Camp Barnett for #12
-
It is still NOT a counter as to why most of Garrett's sack production came against D-1AA level competition.
He didn't do so well against the "great" OTs of the SEC West. Well....apparently he didn't do so great against anyone that was not DII....SEC West/East....P5 non conf. competition, anyone.
Against the same opponents, Barnett may have had just as little production. This really isn't that hard.
Against the same opponents, Barnett may have had just as little production. This really isn't that hard.
I don't know the breakdown on Barnett.....but it was documented and reported how Garrett had most of his sacks against the cupcakes on their schedule.
I don't know where to look for that breakdown. Has anyone done that? If so, where?
-
We can discuss it without you going to the auto-answer "you don't know anything" every 3 minutes. We know we don't know anything. Like you said, it's discussion. "You don't know anything" is worthless commentary.
Every guy could make the HOF
Every guy could bust
We all get it. You don't have to remind us.
-
Against the same opponents, Barnett may have had just as little production. This really isn't that hard.
I don't know the breakdown on Barnett.....but it was documented and reported how Garrett had most of his sacks against the cupcakes on their schedule.
I don't know where to look for that breakdown. Has anyone done that? If so, where?
I don't know the breakdown on Barnett.....but it was documented and reported how Garrett had most of his sacks against the cupcakes on their schedule.
I don't know where to look for that breakdown. Has anyone done that? If so, where?
Again, even if we stipulate that that's true, what's to say Barnett wouldn't have equally little production were he playing the OT talent in the West?
-
And for all we know...those 4 guys may in fact turn out to become better pros than Garrett.
We just don't know.
And this is my point: Taking Garrett is no less a risk than taking Trubisky...or Watson...or Barnett...or Allen...or anyone.
They all have the potential to succeed...and the potential to fail. Garrett just as much as any of the others.
So, to Quote Dennis Green: Crown his ass if you want. We won't know if he turns out to be Alfred the Great or Richard III for quite a while.
Again, then why are you talking about it?
Again, then why are you talking about it?
Again...it is what we do on this board. Talk draft. Talk Browns. It is why it was created. Haven't you figured that out.
If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here.
-
Yes... he is not, by most consensus the best PROSPECT, in the draft. But that is the key word: prospect.
The question is what will these guys do when it comes to actual NFL performance.
Whatever you claim is Purely an opinion. Call us in 5 years.
Neither Trubisky or Garrett are the best players in the draft right now. But whichever guy would be deemed to be the best player now (probably Allen, Watson, Foster, Hooker, or Adams) has a lower ceiling than Garrett and the delta is big enough to justify passing them over for Garrett. So Trubisky is neither the best prospect nor the best player. Garrett is at least one of those.
Neither Trubisky or Garrett are the best players in the draft right now. But whichever guy would be deemed to be the best player now (probably Allen, Watson, Foster, Hooker, or Adams) has a lower ceiling than Garrett and the delta is big enough to justify passing them over for Garrett. So Trubisky is neither the best prospect nor the best player. Garrett is at least one of those.
In five years we may know if that is true.
-
Watson had more touchdowns, interceptions, passing yards, rushing yards, playoff wins, and national championships than Trubisky.
By your reasoning, he's a better prospect than Trubisky is.
We should just take him then, since stats are the only thing that matters.
Who cares what grade Trubisky was given - since stats are the only thing that matters...right? Pre-draft grades don't mean anything. It's stats that matter.
You make an argument....though I don't know if you are talking about his total career or just this last year. And I have said Watson may be a good second choice.
But...if your argument is about pre-draft grades....then MT has the best pre draft grade Since Luck at QB.
You make an argument....though I don't know if you are talking about his total career or just this last year. And I have said Watson may be a good second choice.
But...if your argument is about pre-draft grades....then MT has the best pre draft grade Since Luck at QB.
But I thought pre draft grades don't count?
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
We can discuss it without you going to the auto-answer "you don't know anything" every 3 minutes. We know we don't know anything. Like you said, it's discussion. "You don't know anything" is worthless commentary.
