Draft Talk
-
Did not say that we have not gambled... said you can't... ever. Pretty sure Wheezy supports my position. JFF as well.
Simply a matter of percentages, a matter of degree, oh skirted songmeister...
"Gamble" carries the connotation of risk, a dice roll... even 7 is not a good bet, it's just the highest probable outcome at 1 in 6. Not even roulette's, red/black, "50/50" odds are good enough for a 1st-round pick, and they are the best gambling odds I can think of.
Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward? Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.
At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.
WSS
I do wonder how many of the number one or top 5 picks over the last 20 years or so have made multiple trips to the Pro Bowl.Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward? Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.
At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.
WSS
WSS
-
But no one knows what is or is not a gamble. Guys that people thought would be sure fire stars busted....like Leaf, Harrington, Russell, Leinert, Locker RGIII. Those guys were not considered gambles at the time they were taken.
But a Wilson in round 3, or Prescott in round 4 were considered gambles.
Every draft choice that every team takes is a gamble, really.
Some bullshit just can't be ignored...
There are risks and then there are RISKS. There are no "risk-free" QB prospects, but there are minimal risk ones.
Leaf was a head case. Russell and Leinart were unmotivated. All their risk factors were harder to see vs. their success on the field in full view, but were seen by some. There's a reason Leinart lasted until 10th.
Locker was a controversial pick at #8 overall coming off a relatively poor, Senior year at Washington. RG wasn't a bad risk of a #2 overall, but WSH paid far more than that and his fragility, with which many here including yours truly were concerned, was the start of his unraveling.
Harrington? Very tough one there... a case can easily be made that he's DET's version of Tim Couch. At #3 overall he was not overdrafted based upon a resume. His work ethic wasn't an issue to my knowledge. He went to a very bad circumstance, not Couch bad, but bad.
With every passing round the acceptability of risk increases, the acceptable confidence level in a prospect's probability of success declines... even within Round one. Some even I saw coming, e.g., Dak (R4) and to a lesser extent Siemian (R7). I liked both, but would never have spent a 1st on Dak, who I liked a lot.
Because of the paramount importance of the QB position it bridges far greater probability gaps than any other position. Add "need" to that span and leaps to the Leafs and RGs and Manziels and Wheezys of the draft emerge as spectacular busts. In no small part because those factors combined blind the drafting entities to the fact that the probability gap was far wider than they thought... that somehow they convinced themselves the risk was acceptable.
I guarantee none ever said, "Let's gamble our #1 on this guy."
Some bullshit just can't be ignored...
There are risks and then there are RISKS. There are no "risk-free" QB prospects, but there are minimal risk ones.
No, there really are not minimal risk ones.
Leaf was a head case. Russell and Leinart were unmotivated. All their risk factors were harder to see vs. their success on the field in full view, but were seen by some. There's a reason Leinart lasted until 10th.
Locker was a controversial pick at #8 overall coming off a relatively poor, Senior year at Washington. RG wasn't a bad risk of a #2 overall, but WSH paid far more than that and his fragility, with which many here including yours truly were concerned, was the start of his unraveling.
Harrington? Very tough one there... a case can easily be made that he's DET's version of Tim Couch. At #3 overall he was not overdrafted based upon a resume. His work ethic wasn't an issue to my knowledge. He went to a very bad circumstance, not Couch bad, but bad.
With every passing round the acceptability of risk increases, the acceptable confidence level in a prospect's probability of success declines... even within Round one. Some even I saw coming, e.g., Dak (R4) and to a lesser extent Siemian (R7). I liked both, but would never have spent a 1st on Dak, who I liked a lot.
Because of the paramount importance of the QB position it bridges far greater probability gaps than any other position. Add "need" to that span and leaps to the Leafs and RGs and Manziels and Wheezys of the draft emerge as spectacular busts. In no small part because those factors combined blind the drafting entities to the fact that the probability gap was far wider than they thought... that somehow they convinced themselves the risk was acceptable.
I guarantee none ever said, "Let's gamble our #1 on this guy."
Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.
You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.
If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.
Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.
Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.
But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.
