<![CDATA[Garrett and Hooker. Why not?]]>If Hooker slides to 12, these two potentially impact the front and back end for the next decade. Dream scenario, in ten years with the Browns, Garrett has 100 sacks and Hooker has 50 picks.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/45948/garrett-and-hooker.-why-notRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 21:04:38 GMTSun, 19 Feb 2017 03:41:54 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 04:53:29 GMT]]>These two could anchor the D for the next decade, Reaching on a QB could work. Aaron Rodgers is the most talented QB all-time and he only has 1 ring. I think you should always have a great D and hope you discover a great QB.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/687150https://brownsboard.com/post/687150Wed, 01 Mar 2017 04:53:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:24:50 GMT]]>

@ghoolie said:

#1 #1 on a pass rusher? A guy who is going to boot to Dallas the fist chance he can?

Only in Cleveland can fucking stupidity like this exist.

Stupidity takes on many forms. Posts like this for example.....

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686543https://brownsboard.com/post/686543Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:24:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:29:14 GMT]]>

@tour2ma said:

Need to Texianize that Tour. LOL! 😆 For those not in the know, that was filmed inside the Texas capital building for the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas movie.

W

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686393https://brownsboard.com/post/686393Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:29:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:40:47 GMT]]>

@skippinturtles said:

Hooker has the talent to be the best safety in football by the end of his rookie year. As much as I like Garrett, Hooker is the guy who can be a bigger Earl Thomas that makes the defense special. In todays pass happy NFL, taking Hooker at 1 isn't crazy. Garrett is probably going first. I just hope Hooker is there at 12. Forget OSU, Hooker is just a freak of nature that doesn't exist in the NFL. Safeties with his skills and size never come around. Ever.

I love Hooker, but not at #1. Sorry, that would be crazy. If he is there at 12 I am all over it, but I think he goes anywhere from 3-10.

It just depends on if a few QBs get selected or not at the top of the draft.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686380https://brownsboard.com/post/686380Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:40:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:17:12 GMT]]>Hooker has the talent to be the best safety in football by the end of his rookie year. As much as I like Garrett, Hooker is the guy who can be a bigger Earl Thomas that makes the defense special. In todays pass happy NFL, taking Hooker at 1 isn't crazy. Garrett is probably going first. I just hope Hooker is there at 12. Forget OSU, Hooker is just a freak of nature that doesn't exist in the NFL. Safeties with his skills and size never come around. Ever.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686377https://brownsboard.com/post/686377Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:17:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:18:28 GMT]]>

@wargograw said:

Record breaking? Lots of guys max over 500 in college.

And most if not all are well over 300 lbs and dont run no 4.3-4.4

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686123https://brownsboard.com/post/686123Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:18:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:49:31 GMT]]>

@gftchris said:

Fifth year option is not about stashing anyone. It's about if we think a guy is the guy, take him at 32 not 33, for the price of a 6th round pick, get him for another relatively cheap year. It's something like $16m instead of $25m

let's give up on being cheap when it comes down to QB. It finds Austin Davis/McC&RG3's. The Browns will find another 9 million when & if the next rookie of Derek Carr walks in the door (yes a 2nd rounder)..Maybe Kizer is that guy we move up from 33 to 32 instead of JG. Cause Belicheck still loves Cleveland 😆

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686109https://brownsboard.com/post/686109Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:49:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:02:26 GMT]]>

@clevfan4life said:

If Garett benches near 500 than his 225 reps will be record breaking, we shall see....im dubious. I think we're being shined a bit. I have no doubt his bench is closing in on 400 but for comparison sake go look at the roid driven bench presses of some of the pro wrestlers. Some of these guys are ex power lifters and have been lifting for decades and they're not that far ahead of garett.

We usually get these mythical weight room numbers when there's a question about a prospects field strength. "Oh don't worry he incline benches 800 lbs so he's good"

Record breaking? Lots of guys max over 500 in college.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686070https://brownsboard.com/post/686070Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:02:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:30:21 GMT]]>NFL.com analyst Lance Zierlein just mocked Garrett at 1 and Hooker at 12. Nice to see they read this board.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686059https://brownsboard.com/post/686059Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:30:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:06:06 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

No one associated with the Browns apparently, either scouts or fans. Somehow the depth of his problem slipped through the filters of people that should have known before selecting him as a 1st rounder.

post-2853-0-61054600-1487955893_thumb.gif

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686023https://brownsboard.com/post/686023Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:06:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:01:00 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

No one associated with the Browns apparently, either scouts or fans. Somehow the depth of his problem slipped through the filters of people that should have known before selecting him as a 1st rounder.

Fair enough. Though I am still of the opinion that he was drafted by the Browns more on the value of his fame than on his value as a future QB.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686018https://brownsboard.com/post/686018Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:01:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:41:04 GMT]]>If Garett benches near 500 than his 225 reps will be record breaking, we shall see....im dubious. I think we're being shined a bit. I have no doubt his bench is closing in on 400 but for comparison sake go look at the roid driven bench presses of some of the pro wrestlers. Some of these guys are ex power lifters and have been lifting for decades and they're not that far ahead of garett.

We usually get these mythical weight room numbers when there's a question about a prospects field strength. "Oh don't worry he incline benches 800 lbs so he's good"

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/686001https://brownsboard.com/post/686001Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:41:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:38:00 GMT]]>

@tour2ma said:

No one... anywhere?

