the edge. There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. Does anyone remember where JJ Watt ended up the 1 time he lined up across from Joe Thomas last year? This should be easy because it was one of the only offensive replays we wanted to see more than once that day. He ended up on his back. Joe Thomas turned him into Wattshisname.
Lucky for Peat, the team drafting 13th overall thinks pad height is something they can correct beginning mini camp stances and starts drills. Back in the day, we did a board drill where 2 guys were facing each other in a 3 point stance as offensive linemen at the mid point of a board about 10 yards long and 1 foot wide. Here were the goals: 1) Be first to contact, 2) Come out of stance with the better pad height that allows you to keep your legs while the opponent loses his, 3) Keep your base wide enough so you don't over extend or fall off to one side, and 4) Finish him! Kick ass drill with a profound effect. I used that drill when I coached Offensive Line at the JV level in my first coaching experience and continued using it all the years I coached.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
Don't know how this will end up but you guys need to keep this going so I can see every color of the spectrum in your replies.
-
Don't know how this will end up but you guys need to keep this going so I can see every color of the spectrum in your replies.
-
Three 2014 games here...
http://draftbreakdown.com/players/nate-orchard/
Just looked at the Stanford game.
Nice rip-strip forced fumble and he got two sacks.
First sack (2:40) was a coverage sack, but 2nd (4:14) was a nice rush where he got a under Peat's pads.
Run D... not great... recognition issues.
Worth noting, Jim O'Neil said that our line Coaches (Moeller & DeLeone) informed him that film of Orchard was destroying intrigue for a lot of oline prospects he went up against. In particular, one has to wonder if his 3 sacks vrs Stanford made the Danny Shelton choice at #12 all the more easier. Orchard absolutely ragdolled Peat on one of the sacks so it certainly makes me wonder how he'd handle a matchup with T. Suggs in any game he's sloppy with bending and pad height.
Elite Left Tackles in the NFL have been able to go through a 16 game season giving up something like 1-2 sacks all season against some excellent athletes off the edge. There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. Does anyone remember where JJ Watt ended up the 1 time he lined up across from Joe Thomas last year? This should be easy because it was one of the only offensive replays we wanted to see more than once that day. He ended up on his back. Joe Thomas turned him into Wattshisname.
Lucky for Peat, the team drafting 13th overall thinks pad height is something they can correct beginning mini camp stances and starts drills. Back in the day, we did a board drill where 2 guys were facing each other in a 3 point stance as offensive linemen at the mid point of a board about 10 yards long and 1 foot wide. Here were the goals: 1) Be first to contact, 2) Come out of stance with the better pad height that allows you to keep your legs while the opponent loses his, 3) Keep your base wide enough so you don't over extend or fall off to one side, and 4) Finish him! Kick ass drill with a profound effect. I used that drill when I coached Offensive Line at the JV level in my first coaching experience and continued using it all the years I coached.
Very lively discussion around a 7th round pick...
There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter.
LOL... Some of the shit you come up with is priceless.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
No, it isn't "shit"....it's priceless good funny stuff.
-
No, it isn't "shit"....it's priceless good funny stuff.
LOL! Thanks Cal. Gotta keep it fun.
Not to look like a ka-nuckle that can't tell the difference between Summer School and Summer's Cool but how do I bring a video in here without using a link. Please keep it simple, I was that kid in the classroom that always had to ask the teacher to call on someone else while I'm still learning.
The other day, I cut and pasted 6 years of Mike Phipps stats that were supposed to read "UH-OH!" They got all scrambled up to the extent when I was reading the numbers I sounded like one of the adults on a Charlie Brown cartoon "Wua-Wua-WUA. WUA-WUA-WUA." That might actually mean something good in Pittsburgh; but in a more evolved part of society it was 1 major edit shy of a huge apology from me. Phew!
-
Well, as a retired computer professional, I have no idea, except that
sometimes I can simply post the video url, and it pops up, and sometimes
it doesn't.
-
Very lively discussion around a 7th round pick...
LOL... Some of the shit you come up with is priceless.
Tell you what - I would have loved to see you telling any line coach I ever played for "yeah it's okay I gave up a sack off the blind side because it was a coverage sack." I would have paid money to see it.
Now add in what NFL teams were investing in LTs like Joe Thomas, Orlando Pace, Walter Jones to protect that blind side and tell me exactly how often his position coach, OC or HC wants to hear "it's okay because it was a coverage sack." As I said earlier regarding those I just specified again - it wasn't all that uncommon to see one of those guys only giving up 1-2 sacks over 16 games. There is no such thing as a coverage sack in their world. Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden and however many QBs we've had holding onto the ball way too long in the pocket never gave Joe Thomas an inventory of sacks that prevented him from making 8 consecutive Pro Bowls as a LT. That said, if he set the bar at excusing coverage sacks - it's an entirely different story.
