Camp Barnett for #12
-
No, are you dyslexic? Trub is better than any prospect in this draft.....and his potential for sinkage level is the same as anyone else in the draft.
It is just a fact though that ANY high 1st round draft pick that goes bust, particularly a QB is perceived to have been a greater disaster than players at other positions....because they are a QB.
And I suspect YOU know that. You just want to be querulous about it.
Except he's not and its really not even close.
Except he's not and its really not even close.
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.
-
Except he's not and its really not even close.
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.
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.
I'm not sure he can be considered the best QB prospect in the draft when the mock drafts have either Watson, Triblowski, and/or Kizer as the top QB taken. There is no consensus at all. The experts, who get paid to study this stuff, are all over the board with which one is the best. Hes one of the top 3 prospects coming out this year, every one has strengths and weaknesses. If any of them are there at 12 and we take one I wouldn't be disappointed but the Browns are not passing on Garrett at #1.
-
Except he's not and its really not even close.
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.
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.
And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1. But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
-
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.
I'm not sure he can be considered the best QB prospect in the draft when the mock drafts have either Watson, Triblowski, and/or Kizer as the top QB taken. There is no consensus at all. The experts, who get paid to study this stuff, are all over the board with which one is the best. Hes one of the top 3 prospects coming out this year, every one has strengths and weaknesses. If any of them are there at 12 and we take one I wouldn't be disappointed but the Browns are not passing on Garrett at #1.
I'm not sure he can be considered the best QB prospect in the draft when the mock drafts have either Watson, Triblowski, and/or Kizer as the top QB taken. There is no consensus at all. The experts, who get paid to study this stuff, are all over the board with which one is the best. Hes one of the top 3 prospects coming out this year, every one has strengths and weaknesses. If any of them are there at 12 and we take one I wouldn't be disappointed but the Browns are not passing on Garrett at #1.
You think these "experts" are infallible? Nope, lots and lots of Sure Things never go to be the Nicolette Sheridan's they were supposed to be. They didn't "put out" as expected.
-
I'm not sure he can be considered the best QB prospect in the draft when the mock drafts have either Watson, Triblowski, and/or Kizer as the top QB taken. There is no consensus at all. The experts, who get paid to study this stuff, are all over the board with which one is the best. Hes one of the top 3 prospects coming out this year, every one has strengths and weaknesses. If any of them are there at 12 and we take one I wouldn't be disappointed but the Browns are not passing on Garrett at #1.
You think these "experts" are infallible? Nope, lots and lots of Sure Things never go to be the Nicolette Sheridan's they were supposed to be. They didn't "put out" as expected.
You think these "experts" are infallible? Nope, lots and lots of Sure Things never go to be the Nicolette Sheridan's they were supposed to be. They didn't "put out" as expected.
That's the case at the top of every draft in history. It doesn't change the fact that you're saying that Triblowski is the "consensus best prospect" and that's simply not true except in your own mind. He is one of the 3 top prospects at the QB position.
-
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.
And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1. But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
How the FUCK do you know? You don't know shit from shinola about what is going to happen.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1.
But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
You are becoming one dumb pootang hole for your own opinion.
Again...it has not one fucking thing to do with the fact that he is from "just down the road".
Charlie Frye was closer down the road than he. (and he and I went to the same college)
Cardale Jones was closer down the road than he.
Brian Hoyer was closer down the hole than he.
You are stuck on an ignorant and wrongheaded factor.
He has, by some, been given the highest grade for a QB since Andrew Luck.
Whether of not MT IS or is not the best out there....it is still appropriate to question Garrett.
Barnett had a better career....by the numbers.
More sacks.
More tackles for losses.
Both in the same 3 year period.
You can go fag all you want for him.......I still think that it is entirely possible that another DE could turn out better.
And time will tell.
-
You think these "experts" are infallible? Nope, lots and lots of Sure Things never go to be the Nicolette Sheridan's they were supposed to be. They didn't "put out" as expected.
That's the case at the top of every draft in history. It doesn't change the fact that you're saying that Triblowski is the "consensus best prospect" and that's simply not true except in your own mind. He is one of the 3 top prospects at the QB position.
That's the case at the top of every draft in history. It doesn't change the fact that you're saying that Triblowski is the "consensus best prospect" and that's simply not true except in your own mind. He is one of the 3 top prospects at the QB position.
OK, if I said that he was consensus, I must of misspoke. I know that not everyone is unanimous on what which QB may be the best prospect.
Yes, I am only saying that it is my opinion. But I also say that the only thing that prevents him from being essentially the consensus pick is his inexperience.
And I do think that more services...not a consensus...have him as the top QB prospect.
-
And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
How the FUCK do you know? You don't know shit from shinola about what is going to happen.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1.
But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
You are becoming one dumb pootang hole for your own opinion.
Again...it has not one fucking thing to do with the fact that he is from "just down the road".
Charlie Frye was closer down the road than he. (and he and I went to the same college)
Cardale Jones was closer down the road than he.
Brian Hoyer was closer down the hole than he.
You are stuck on an ignorant and wrongheaded factor.
He has, by some, been given the highest grade for a QB since Andrew Luck.
Whether of not MT IS or is not the best out there....it is still appropriate to question Garrett.
Barnett had a better career....by the numbers.
More sacks.
More tackles for losses.
Both in the same 3 year period.
You can go fag all you want for him.......I still think that it is entirely possible that another DE could turn out better.
