@tiamat63 said:

Fair assessment.  Though I must maintain the reason why Allen's upside is so high compared to Kurt's is that the latter's "floor" is currently higher.     At least, that is my belief.  

Which would kind of back up the Polian statement - which I feel is like a kiss of death anyway.  

Agree... Benkert's floor is higher than Allen's to my eye.

As for Polian's take... If Allen performs well today, indicating that the improvement through the week has taken hold, then Allen's draft stock will rise to my mind. But if, as I suspect, Allen merely got more comfortable in his surroundings during practices, then I'd expect him to be erratic in the game.

We shall see.

@the-gipper said:

I take this to mean that you think that I am looking at you.... and thinking what a dumarse you are.   Very perceptive.

@tiamat63 said:

I take this to mean that you think that I am looking at you.... and thinking what a dumarse you are.   Very perceptive.

@the-gipper said:

You disparaged DraftScout on more than one occasion.

@the-gipper said:

• I disparaged the CBS rankings which used to be "powered by DraftScout", but apparently are no longer
• So...you did disparage those ranking.  So you proved my point.  That is what we call an admission against interest. So...now who is delusional?

You need serious help.

@tour2ma said:

Polian declared Allen to be the most improved player at the Sr Bowl through the week of practice. So he's got that going for him. But given how Allen started the week, I'm not sure how big of a complement that is.

I'll take a shot. To my mind it's the "upside" argument.

As much as I have loved Benkert since first sight, I do not get the feeling he's going to get a lot better as a pro. To my eye he is substantially a functional NFL QB now with room to improve at the margins, but he's not "electric. He doesn't have that upside "sizzle" that the top of the class has.

By contrast Allen's upside is tantalizing. I don't believe he'll realize that upside, but it is tantalizing. In part I believe this is because his floor is being pumped up by the "Wentz-factor". Forget that I still maintain Wentz is overrated, an opinion Foles is doing his best to validate, I simply do not see the same player in Allen. I see similar circumstances, but that's not a good enough "story" so circumstance is hyped into sameness.

Fair assessment.  Though I must maintain the reason why Allen's upside is so high compared to Kurt's is that the latter's "floor" is currently higher.     At least, that is my belief.  

Which would kind of back up the Polian statement - which I feel is like a kiss of death anyway.  

@tiamat63 said:

Cal, you yourself called Kurt 'impressive'.   So I'll ask you specifically  - where is the difference between the two that makes one a "top 10 pick" and the other a day 2 player "at best"..?

I'll take a shot. To my mind it's the "upside" argument.

As much as I have loved Benkert since first sight, I do not get the feeling he's going to get a lot better as a pro. To my eye he is substantially a functional NFL QB now with room to improve at the margins, but he's not "electric. He doesn't have that upside "sizzle" that the top of the class has.

By contrast Allen's upside is tantalizing. I don't believe he'll realize that upside, but it is tantalizing. In part I believe this is because his floor is being pumped up by the "Wentz-factor". Forget that I still maintain Wentz is overrated, an opinion Foles is doing his best to validate, I simply do not see the same player in Allen. I see similar circumstances, but that's not a good enough "story" so circumstance is hyped into sameness.

@the-gipper said:

@tour2ma said:

In other words you couldn't find a quote so you simply fleshed out your delusion...

No, I didn't bother because I know what you said and you know what you said so why should I regurgitate it. an

• I disparaged the CBS rankings which used to be "powered by DraftScout", but apparently are no longer
• So...you did disparage those ranking.  So you proved my point.  That is what we call an admission against interest. So...now who is delusional?
• Who cares which draft service provides what network with its rankings.
• Point is, I have been using CBS Sports as a resource on here forever.  And I don't care if they have an affiliation with DraftScouts, or DraftBoyScouts or DraftGirlScouts or DraftCubscouts.   
• They are a particular resource....FREE resource for looking up draft prospect rankings.   I could look up Walter Football...or any of the others...I guess.    I would probably rely more on ESPN/ services Kiper/McShay...but those are pay services...and I ain't paying. 
• You are free to.....and I would welcome you to....list the prospect rankings of any service you wish.   I won't disparage them because:  A. I am aware that there could be vast differences of opinions in these professional scouting servies.  B. I am not so arrogant as to believe that just because one of them would disagree with me that that makes them in valid.  After all, I am only an amateur.  C. And because if I see these rankings and reports by several services...it is possible that I can either 1. Make up my mind on what I think the Browns should do (as I have NOT done so at all yet) or 2.  Change my mind in any particular area based on additional data.  
•  

@the-gipper said:

You said their opinions were useless if they had Mason Rudolph as the top rated quarterback. What do you call that other than being disparaging.