Every guy could make the HOF
Every guy could bust
We all get it. You don't have to remind us.
We can discuss it without you going to the auto-answer "you don't know anything" every 3 minutes. We know we don't know anything. Like you said, it's discussion. "You don't know anything" is worthless commentary.
Every guy could make the HOF
Every guy could bust
We all get it. You don't have to remind us.
Apparently I do...because with every post you say: Garrett is the best player/prospect.
In reality, there is no such thing as a "best prospect". There are guys whom we think will do well...but as a player/prospect, we really don't know.
Browns have drafted lots and lots of best prospects who have sucked.
The point is that a lot of people think the DO know with certainty what will happen.
They do know nothing.
-
You make an argument....though I don't know if you are talking about his total career or just this last year. And I have said Watson may be a good second choice.
But...if your argument is about pre-draft grades....then MT has the best pre draft grade Since Luck at QB.
But I thought pre draft grades don't count?
But I thought pre draft grades don't count?
YOU seem to want it both ways. Pre draft grades count if they favor your argument...but they don't if they don't?
Pre draft grades can count. I have never said that Garrett may not be the "best prospect" out there. With his pre draft grades he very well may be. I have only said don't let the pre draft grade get you to thinking that anyone is invincible. They are not. The guy with the best pre draft grade may turn out great.
So....Garrett has the best pre draft grade in this class.
And MT has the best pre draft grade of any QB since Luck.
Both can be true.
But we need a franchise QB more than we need another DE.
And we got the guy with the best pre draft grade of a QB in 5 years there in front of us.
So...just what is it about THAT you don't get?
We need a QB...above all else.
-
I don't know the breakdown on Barnett.....but it was documented and reported how Garrett had most of his sacks against the cupcakes on their schedule.
I don't know where to look for that breakdown. Has anyone done that? If so, where?
Again, even if we stipulate that that's true, what's to say Barnett wouldn't have equally little production were he playing the OT talent in the West?
Again, even if we stipulate that that's true, what's to say Barnett wouldn't have equally little production were he playing the OT talent in the West?
Nothing, but we can only go on what we know...not what we can speculate on.
Garrett MAY be better.
But our need for Garrett is NOT more than our need for a QB.
Or our needs for DBs.
Or our needs for OL.
And, in my opinion, our need for a DT.
We can load up on DEs. Who is going to stop the run up the middle? Who is going to cover WRs. Who is going to throw the ball.
-
But I thought pre draft grades don't count?
YOU seem to want it both ways. Pre draft grades count if they favor your argument...but they don't if they don't?
Pre draft grades can count. I have never said that Garrett may not be the "best prospect" out there. With his pre draft grades he very well may be. I have only said don't let the pre draft grade get you to thinking that anyone is invincible. They are not. The guy with the best pre draft grade may turn out great.
So....Garrett has the best pre draft grade in this class.
And MT has the best pre draft grade of any QB since Luck.
Both can be true.
But we need a franchise QB more than we need another DE.
And we got the guy with the best pre draft grade of a QB in 5 years there in front of us.
So...just what is it about THAT you don't get?
We need a QB...above all else.
YOU seem to want it both ways. Pre draft grades count if they favor your argument...but they don't if they don't?
Pre draft grades can count. I have never said that Garrett may not be the "best prospect" out there. With his pre draft grades he very well may be. I have only said don't let the pre draft grade get you to thinking that anyone is invincible. They are not. The guy with the best pre draft grade may turn out great.
So....Garrett has the best pre draft grade in this class.
And MT has the best pre draft grade of any QB since Luck.
Both can be true.
But we need a franchise QB more than we need another DE.
And we got the guy with the best pre draft grade of a QB in 5 years there in front of us.
So...just what is it about THAT you don't get?
We need a QB...above all else.
Gee, shucks. I was actually baiting YOU into getting to have it both ways. You caught on...though just barely. You're slipping a bit.
