Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Camp Barnett for #12

Camp Barnett for #12

The Browns Board
112 12 3.1k
  • Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #87

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    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."

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #88

    Go back to step one and repeat.

    You have just argued with yourself in a big circle jerk.

    Good luck with your Prozac.

  • W wargograw

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #89

    @wargograw said:

    Some of us with more insightful commentary than others.

    Yes....WE do.

    Sorry...you ain't included with We.

  • W wargograw

    @the-gipper said:

    In five years we may know if that is true.

    So again, then why discuss?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #90

    @wargograw said:

    So again, then why discuss?

    I agree...YOU should not participate in this discussion. You are dismissed. Run along now.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @wargograw said:

    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.

    W wargograw wrote on
    #91

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

    The GipperT 1 Reply
  • W wargograw

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #92

    @wargograw said:

    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.

  • W wargograw

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #93

    @wargograw said:

    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.

    I didn't shift. I just took one segment of the argument that warranted it and gave it some in depth analysis. Do you want 5 more posts of me trying to refute TCs bogus BS....or do you want something you can look at manageably?

    I am not obligated to go tit for tat against everything anyone says....meritless or not. Right?

    If you wanted a counter argument to every sentence that TC says, you have my permission to go ahead and take on that mantle.

    W 1 Reply
  • Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

    gumby73G gumby73 wrote on
    #94

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    Trubisky, on the other hand, is one big question mark. Just because he's from podunkfuck Ohio doesn't mean anything 😮

    Ok this just made my day..thanks TCPO...carry on my Gayward Sons.there'll be peace when your both done

    Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends
    T 1 Reply
  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @wargograw said:

    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.

    I didn't shift. I just took one segment of the argument that warranted it and gave it some in depth analysis. Do you want 5 more posts of me trying to refute TCs bogus BS....or do you want something you can look at manageably?

    I am not obligated to go tit for tat against everything anyone says....meritless or not. Right?

    If you wanted a counter argument to every sentence that TC says, you have my permission to go ahead and take on that mantle.

    W wargograw wrote on
    #95

    @the-gipper said:

    I didn't shift. I just took one segment of the argument that warranted it and gave it some in depth analysis. Do you want 5 more posts of me trying to refute TCs bogus BS....or do you want something you can look at manageably?

    I am not obligated to go tit for tat against everything anyone says....meritless or not. Right?

    If you wanted a counter argument to every sentence that TC says, you have my permission to go ahead and take on that mantle.

    Huh? Our discussion has nothing to do with TC. Dude, did you forget your meds today or something?

  • W wargograw

    @the-gipper said:

    I didn't shift. I just took one segment of the argument that warranted it and gave it some in depth analysis. Do you want 5 more posts of me trying to refute TCs bogus BS....or do you want something you can look at manageably?

    I am not obligated to go tit for tat against everything anyone says....meritless or not. Right?

    If you wanted a counter argument to every sentence that TC says, you have my permission to go ahead and take on that mantle.

    Huh? Our discussion has nothing to do with TC. Dude, did you forget your meds today or something?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #96

    @wargograw said:

    Huh? Our discussion has nothing to do with TC. Dude, did you forget your meds today or something?

    Have you not been paying attention? You have mimicked anything and everything that TC has been saying. I mean. you have been on his tail like a Whale Barnacle.

    So...in answering him...I have been answering you as well. And sometimes when I answered you it was also in response to him.

    Do I have to repeat the same thing over for you that I just said to him? Or vice versa? You just complained about not wanting repetiveness...now you are begging for it?

  • W wargograw wrote on
    #97

    You guys are talking about pre-draft grades from NFL experts, something I haven't mentioned at all. But I appreciate your attempt to stop the repetition anyway.

    The GipperT 1 Reply
  • gumby73G gumby73

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    Trubisky, on the other hand, is one big question mark. Just because he's from podunkfuck Ohio doesn't mean anything 😮

    Ok this just made my day..thanks TCPO...carry on my Gayward Sons.there'll be peace when your both done

    T TexasAg1969 wrote on
    #98

    @gumby73 said:

    Ok this just made my day..thanks TCPO...carry on my Gayward Sons.there'll be peace when your both done

    So you can rise above the noise and confusion, just to get a glimpse beyond the illusion? 😉

    👍
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on
    #99

    Thread of the year... so far...