As to the other observations when I had it was accuracy and aptitude and knowledge and understanding. What do you bring to the game and none of those...

In other words you couldn't find a quote so you simply fleshed out your delusion...

• I disparaged the CBS rankings which used to be "powered by DraftScout", but apparently are no longer. If you bothered to click on the DS750 link I posted, then you'd see that.
• Additionally in an answer to your last survey I cited DraftScout as one of my prime sources for prospects to looks at.

Have you been tested? http://dementia.ie/images/uploads/site-images/MoCA-Test-English_7_1.pdf

@tour2ma said:

1. Did cal just play the "hick card?"
2. And, h, Jackson Hole is one of the favorite places I've ever visited... absolutely gorgeous.

Been through, and stayed in Jackson many times. Last time, The Gun Barrel was great if you're into game like venison and elk for dinner. For those who imbibe, they should put the Cowboy Bar on their bucket list. Go downstairs and there's a 4 Star dining experience you wouldn't expect otherwise.  In our wilder days, we played leapfrog through the town square, hard to believe there was alcohol involved.   Last time through it looked like some of the other legendary watering holes like The Silver Dollar and Rancher didn't survive.  

@tiamat63 said:

Cal, you yourself called Kurt 'impressive'.   So I'll ask you specifically  - where is the difference between the two that makes one a "top 10 pick" and the other a day 2 player "at best"..?

Excellent question. Benkert is impressive - it's said he is accurate at all three levels - big advantage so far, maybe?, over Allen.

I don't know footwork, but it is said, as most qb's, his footwork needs work. He doesn't have a big arm, but he can loft it 60 yards, so...

Big advantage, Allen. He comes from a pro style offense, too. He's smart, loves the game, tough, doesn't have the injuries... but the pros, he'll need to hit those small windows.

   The biggest concern is his accuracy - pretty much the last two years,58.6 his highest, for 2017. He doesn't have stars around him, either though. We'll see how it goes with him and Allen. BTW, how can it be said he hits all three levels with accuracy, with those numbers? Pretty much my guess is, it's the circumstances he plays in -pro style doesn't lend itself to high qb stats.

   He stares down his receivers a lot. I hate that. I just wonder if it's habit because he knows his oline can't give him time to scan the field, or he doesn't see the field.

   He runs a 4.9 by all the sources I've seen. Which means, depending on your offense, it could be a problem. Go to the patriots, andwho cares - Brady might run a 4.9, i don't know.

   I think he will be a terrific back up, or maybe get lucky and fit in with the right offense and start one day, who knows.

Impressive kid, but doesn't have the upside that some do. Oh, some places list him at 6'4", and then I saw where he was 6'2.5". Maybe he grew. Really tough choices. I think Mayfield and Rudolph seem to me to definitely have a higher ceiling.

   If Allen shows bad accuracy at the senior bowl, his mechanics will take time to adjust.

  In that case, in this draft - Mason Rudolph may very well be the best qb in this draft. He even runs a 4.7 - that's good for his size.

  This draft is going to be freakin fascinating.

@sd_tom said:

Mike White from WKU will likely be selected around the same time as Benkhert. Highly suggest watching film on him if you haven't yet. 

To me, we already have a project who's a physical specimen in Kizer. it's not like he won't be able to improve. 

Funny you ask, I have a tie to the Hilltoppers as a distant cousins-cousin is on the coaching staff (I know, dumb story).  He invited family down to the Ball State game this year but I couldn't make it.           Haven't had a chance to watch him but I hear about him often from a buddy of mine.   When I get some free time this weekend, as it feels like I'm watching about 3 or 4 different players at a time anymore, I'll peep in on him.  

@tiamat63 said:

I ask this honestly to anyone who has watched both - so far and to my knowledge that would be Tour, Cal and a couple others...

Even the die hard Camp Allen guys acknowledge that he's a multi-year project.  At minimum 2, preferably 3 before possibly being "ready".  Now even with that some tout him as high as #1 because of his physical gifts and arm strength.  My '1B' QB in this draft (Benkert) who is of similar size @ 6'4 around 225lbs ...  shows routine flashes of high level traits, doesn't have some of the command and pacing issues of Allen, plays on a team with talent lower than the relative teams around him and his own but has better stats and not the injury history...   is only projected at the moment to be a 4th round round pick and is expected to sit 2 to 3 years to develop.  