-
I do wonder how many of the number one or top 5 picks over the last 20 years or so have made multiple trips to the Pro Bowl.Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward? Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.
At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.
WSS
WSS
I do wonder how many of the number one or top 5 picks over the last 20 years or so have made multiple trips to the Pro Bowl.
WSS
Don't know, but I do know that #2 carved up #1 of the same draft in the 2016 SB.
-
PFF's Steve Palazollo's Analysis of Garrettt with illustrative video plays. Pretty interesting take.
-
Did not say that we have not gambled... said you can't... ever. Pretty sure Wheezy supports my position. JFF as well.
Simply a matter of percentages, a matter of degree, oh skirted songmeister...
"Gamble" carries the connotation of risk, a dice roll... even 7 is not a good bet, it's just the highest probable outcome at 1 in 6. Not even roulette's, red/black, "50/50" odds are good enough for a 1st-round pick, and they are the best gambling odds I can think of.
Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward? Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.
At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.
WSS
Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward?
Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.
At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.
No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.
Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?
Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.
There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.
Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round
And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.
Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.
-
Some bullshit just can't be ignored...
There are risks and then there are RISKS. There are no "risk-free" QB prospects, but there are minimal risk ones.
No, there really are not minimal risk ones.
Leaf was a head case. Russell and Leinart were unmotivated. All their risk factors were harder to see vs. their success on the field in full view, but were seen by some. There's a reason Leinart lasted until 10th.
Locker was a controversial pick at #8 overall coming off a relatively poor, Senior year at Washington. RG wasn't a bad risk of a #2 overall, but WSH paid far more than that and his fragility, with which many here including yours truly were concerned, was the start of his unraveling.
Harrington? Very tough one there... a case can easily be made that he's DET's version of Tim Couch. At #3 overall he was not overdrafted based upon a resume. His work ethic wasn't an issue to my knowledge. He went to a very bad circumstance, not Couch bad, but bad.
With every passing round the acceptability of risk increases, the acceptable confidence level in a prospect's probability of success declines... even within Round one. Some even I saw coming, e.g., Dak (R4) and to a lesser extent Siemian (R7). I liked both, but would never have spent a 1st on Dak, who I liked a lot.
Because of the paramount importance of the QB position it bridges far greater probability gaps than any other position. Add "need" to that span and leaps to the Leafs and RGs and Manziels and Wheezys of the draft emerge as spectacular busts. In no small part because those factors combined blind the drafting entities to the fact that the probability gap was far wider than they thought... that somehow they convinced themselves the risk was acceptable.
I guarantee none ever said, "Let's gamble our #1 on this guy."
Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.
You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.
If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.
Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.
Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.
But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.
Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.
You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.
If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.
Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.
Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.
But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.
Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...
Don't confuse my approach with your own... which is to equivocate on every prospect before hand to preserve some self-sense of infallibility regardless of the outcome.
"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 -
Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward?
Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.
At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.
No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.
Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?
Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.
There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.
Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round
And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.
Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.
Well this is getting a little bit convoluted but I'd say it's still gambling no matter who I'm playing in poker. I suck at poker. I was great in Euchre in college but mostly with my old partner whom I haven't seen in decades. We didn't cheat nor did we renege just had a parallel style of play. Entered a big tournament and were eliminated in the first round.No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.
Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?
Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.
There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.
Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round
And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.
Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.
I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.
You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.
If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.
Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.
Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.
But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.
Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...
Don't confuse my approach with your own... which is to equivocate on every prospect before hand to preserve some self-sense of infallibility regardless of the outcome.
Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...
Don't confuse my approach with your own... which is to equivocate on every prospect before hand to preserve some self-sense of infallibility regardless of the outcome.
I don't know that I have an "approach" other than to say "I think that this guy is the guy we should get for the best interests of the Browns". It is really that simple.
Or, if by equivocate you mean that I recognize and acknowledge that any pick we may make may turn out to be stellar, or turn out to be shite, that is not equivocation....that is simply a recitation of reality.
I wish to God that someone would have "equivocated" on Cam Erving, Justin Gilbert, John P. Manziel, Barkevious Mingo, Trent Dilfer, Brandon Weeden, etc. etc. etc.
And if you think that I think that I am infallible....you haven't been paying attention, at all.