You can't claim Barnett to be a superior prospect to Garrett because "his stats are better" and then turn around and say Trubisky is better because "some people gave him a good pre draft grade".
If you go the predraft grade route, Garrett wins. If you go the stats route, Watson wins. You dug yourself two different holes.
Or...you can do what the rest of us do and objectively look at the whole package. Garrett is a no-brainer at one, he has the lowest bust potential of any of them. Trubisky, on the other hand, is one big question mark. Just because he's from podunkfuck Ohio doesn't mean anything.
Take the guy with the lowest bust potential. It's simple.
But now you're gonna say "these 'experts' don't really know much more than we do"...completely ignoring the fact ghat your one argument for Trubisky is that these "experts" gave him a high predraft grade.
Then someone will point that out and you'll shift to say something about how Gayrett might not be that good and we won't know for five years.
Then someone will say "but we do know Garrett has a better pre draft grade than Trubisky" and you'll say that it doesn't matter because we need a QB more.
Then someone will say that we can get a QB at 12 or later and you'll say "Trubisky won't be there at 12 and he's the best because some experts Gave him a better pre draft grade."
Then someone will say these experts gave Garrett a much higher grade than Trubisky.
Go back to step one and repeat.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
YOU seem to want it both ways. Pre draft grades count if they favor your argument...but they don't if they don't?
Pre draft grades can count. I have never said that Garrett may not be the "best prospect" out there. With his pre draft grades he very well may be. I have only said don't let the pre draft grade get you to thinking that anyone is invincible. They are not. The guy with the best pre draft grade may turn out great.
So....Garrett has the best pre draft grade in this class.
And MT has the best pre draft grade of any QB since Luck.
Both can be true.
But we need a franchise QB more than we need another DE.
And we got the guy with the best pre draft grade of a QB in 5 years there in front of us.
So...just what is it about THAT you don't get?
We need a QB...above all else.
Gee, shucks. I was actually baiting YOU into getting to have it both ways. You caught on...though just barely. You're slipping a bit.
You can't claim Barnett to be a superior prospect to Garrett because "his stats are better" and then turn around and say Trubisky is better because "some people gave him a good pre draft grade".
If you go the predraft grade route, Garrett wins. If you go the stats route, Watson wins. You dug yourself two different holes.
Or...you can do what the rest of us do and objectively look at the whole package. Garrett is a no-brainer at one, he has the lowest bust potential of any of them. Trubisky, on the other hand, is one big question mark. Just because he's from podunkfuck Ohio doesn't mean anything.
Take the guy with the lowest bust potential. It's simple.
But now you're gonna say "these 'experts' don't really know much more than we do"...completely ignoring the fact ghat your one argument for Trubisky is that these "experts" gave him a high predraft grade.
Then someone will point that out and you'll shift to say something about how Gayrett might not be that good and we won't know for five years.
Then someone will say "but we do know Garrett has a better pre draft grade than Trubisky" and you'll say that it doesn't matter because we need a QB more.
Then someone will say that we can get a QB at 12 or later and you'll say "Trubisky won't be there at 12 and he's the best because some experts Gave him a better pre draft grade."
Then someone will say these experts gave Garrett a much higher grade than Trubisky.
Go back to step one and repeat.
Gee, shucks. I was actually baiting YOU into getting to have it both ways. You caught on...though just barely. You're slipping a bit.
You can't claim Barnett to be a superior prospect to Garrett because "his stats are better" and then turn around and say Trubisky is better because "some people gave him a good pre draft grade".
If you go the predraft grade route, Garrett wins. If you go the stats route, Watson wins. You dug yourself two different holes.
Or...you can do what the rest of us do and objectively look at the whole package. Garrett is a no-brainer at one, he has the lowest bust potential of any of them. Trubisky, on the other hand, is one big question mark. Just because he's from podunkfuck Ohio doesn't mean anything.
Take the guy with the lowest bust potential. It's simple.