If coverage sacks existed beyond fanspeak, why would Jim O'Neil say our 2 oline coaches informed him Orchard's film destroyed intrigue for several top oline prospects. They're not looking for 3 different alibis when Stanford gives up 3 sacks to Orchard. You know why? Joe Thomas is their LT so they have yet to worry about 3 sacks in 1 game let alone 1 season from Joe. All that said, I'd pay money to watch you try and straighten out both of them.
-
Our QB coach (also the head coach) in high school said in a meeting once "you better get rid of it because no OL is holding blocks longer than 3-5 seconds. Is that right coach?" OL coach said yes.
By your standard, every play ought to be a completion because EVENTUALLY someone's going to get open so if the OL can't block long enough for that to happen they suck. Don't think so.
But yes of course you want your franchise LT to be a able to hold a second or two longer than normal.
-
Our QB coach (also the head coach) in high school said in a meeting once "you better get rid of it because no OL is holding blocks longer than 3-5 seconds. Is that right coach?" OL coach said yes.
By your standard, every play ought to be a completion because EVENTUALLY someone's going to get open so if the OL can't block long enough for that to happen they suck. Don't think so.
But yes of course you want your franchise LT to be a able to hold a second or two longer than normal.
Our QB coach (also the head coach) in high school said in a meeting once "you better get rid of it because no OL is holding blocks longer than 3-5 seconds. Is that right coach?" OL coach said yes.
By your standard, every play ought to be a completion because EVENTUALLY someone's going to get open so if the OL can't block long enough for that to happen they suck. Don't think so.
But yes of course you want your franchise LT to be a able to hold a second or two longer than normal.
If they can't - you don't want want to burn your 12th pick overall on a LT that needs to start every play with a back pocket excuse. If you were a Cleveland Browns fan back in 2007 - the difference between Charlie Frye and a QB that will hang around in this league far longer was the understanding that one cannot hold onto the ball forever in the pocket. That shouldn't ever be on an olineman or his position coach and we agree on that much. Frye got benched after a lopsided loss in the 2007 opener from holding onto the ball too long; and the guy who replaced him started when we won 10 of the next 15 games. When Frye held onto the ball too long or Quinn did - it didn't necessarily mean there was perfect coverage as much as it meant we didn't have the right QB or experience at QB. All that said, which one of our countless QBs we've auditioned during the 8 year tenure of Joe Thomas has kept him from the Pro Bowl? Oh wait, you weren't here.
You're gonna have to start getting the difference between pro football and college football if you want anyone to take you serious in here. I tried sticking up for you and you kept arguing about college football in a thread that was pissing off Browns' fans right?
If you got the right QB Coach, OC or HC - you can let your offensive linemen and their position coaches stick with the way they are wired. I think you'll agree you don't want them starting every play with an easy back pocket excuse of a coverage sack. One of Peat's other sacks he got tossed like a salad by a guy 50 pounds lighter than him.
-
It's not a back pocket excuse. It's awareness of limitations and expectations.
Knowing you can't do something that's impossible doesn't constitute having a back pocket excuse.
As I've said about 835,926,926,639 times, I've been a Browns fan my whole life. Father is from Cleveland. Both parents graduated from Lake Erie College. I joined the board in February. If I were only here because of Johnny wouldn't I have joined the board 10 months earlier? But thanks for the snide remark anyway.
-
It's not a back pocket excuse. It's awareness of limitations and expectations.
Knowing you can't do something that's impossible doesn't constitute having a back pocket excuse.
As I've said about 835,926,926,639 times, I've been a Browns fan my whole life. Father is from Cleveland. Both parents graduated from Lake Erie College. I joined the board in February. If I were only here because of Johnny wouldn't I have joined the board 10 months earlier? But thanks for the snide remark anyway.
It's not a back pocket excuse. It's awareness of limitations and expectations.
Knowing you can't do something that's impossible doesn't constitute having a back pocket excuse.
As I've said about 835,926,926,639 times, I've been a Browns fan my whole life. Father is from Cleveland. Both parents graduated from Lake Erie College. I joined the board in February. If I were only here because of Johnny wouldn't I have joined the board 10 months earlier? But thanks for the snide remark anyway.
Okay so you are telling me at least 835,926,926,639 Browns fans before me think you're full of shit. Judging by the ones you continue to piss off in here- your priority remains to argue about college football and opponents on A&M's schedule even in a subject heading about Cleveland's hated rival in Pittsburgh.
BTW, don't try to speak for me when you can't even speak for yourself like you attempted to do in your last reply to me. QBs that hold onto the ball too long isn't always from great coverage in our history so they often get replaced as soon as possible.