    "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
  • Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out

    @tour2ma said:

    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.

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on
    #100

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    If the guy is anything, it's smart.

    If he's so smart, then why shave the eyebrows? I mean seriously... that look is a deal breaker. Even Shazier gave that shit up. At best he's dodging drug tests...

    Hadn't really watched Dobbs except for Sr. Bowl, when I thought he looked lost, but WTF... who needs sleep. So pulled up what was statistically his best game vs. Vandy... plus I can see a little Kamara and Zack C.

    Pretty well bored to tears in 1st half with a lot of predetermined, quick throws to WRs since Vandy was giving steady 10-yd cushions with some fairly uninspiring read-option keepers mixed in. Pretty soon began to realize that the throws were quick, pretty accurrate and had zip. Then late there was a nice pump fake and TD throw to a wide-open WR.

    Then came...

    Good bit to like in that one play... then he went kinda limp the rest of the way.

    Dunno...

    Saw a flash, but not enough.

    Nice release... seems to "push" a lot of short to intermediate balls. I think in part that's why the above highlighted play jumped out at me... he cut one loose.

    More than a few times I thought of Terrell Pryor in his Ohio State days.

    "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
    Tim Couch Pulls OutT 1 Reply
  • W wargograw wrote on
    #101

    Dude, he has a condition....

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @ballpeen said:

    We aren't taking a QB at #1 and we aren't passing on Garrett.

    I doubt we take a QB at 12 unless it is part of a trade. I am thinking Nate Peterman with one of the 2nd rounders. A good looking prospect not many talk about.

    And why....considering that a QB IS the #1 priority...the #1 biggest hole this team has?

    ballpeenB ballpeen wrote on
    #102

    @the-gipper said:

    And why....considering that a QB IS the #1 priority...the #1 biggest hole this team has?

    Because even though some feel Mitch is the #1 QB in the class, that doesn't mean the QB class is all that talented. He just sits on top of it.

    You want to take a QB with 13 college starts and wait 2-3 years to get him groomed, go for it. The sad reality is the team needs to get immediate impact out of it's top drafted players. Garrett brings that immediate impact, and in case you haven't noticed, pass rusher is a position of big need, and not all that far behind QB in overall impact to a team.

    I like Peterman out of Pitt. He has the skills, and he played in a pro-set O. One less thing for him to transition going in to the pros. We could probably get him late 2nd, early 3rd and allow him a year or two to grow.

    Sorry, you just can't sprinkle magic dust on a QB, draft him #1, and call him your franchie guy. Well, you can, but it isn't going to make it so. If Mitch is there at 12, I could see us taking him there. It isn';t going to happen at 1.

    If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    If the guy is anything, it's smart.

    If he's so smart, then why shave the eyebrows? I mean seriously... that look is a deal breaker. Even Shazier gave that shit up. At best he's dodging drug tests...

    Hadn't really watched Dobbs except for Sr. Bowl, when I thought he looked lost, but WTF... who needs sleep. So pulled up what was statistically his best game vs. Vandy... plus I can see a little Kamara and Zack C.

    Pretty well bored to tears in 1st half with a lot of predetermined, quick throws to WRs since Vandy was giving steady 10-yd cushions with some fairly uninspiring read-option keepers mixed in. Pretty soon began to realize that the throws were quick, pretty accurrate and had zip. Then late there was a nice pump fake and TD throw to a wide-open WR.

    Then came...

    Good bit to like in that one play... then he went kinda limp the rest of the way.

    Dunno...

    Saw a flash, but not enough.

    Nice release... seems to "push" a lot of short to intermediate balls. I think in part that's why the above highlighted play jumped out at me... he cut one loose.

    More than a few times I thought of Terrell Pryor in his Ohio State days.

    Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out wrote on
    #103

    @tour2ma said:

    If he's so smart, then why shave the eyebrows? I mean seriously... that look is a deal breaker. Even Shazier gave that shit up. At best he's dodging drug tests...

    Hadn't really watched Dobbs except for Sr. Bowl, when I thought he looked lost, but WTF... who needs sleep. So pulled up what was statistically his best game vs. Vandy... plus I can see a little Kamara and Zack C.