But now you're gonna say "these 'experts' don't really know much more than we do"...completely ignoring the fact ghat your one argument for Trubisky is that these "experts" gave him a high predraft grade.
Then someone will point that out and you'll shift to say something about how Gayrett might not be that good and we won't know for five years.
Then someone will say "but we do know Garrett has a better pre draft grade than Trubisky" and you'll say that it doesn't matter because we need a QB more.
Then someone will say that we can get a QB at 12 or later and you'll say "Trubisky won't be there at 12 and he's the best because some experts Gave him a better pre draft grade."
Then someone will say these experts gave Garrett a much higher grade than Trubisky.
Go back to step one and repeat.
Exhausting but true.
-
Again, then why are you talking about it?
Again...it is what we do on this board. Talk draft. Talk Browns. It is why it was created. Haven't you figured that out.
If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here.
Again...it is what we do on this board. Talk draft. Talk Browns. It is why it was created. Haven't you figured that out.
If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here.
Some of us with more insightful commentary than others.
-
Neither Trubisky or Garrett are the best players in the draft right now. But whichever guy would be deemed to be the best player now (probably Allen, Watson, Foster, Hooker, or Adams) has a lower ceiling than Garrett and the delta is big enough to justify passing them over for Garrett. So Trubisky is neither the best prospect nor the best player. Garrett is at least one of those.
In five years we may know if that is true.
In five years we may know if that is true.
So again, then why discuss?
-
We can discuss it without you going to the auto-answer "you don't know anything" every 3 minutes. We know we don't know anything. Like you said, it's discussion. "You don't know anything" is worthless commentary.
Every guy could make the HOF
Every guy could bust
We all get it. You don't have to remind us.
Apparently I do...because with every post you say: Garrett is the best player/prospect.
In reality, there is no such thing as a "best prospect". There are guys whom we think will do well...but as a player/prospect, we really don't know.
Browns have drafted lots and lots of best prospects who have sucked.
The point is that a lot of people think the DO know with certainty what will happen.
They do know nothing.
Apparently I do...because with every post you say: Garrett is the best player/prospect.
In reality, there is no such thing as a "best prospect". There are guys whom we think will do well...but as a player/prospect, we really don't know.
Browns have drafted lots and lots of best prospects who have sucked.
The point is that a lot of people think the DO know with certainty what will happen.
They do know nothing.
I actually just within the last hour said pretty explicitly that he was NOT the best player. Facts really are your enemy apparently.
Best prospect=highest ceiling based on what we know now.
-
YOU seem to want it both ways. Pre draft grades count if they favor your argument...but they don't if they don't?
Pre draft grades can count. I have never said that Garrett may not be the "best prospect" out there. With his pre draft grades he very well may be. I have only said don't let the pre draft grade get you to thinking that anyone is invincible. They are not. The guy with the best pre draft grade may turn out great.
So....Garrett has the best pre draft grade in this class.
And MT has the best pre draft grade of any QB since Luck.
Both can be true.
But we need a franchise QB more than we need another DE.
And we got the guy with the best pre draft grade of a QB in 5 years there in front of us.
So...just what is it about THAT you don't get?
We need a QB...above all else.
Gee, shucks. I was actually baiting YOU into getting to have it both ways. You caught on...though just barely. You're slipping a bit.
You can't claim Barnett to be a superior prospect to Garrett because "his stats are better" and then turn around and say Trubisky is better because "some people gave him a good pre draft grade".
If you go the predraft grade route, Garrett wins. If you go the stats route, Watson wins. You dug yourself two different holes.
Or...you can do what the rest of us do and objectively look at the whole package. Garrett is a no-brainer at one, he has the lowest bust potential of any of them. Trubisky, on the other hand, is one big question mark. Just because he's from podunkfuck Ohio doesn't mean anything.
Take the guy with the lowest bust potential. It's simple.
But now you're gonna say "these 'experts' don't really know much more than we do"...completely ignoring the fact ghat your one argument for Trubisky is that these "experts" gave him a high predraft grade.