And time will tell.
Watson had more touchdowns, interceptions, passing yards, rushing yards, playoff wins, and national championships than Trubisky.And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
How the FUCK do you know? You don't know shit from shinola about what is going to happen.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1.
But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
You are becoming one dumb pootang hole for your own opinion.
Again...it has not one fucking thing to do with the fact that he is from "just down the road".
Charlie Frye was closer down the road than he. (and he and I went to the same college)
Cardale Jones was closer down the road than he.
Brian Hoyer was closer down the hole than he.
You are stuck on an ignorant and wrongheaded factor.
He has, by some, been given the highest grade for a QB since Andrew Luck.
Whether of not MT IS or is not the best out there....it is still appropriate to question Garrett.
Barnett had a better career....by the numbers.
More sacks.
More tackles for losses.
Both in the same 3 year period.
You can go fag all you want for him.......I still think that it is entirely possible that another DE could turn out better.
And time will tell.
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.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
So then why are you talking about it?
How else to counter your fagginess toward Gayrett?
How else to counter your fagginess toward Gayrett?
Can't answer that question since I have none. I am not even in Camp Garrett per se. You've already failed to produce a quote where I said I was.
But hypothetically--stipulating I was in Camp Garrett--ignore it maybe?
-
Or it's because of the 3 or 4 first round OTs the West has churned out in recent years compared to the East's 0....
Only one of those came from Alabama. But keep talking out your arse.
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.
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.
-
If stats are all that matter, why even take Barnett? I believe all three of Ogbah, Nassib, and Orchard had more sacks than Barnett (and Garrett) in their final college seasons.
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.
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?
-
I think it was Riddick that was commenting on the Hue-Dobbs connection at the Sr. Bowl and the progress Dobbs made under Hue's tutelage through the week.
I can't shake the feeling he's the guy we have our eye on.
I'm going back and watching tape on him this week when I have some time. He checks every single box as far as size, intangibles, and athletic ability. Biggest concerns for me are his footwork and his ability to process reads - both of which seem to be general-consensus knocks on him. One can be fixed...while the other could be as well.
If the guy is anything, it's smart.
I can't shake the feeling he's the guy we have our eye on.
I'm going back and watching tape on him this week when I have some time. He checks every single box as far as size, intangibles, and athletic ability. Biggest concerns for me are his footwork and his ability to process reads - both of which seem to be general-consensus knocks on him. One can be fixed...while the other could be as well.
If the guy is anything, it's smart.
He is a Dak 2.0 from a poise standpoint.
-
Except he's not and its really not even close.
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.
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.
-
Watson had more touchdowns, interceptions, passing yards, rushing yards, playoff wins, and national championships than Trubisky.And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
How the FUCK do you know? You don't know shit from shinola about what is going to happen.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1.
But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
You are becoming one dumb pootang hole for your own opinion.
Again...it has not one fucking thing to do with the fact that he is from "just down the road".
Charlie Frye was closer down the road than he. (and he and I went to the same college)
Cardale Jones was closer down the road than he.
Brian Hoyer was closer down the hole than he.
You are stuck on an ignorant and wrongheaded factor.
He has, by some, been given the highest grade for a QB since Andrew Luck.
Whether of not MT IS or is not the best out there....it is still appropriate to question Garrett.
Barnett had a better career....by the numbers.
More sacks.
More tackles for losses.
Both in the same 3 year period.
You can go fag all you want for him.......I still think that it is entirely possible that another DE could turn out better.
And time will tell.
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.
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 don't know how anything will turn out
-
Watson had more touchdowns, interceptions, passing yards, rushing yards, playoff wins, and national championships than Trubisky.And what you claim is also an opinion...and a shitty one at that.
How the FUCK do you know? You don't know shit from shinola about what is going to happen.
You can huff and puff and pivot and dig your feet in all you want - Trubisky is a worse prospect than Garrett and we will not be selecting him at #1.
But, by all means, continue to create a bunch of useless threads talking about taking different DE's at #12 and convince yourself you're starting logical conversation and not just backdoor pining over a guy that you wouldn't give two fucks about if he weren't from right down the road.
You are becoming one dumb pootang hole for your own opinion.
Again...it has not one fucking thing to do with the fact that he is from "just down the road".
Charlie Frye was closer down the road than he. (and he and I went to the same college)
Cardale Jones was closer down the road than he.
Brian Hoyer was closer down the hole than he.
You are stuck on an ignorant and wrongheaded factor.
He has, by some, been given the highest grade for a QB since Andrew Luck.
Whether of not MT IS or is not the best out there....it is still appropriate to question Garrett.
Barnett had a better career....by the numbers.
More sacks.
More tackles for losses.
Both in the same 3 year period.
You can go fag all you want for him.......I still think that it is entirely possible that another DE could turn out better.
And time will tell.
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.
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.
-
How else to counter your fagginess toward Gayrett?
Can't answer that question since I have none. I am not even in Camp Garrett per se. You've already failed to produce a quote where I said I was.
But hypothetically--stipulating I was in Camp Garrett--ignore it maybe?
Can't answer that question since I have none. I am not even in Camp Garrett per se. You've already failed to produce a quote where I said I was.
But hypothetically--stipulating I was in Camp Garrett--ignore it maybe?
Why? It is draft discussion. It is football discussion. If those are not things you want to discuss....then why are you on here?
-
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?
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