    Pretty well bored to tears in 1st half with a lot of predetermined, quick throws to WRs since Vandy was giving steady 10-yd cushions with some fairly uninspiring read-option keepers mixed in. Pretty soon began to realize that the throws were quick, pretty accurrate and had zip. Then late there was a nice pump fake and TD throw to a wide-open WR.

    Then came...

    Good bit to like in that one play... then he went kinda limp the rest of the way.

    Dunno...

    Saw a flash, but not enough.

    Nice release... seems to "push" a lot of short to intermediate balls. I think in part that's why the above highlighted play jumped out at me... he cut one loose.

    More than a few times I thought of Terrell Pryor in his Ohio State days.

    He has alopecia

    I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
    Tour2maT 1 Reply
  • W wargograw

    You guys are talking about pre-draft grades from NFL experts, something I haven't mentioned at all. But I appreciate your attempt to stop the repetition anyway.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #104

    @wargograw said:

    You guys are talking about pre-draft grades from NFL experts, something I haven't mentioned at all. But I appreciate your attempt to stop the repetition anyway.

    Ketchup, baby tomato.

  • Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out

    @tour2ma said:

    If he's so smart, then why shave the eyebrows? I mean seriously... that look is a deal breaker. Even Shazier gave that shit up. At best he's dodging drug tests...

    Hadn't really watched Dobbs except for Sr. Bowl, when I thought he looked lost, but WTF... who needs sleep. So pulled up what was statistically his best game vs. Vandy... plus I can see a little Kamara and Zack C.

    Pretty well bored to tears in 1st half with a lot of predetermined, quick throws to WRs since Vandy was giving steady 10-yd cushions with some fairly uninspiring read-option keepers mixed in. Pretty soon began to realize that the throws were quick, pretty accurrate and had zip. Then late there was a nice pump fake and TD throw to a wide-open WR.

    Then came...

    Good bit to like in that one play... then he went kinda limp the rest of the way.

    Dunno...

    Saw a flash, but not enough.

    Nice release... seems to "push" a lot of short to intermediate balls. I think in part that's why the above highlighted play jumped out at me... he cut one loose.

    More than a few times I thought of Terrell Pryor in his Ohio State days.

    He has alopecia

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on
    #105

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    He has alopecia

    Never heard of it... still weirds me out...

    Thoughts on my other impressions?

    "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
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    He has alopecia

    Never heard of it... still weirds me out...

    Thoughts on my other impressions?

    Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out wrote on
    #106

    @tour2ma said:

    Never heard of it... still weirds me out...

    Thoughts on my other impressions?

    Essentially, his immune system progressively rejects his hair. It's essentially extreme hair loss on a full-body scale. Most people with the condition end up just shaving their head so they don't look patchy.

    The Tennessee offense was not conducive to his growth - he came out as a four-star Pro Style quarterback then stagnated in Tennessee's offensive system. I get bored watching their games, the offensive is predicated on quick throws, screens and mismatches and then not very many successful runs to break it up. On top of that, Dobbs really doesn't take too many shots down field at all. But that's not to say he can't - he has a slightly above average arm and his deep balls have a nice trajectory on them. I like

    - even though it was an incompletion, the ball traveled about 45-50 yards in the air (from the 40 and short hash to opposite front corner of the end zone) and it was timely delivered at a good trajectory and maybe just a hair underthrown.
    - almost a perfect throw that travels about 45 yards at a nice clip... and his receiver just dropped it.

    He can read the field, he commands that offense, and he has the ability to deliver the ball where he wants. He tends to do too much, which I think is just a direct result of being in an offense that isn't conducive to big plays and due to them losing their starting runningback unexpectedly early in the year (he flat out quit).

    are an example of him taking advantage of a defense with his athletic ability, similar to what Prescott so often did at Miss. State.

    He has plenty of flaws - but who doesn't. His flaws aren't gamebreakers, however. His footwork is pretty bad and it seems like he doesn't trust himself on throws over the middle very often. But according to reports from the Senior Bowl, Hue loved him and said he was progressing on a daily basis - so much so that Dobbs ended up getting double the reps of any other QB.

    I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
Log in to reply