Then someone will point that out and you'll shift to say something about how Gayrett might not be that good and we won't know for five years.
Then someone will say "but we do know Garrett has a better pre draft grade than Trubisky" and you'll say that it doesn't matter because we need a QB more.
Then someone will say that we can get a QB at 12 or later and you'll say "Trubisky won't be there at 12 and he's the best because some experts Gave him a better pre draft grade."
Then someone will say these experts gave Garrett a much higher grade than Trubisky.
Go back to step one and repeat.
Gee, shucks. I was actually baiting YOU into getting to have it both ways. You caught on...though just barely. You're slipping a bit.
You can't claim Barnett to be a superior prospect to Garrett because "his stats are better" and then turn around and say Trubisky is better because "some people gave him a good pre draft grade".
There is an argument either way.
And, FYI I am not so sure that Watson's stats are "better". They may me more accumulated...but that does not mean better necessarily:
Watson played 15 games......MT only 13
Watson had 132 more attempts: 388/579 MT 304/447
Watson, with his many more attempts did have more yards: 4593 vs. 3748
Watson ypa was 7.9. MTs was 8.4
Watson had a 67.0 completion pct. MT 68.0
Watson had 41 TDs. MT 30
Watson's TD pct was 7.0%. MTs was 6.7%
Watson had 17 Ints. MT had 6
Watson had a 2.9 Int. %. MT had a 1.3 int %
Watson had a 151.1 rating. MT had a 157.9 rating.
So...the stats may not be in Watson's favor necessarily . Sure "gross numbers are" not so sure about "quality numbers."
-
Go back to step one and repeat.
You have just argued with yourself in a big circle jerk.
Good luck with your Prozac.
-
Again...it is what we do on this board. Talk draft. Talk Browns. It is why it was created. Haven't you figured that out.
If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here.
Some of us with more insightful commentary than others.
Some of us with more insightful commentary than others.
Yes....WE do.
Sorry...you ain't included with We.
-
In five years we may know if that is true.
So again, then why discuss?
So again, then why discuss?
I agree...YOU should not participate in this discussion. You are dismissed. Run along now.
-
Again, even if we stipulate that that's true, what's to say Barnett wouldn't have equally little production were he playing the OT talent in the West?
Nothing, but we can only go on what we know...not what we can speculate on.
Garrett MAY be better.
But our need for Garrett is NOT more than our need for a QB.
Or our needs for DBs.
Or our needs for OL.
And, in my opinion, our need for a DT.
We can load up on DEs. Who is going to stop the run up the middle? Who is going to cover WRs. Who is going to throw the ball.
Nothing, but we can only go on what we know...not what we can speculate on.
Garrett MAY be better.
But our need for Garrett is NOT more than our need for a QB.
Or our needs for DBs.
Or our needs for OL.
And, in my opinion, our need for a DT.
We can load up on DEs. Who is going to stop the run up the middle? Who is going to cover WRs. Who is going to throw the ball.
Now you're shifting the argument. This isn't about Trubisky versus Garrett. It's about Barnett versus Garrett. You're saying Barnett may be better with nothing but stats against vastly different competition to back it up.
-
Apparently I do...because with every post you say: Garrett is the best player/prospect.
In reality, there is no such thing as a "best prospect". There are guys whom we think will do well...but as a player/prospect, we really don't know.
Browns have drafted lots and lots of best prospects who have sucked.
The point is that a lot of people think the DO know with certainty what will happen.
They do know nothing.
I actually just within the last hour said pretty explicitly that he was NOT the best player. Facts really are your enemy apparently.
Best prospect=highest ceiling based on what we know now.
I actually just within the last hour said pretty explicitly that he was NOT the best player. Facts really are your enemy apparently.
Best prospect=highest ceiling based on what we know now.
And I said that I heard you. Apparently THAT fact got by you.
And for me, the best prospect is: the player most likely to have the biggest impact on future success.
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