No one associated with the Browns apparently, either scouts or fans. Somehow the depth of his problem slipped through the filters of people that should have known before selecting him as a 1st rounder.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685998https://brownsboard.com/post/685998Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:38:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:53:05 GMT]]>

@gumby73 said:

Far to many options.And a 5th year option on any of these QB's is not one of them. We can't stash them & we can't play them with this pass pro.(right Kess?) But we can run block for 4-5 yrds. per carry as Duke & Crow proved.(crazy).#1 it's Garrett/Allen pend Hue/Gregg....#12--It's what we do,now..Trade it.. for a additional 1st in 18. Even with adding S Tyvis Powell, I still prefer to trade-up #12 to Adams,Hooker or Foster. Imo, we got Powell cuz our FO also see's Adams nor Hooker being around at #12 either.

Fifth year option is not about stashing anyone. It's about if we think a guy is the guy, take him at 32 not 33, for the price of a 6th round pick, get him for another relatively cheap year. It's something like $16m instead of $25m

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685985https://brownsboard.com/post/685985Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:53:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:45:03 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

No one here or elsewhere saw his alcohol problem playing out the way it did.

No one... anywhere?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685981https://brownsboard.com/post/685981Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:45:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:54:06 GMT]]>

@joedawg69 said:

I really don't think Hooker will be there at 12 but they appear to have the potential to go at those picks. The big question is who else in this draft is worth the 1st and 12th pick that everyone would like instead. I really don't see a QB yet that jumps out enough to warrant either of those picks. I would like to upgrade at QB for sure; I am just not sure any of the QBs in this draft are a big enough upgrade to use our 1st or 12th pick on them.

Maybe not #12...but I see one that warrants the #1 pick....as he will not be there at #12.

And I have a pitcher of margarita's riding on that. (that he won't go as late as 12)

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685956https://brownsboard.com/post/685956Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:54:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:52:25 GMT]]>

@skippinturtles said:

Garrett claims he benches 485lbs., runs a 4.45 40 and has a 40" vertical. If he tests that at the Combine combined with his college production he seems like a solid pick.

Then maybe sign him up for the Olympic Decathlon.

The question will still be can he play pro football the way some people think he can.

Workout warriors often fail when it comes to playing the actual game.

I am not saying Garrett may not be just a workout warrior. But he still has a lot of proving to do. (as would every single every other rookie drafted or signed)

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685955https://brownsboard.com/post/685955Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:52:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:50:14 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

No one here or elsewhere saw his alcohol problem playing out the way it did. And you already know that Garrett isn't even close to those off-field problems. Apples and oranges.

Manziel showed potential but he self destructed.

Apart from his off field issues, I don't think JFF showed much potential, at all. The potential to be a third stringer or a backup at best.

Not as good as say the other most famous short QB: Doug Flutie.

Maybe, like Flutie, he could play a little.

Like Flutie Canada is where Johnny needs to go. His talents fit much better in that game than in the NFL.

And maybe like Flutie he could come back after he has matured a lot and learned how to play some, and maybe contribute to some NFL team.

Questionable, but maybe.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685953https://brownsboard.com/post/685953Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:50:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:21:42 GMT]]>Far to many options.And a 5th year option on any of these QB's is not one of them. We can't stash them & we can't play them with this pass pro.(right Kess?) But we can run block for 4-5 yrds. per carry as Duke & Crow proved.(crazy).#1 it's Garrett/Allen pend Hue/Gregg....#12--It's what we do,now..Trade it.. for a additional 1st in 18. Even with adding S Tyvis Powell, I still prefer to trade-up #12 to Adams,Hooker or Foster. Imo, we got Powell cuz our FO also see's Adams nor Hooker being around at #12 either.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685910https://brownsboard.com/post/685910Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:21:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:36:59 GMT]]>I really don't think Hooker will be there at 12 but they appear to have the potential to go at those picks. The big question is who else in this draft is worth the 1st and 12th pick that everyone would like instead. I really don't see a QB yet that jumps out enough to warrant either of those picks. I would like to upgrade at QB for sure; I am just not sure any of the QBs in this draft are a big enough upgrade to use our 1st or 12th pick on them.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685890https://brownsboard.com/post/685890Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:36:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:02:36 GMT]]>Garrett claims he benches 485lbs., runs a 4.45 40 and has a 40" vertical. If he tests that at the Combine combined with his college production he seems like a solid pick.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685882https://brownsboard.com/post/685882Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:02:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:01:59 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

Well, weren't you one of them on here telling us how JMZ's college performance was going to translate to the pros? We see how that turned out.

No one here or elsewhere saw his alcohol problem playing out the way it did. And you already know that Garrett isn't even close to those off-field problems. Apples and oranges.

Manziel showed potential but he self destructed.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685874https://brownsboard.com/post/685874Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:01:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:44:25 GMT]]>In my eyes for garett to be a successful pick he also has to be decent against the run. If he's just a pass rushing specialist....meh. Teams just start running all over us so there negates his pass rush

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685796https://brownsboard.com/post/685796Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:44:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Garrett and Hooker. Why not? on Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:51:52 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

He's done with college so the question was strictly for the pros in terms of what makes you say at the end of a year or two, "Great pick". Those college highlights are very similar to Von's which did translate to the pros, so I only placed them there to show what I mean by great plays. I would want the same from him on the pro level very near to Von, though it would be foolish of me to expect it all the first year to match a guy with several years in now that is the best. Clowney is beginning to reach that level after a couple of injury plagued years.

Well, weren't you one of them on here telling us how JMZ's college performance was going to translate to the pros? We see how that turned out.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/685765https://brownsboard.com/post/685765Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:51:52 GMT