The reality is Peat was drafted at #13 overall when we held the 12th pick overall when we discuss Nate Orchard overwhelming Stanford's pass protection on film. Our DC Jim O'Neil that everyone in here seems to know about except you - was the guy who felt compelled to say our 2 oline coaches mentioned how much Nate Orchard changed the intrigue toward several top oline prospects. Keep in mind how much the top rated OT prospect comes into play when he's still available when we're picking 12th. Also keep in mind that that Orlando Paces, Walter Jones, Joe Thomas, Jon Ogdens, Anthony Munoz weren't giving up 3 sacks a game to anyone to explain why they weren't falling as low as #13 overall as a top tackle prospect... Munoz could have had Paul McDonald as his college QB and coverage sacks would have been a non issue. Promise.
As I said, our 2 oline coaches weren't looking for alibis why Peat gave up 3 sacks vrs Orchard. That was because they are already coaching Joe Thomas that never gives that up in 1 game or in an entire season whether his QB was Charlie Frye, Brady Quinn or countless other inadequate QBs that held onto the ball too long in our pocket. Stop me when this gets too difficult. My argument here stands on 8 Pro Bowls from our LT regardless of how many substandard QBs that could never increase his sack volume. In the program best known for sending a soft tackle like Jonathan Martin into the NFL - I'm pretty freakin happy our 2 oline coaches noticed Orchard tossing Peat like a salad when the QB couldn't get scapegoated.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
You can look at all those times (and I think it was twice anyway). Gipper went off about the A&M-Texas rivalry. Previously, Woody went on some anti-SEC rant. You will not see me openly initiating college football talk on this board, despite your preconceived notions.
Now if we can stick to the topic instead of the ad-hominem attacks....
You said "Tell you what - I would have loved to see you telling any line coach I ever played for "yeah it's okay I gave up a sack off the blind side because it was a coverage sack." I would have paid money to see it."
So JT's performance isn't really relevant by that standard. And even so, you're talking about the best LT in a GENERATION and his Pro Bowl sheet that has not been matched by any other OT in NFL history. You also cited Orlando Pace and Walter Jones, two likely first-ballot Hall of Famers. Sorry, but no one is drafting guys "expecting" careers similar to the ones those guys have turned in.
I agree anyone who gets worked like Peat did by a guy with a second round grade like Orchard probably shouldn't go 13th. Not quibbling with that. Just pushing back on the notion that coverage sacks aren't a legitimate thing. Hopefully your next response includes some civility. Won't hold my breath.
-
You can look at all those times (and I think it was twice anyway). Gipper went off about the A&M-Texas rivalry. Previously, Woody went on some anti-SEC rant. You will not see me openly initiating college football talk on this board, despite your preconceived notions.
Now if we can stick to the topic instead of the ad-hominem attacks....
You said "Tell you what - I would have loved to see you telling any line coach I ever played for "yeah it's okay I gave up a sack off the blind side because it was a coverage sack." I would have paid money to see it."
So JT's performance isn't really relevant by that standard. And even so, you're talking about the best LT in a GENERATION and his Pro Bowl sheet that has not been matched by any other OT in NFL history. You also cited Orlando Pace and Walter Jones, two likely first-ballot Hall of Famers. Sorry, but no one is drafting guys "expecting" careers similar to the ones those guys have turned in.
I agree anyone who gets worked like Peat did by a guy with a second round grade like Orchard probably shouldn't go 13th. Not quibbling with that. Just pushing back on the notion that coverage sacks aren't a legitimate thing. Hopefully your next response includes some civility. Won't hold my breath.
You can look at all those times (and I think it was twice anyway). Gipper went off about the A&M-Texas rivalry. Previously, Woody went on some anti-SEC rant. You will not see me openly initiating college football talk on this board, despite your preconceived notions.
Now if we can stick to the topic instead of the ad-hominem attacks....
You said "Tell you what - I would have loved to see you telling any line coach I ever played for "yeah it's okay I gave up a sack off the blind side because it was a coverage sack." I would have paid money to see it."
So JT's performance isn't really relevant by that standard. And even so, you're talking about the best LT in a GENERATION and his Pro Bowl sheet that has not been matched by any other OT in NFL history. You also cited Orlando Pace and Walter Jones, two likely first-ballot Hall of Famers. Sorry, but no one is drafting guys "expecting" careers similar to the ones those guys have turned in.
I agree anyone who gets worked like Peat did by a guy with a second round grade like Orchard probably shouldn't go 13th. Not quibbling with that. Just pushing back on the notion that coverage sacks aren't a legitimate thing. Hopefully your next response includes some civility. Won't hold my breath.
Not going to take the time to go back and read the argument, but it seems like the main point Flugs was trying to highlight is that a player justifying a sack to a coach is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound - it's not going to do much to keep you alive.
Regardless of the type of sack or the extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, a sack is a sack is a sack.
Coverage sacks are just as worrisome as any other sack if they become commonplace, because it then highlights a lack of assignment knowledge and/or a lack of defensive recognition.
Don't know how that fits in, just figured I'd toss in my two cents...since I played OL at a competitive level.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login