I have said all along that it is a risk to take a QB #1....and a DE #1, and a LB #1...
But, if you want to me to join the crowd and be a chickenshit....well......OK. (nah....just kidding....I want QB Trubisky at #1 overall. No equivocation)
-
Well this is getting a little bit convoluted but I'd say it's still gambling no matter who I'm playing in poker. I suck at poker. I was great in Euchre in college but mostly with my old partner whom I haven't seen in decades. We didn't cheat nor did we renege just had a parallel style of play. Entered a big tournament and were eliminated in the first round.No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.
Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?
Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.
There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.
Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round
And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.
Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.
I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.
WSS
Well this is getting a little bit convoluted but I'd say it's still gambling no matter who I'm playing in poker. I suck at poker. I was great in Euchre in college but mostly with my old partner whom I haven't seen in decades. We didn't cheat nor did we renege just had a parallel style of play. Entered a big tournament and were eliminated in the first round.
I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.
WSS
What do you mean? I kicked your ass at Euchre.
Or maybe not. You and Bob McHenry, right? I guess maybe you did all right.My Kiwanis Club is going to be holding a Euchre tournament in March. You should sign up, and try to dig up Bob to play with you. (though, actually, in this tournament we are always changing partners). I'll be your partner some.
-
Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.
You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.
If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.
Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.
Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.
But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.
Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...
Don't confuse my approach with your own... which is to equivocate on every prospect before hand to preserve some self-sense of infallibility regardless of the outcome.
Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...
Hence why there needs to be a stickied reference thread for the players people settled on and outright advocated for or against.
I know I screenshotted D Bones comment when he called Bosa "average". I still get a kick out of that.
-
Well this is getting a little bit convoluted but I'd say it's still gambling no matter who I'm playing in poker. I suck at poker. I was great in Euchre in college but mostly with my old partner whom I haven't seen in decades. We didn't cheat nor did we renege just had a parallel style of play. Entered a big tournament and were eliminated in the first round.
I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.
WSS
What do you mean? I kicked your ass at Euchre.
Or maybe not. You and Bob McHenry, right? I guess maybe you did all right.My Kiwanis Club is going to be holding a Euchre tournament in March. You should sign up, and try to dig up Bob to play with you. (though, actually, in this tournament we are always changing partners). I'll be your partner some.
What do you mean? I kicked your ass at Euchre.
Or maybe not. You and Bob McHenry, right? I guess maybe you did all right.My Kiwanis Club is going to be holding a Euchre tournament in March. You should sign up, and try to dig up Bob to play with you. (though, actually, in this tournament we are always changing partners). I'll be your partner some.
No, it was Dick Reigned Wadsworth.
WSS
-
What do you mean? I kicked your ass at Euchre.
Or maybe not. You and Bob McHenry, right? I guess maybe you did all right.My Kiwanis Club is going to be holding a Euchre tournament in March. You should sign up, and try to dig up Bob to play with you. (though, actually, in this tournament we are always changing partners). I'll be your partner some.
No, it was Dick Reigned Wadsworth.
WSS
No, it was Dick Reigned Wadsworth.
WSS
My Dick reigns in Wadsworth....didn't you know?
-
Well this is getting a little bit convoluted but I'd say it's still gambling no matter who I'm playing in poker. I suck at poker. I was great in Euchre in college but mostly with my old partner whom I haven't seen in decades. We didn't cheat nor did we renege just had a parallel style of play. Entered a big tournament and were eliminated in the first round.No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.
Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?
Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.
There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.
Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round
And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.
Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.
I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.
WSS
I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.
Preach the gospel truth Steve!
-
Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...
Hence why there needs to be a stickied reference thread for the players people settled on and outright advocated for or against.
I know I screenshotted D Bones comment when he called Bosa "average". I still get a kick out of that.
Hence why there needs to be a stickied reference thread for the players people settled on and outright advocated for or against.
I know I screenshotted D Bones comment when he called Bosa "average". I still get a kick out of that.
I believe I said he'd be good but not Watt good. I'm prepared to eat crow there. I've made my fair share of dumb predictions.
I thought Bortles was good. I still think he can be, but I recognize the probability of him being bad far outweighs it. I thought Carr would be trash, I was far off there. I had faith in EJ Manuel. I also believed in some late round guys becoming eventual starters - Tom Savage, Rakeem Cato and Zac Dysert come to mind. I guess Savage did technically fulfill my prophecy.
At the same time I preferred Wentz over Goff, believed Mariota and Winston would become franchise guys, thought TR was trash, thought Osweiler was trash, thought JM was trash, knew Wilson would be worth the pick, knew Zeke and Gurley would be amazing, knew Ponder would suck eggs and grew to hate Cook as the draft neared closer.
I'll put myself at a hopeful 50% but a realistic 33%.
-
https://www.seccountry.com/alabama/report-nfl-teams-concerned-alabama-olb-tim-williams
Tim Williams is being compared to Randy Gregory. Not good.
-
Browns fans already have PTJMS (Post Traumatic Johnny Manziel Syndrome).
-
https://www.seccountry.com/alabama/report-nfl-teams-concerned-alabama-olb-tim-williams
Tim Williams is being compared to Randy Gregory. Not good.
https://www.seccountry.com/alabama/report-nfl-teams-concerned-alabama-olb-tim-williams
Tim Williams is being compared to Randy Gregory. Not good.
If Timmy has multiple failed drugged tests then he absolutely needs to have a Red X put over his name.
-
@ghoolie said:
The kid from Syracuse will be the next Joe Montana.
On the 2017 draft. I finally have figured out the Browns draft logic. Think about it. The Browns traded down when they gave up Modell for Lerner. They just got into the habit of trading down to get shit.
6-3 207 2016 stats 64.8% comp. with 15 TD 7 INT 2678 yds 138.2 Rat. 4-8 w/l record What do you see that tells you he is Montana other than having better college stats (excluding Monana's 9-3 1978 w/l record) this past year and about the same size? Now granted when Syracuse HC Dino Babers was OC @ A&M I used to joke that he carried his playbook in a matchbook cover. He was relieved of those duties mid-season by Slocum. He got better learning from Art Briles @ Baylor.
-
@ghoolie said:
The kid from Syracuse will be the next Joe Montana.
On the 2017 draft. I finally have figured out the Browns draft logic. Think about it. The Browns traded down when they gave up Modell for Lerner. They just got into the habit of trading down to get shit.
6-3 207 2016 stats 64.8% comp. with 15 TD 7 INT 2678 yds 138.2 Rat. 4-8 w/l record What do you see that tells you he is Montana other than having better college stats (excluding Monana's 9-3 1978 w/l record) this past year and about the same size? Now granted when Syracuse HC Dino Babers was OC @ A&M I used to joke that he carried his playbook in a matchbook cover. He was relieved of those duties mid-season by Slocum. He got better learning from Art Briles @ Baylor.
6-3 207 2016 stats 64.8% comp. with 15 TD 7 INT 2678 yds 138.2 Rat. 4-8 w/l record What do you see that tells you he is Montana other than having better college stats (excluding Monana's 9-3 1978 w/l record) this past year and about the same size? Now granted when Syracuse HC Dino Babers was OC @ A&M I used to joke that he carried his playbook in a matchbook cover. He was relieved of those duties mid-season by Slocum. He got better learning from Art Briles @ Baylor.
Your mistake is attempting to have a semi intelligent dialogue with a 60 year old Internet troll.
-
6-3 207 2016 stats 64.8% comp. with 15 TD 7 INT 2678 yds 138.2 Rat. 4-8 w/l record What do you see that tells you he is Montana other than having better college stats (excluding Monana's 9-3 1978 w/l record) this past year and about the same size? Now granted when Syracuse HC Dino Babers was OC @ A&M I used to joke that he carried his playbook in a matchbook cover. He was relieved of those duties mid-season by Slocum. He got better learning from Art Briles @ Baylor.
Your mistake is attempting to have a semi intelligent dialogue with a 60 year old Internet troll.
Your mistake is attempting to have a semi intelligent dialogue with a 60 year old Internet troll.
But surely he can also recommend some fat-assed OLs off that team too.
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