Where lies the major difference that places Allen head and shoulders over my guy at a comparatively much cheaper price.?!?!   How do you justify spending that high of a pick on Allen even though you see another QB with similar gifts, a ceiling just as high and a better current resume?!?

Cal, you yourself called Kurt 'impressive'.   So I'll ask you specifically  - where is the difference between the two that makes one a "top 10 pick" and the other a day 2 player "at best"..?

Mike White from WKU will likely be selected around the same time as Benkhert. Highly suggest watching film on him if you haven't yet. 

To me, we already have a project who's a physical specimen in Kizer. it's not like he won't be able to improve. 

Even the die hard Camp Allen guys acknowledge that he's a multi-year project.  At minimum 2, preferably 3 before possibly being "ready".  Now even with that some tout him as high as #1 because of his physical gifts and arm strength.  My '1B' QB in this draft (Benkert) who is of similar size @ 6'4 around 225lbs ...  shows routine flashes of high level traits, doesn't have some of the command and pacing issues of Allen, plays on a team with talent lower than the relative teams around him and his own but has better stats and not the injury history...   is only projected at the moment to be a 4th round round pick and is expected to sit 2 to 3 years to develop.  

Where lies the major difference that places Allen head and shoulders over my guy at a comparatively much cheaper price.?!?!   How do you justify spending that high of a pick on Allen even though you see another QB with similar gifts, a ceiling just as high and a better current resume?!?

Cal, you yourself called Kurt 'impressive'.   So I'll ask you specifically  - where is the difference between the two that makes one a "top 10 pick" and the other a day 2 player "at best"..?

@tour2ma said:

Then you should no problem finding a post where I do...

I'll wait...

As for the other "reply"... adding obstinance to your ignorance neither proves nor improves anything.

You said their opinions were useless if they had Mason Rudolph as the top rated quarterback. What do you call that other than being disparaging. As to the other observations when I had it was accuracy and aptitude and knowledge and understanding. What do you bring to the game and none of thoseYou said their opinions were useless if they had Mason Rudolph as the top rated quarterback. What do you call that other than being disparaging. As to the other observations when I had it was accuracy and aptitude and knowledge and understanding. What do you bring to the game and none of

@tour2ma said:

Did cal just play the "hick card?"

I been country long before country was cool.

@the-gipper said:

You disparaged DraftScout on more than one occasion.

Then you should no problem finding a post where I do...

I'll wait...

As for the other "reply"... adding obstinance to your ignorance neither proves nor improves anything.

@tour2ma said:

1. Did cal just play the "hick card?"

No that would have been the hayseed card, not the beetseed card.

Ketchup tomatoseed.

Ignorant is the only word for this post. Rankings... even when attributed to the correct source... are never as rigid as 1-2-3. Teams cluster players of similar talent levels and then assuming there are no "red flags" they let need, fit, and positional importance break ties.

Only question is how willful is the ignorance on display.

The only thing ignorant is your ignorant...useless, wrong reply.   I stated an factual theory:   IF a scouting source..no matter who it is....has no QB rated  nearly as good as  other position players.....then, IN THEORY, if  several QBs  are taken over those more highly rated other position players...then it CAN be stated that those QBs were overdrafted.  

This is really a pretty simple theory....Not sure why you cannot discern it as it not particularly nuanced. And the fact that "position importance" is in there is obvious....QBs are by far given preference because of positional importance. That is central to the theory. 

FACT: CBS  (you can go flog your pecker over whether they are tied in with Draft Scouts or not)....had 9 players rated better than ANY QB. 

IF in fact  2-3-4 QBs are drafted in like the Top 5....The are being overdrafted. Other, better rated players (by that particular scouting service) are being bypassed in order to draft a QB.

Again....your only apparent objection seems to be that you disagree with the rankings of particular scouting service. But, you have to remember, that you....Tour2ma...are not a part of the fuycking equation...no matter how much you want to insert yourself into it.

Try to keep up...

CBS has historically been "powered by DraftScout" (ring a bell?) apparently no longer is... at least it's not to this point.

Well...if I got false information.....then I got it from you.   You disparaged DraftScout on more than one occasion.

@the-gipper said:

DraftScouts.com.....which, for some reason Tour thinks is invalid...probably because they disagree with him somewhat...

lol... makes a false comment about my view of DraftScout and then posts a link to CBS.

Try to keep up...

CBS has historically been "powered by DraftScout" (ring a bell?) apparently no longer is... at least it's not to this point.

For the record and comparison here is a link to the DraftScout "Top 750" where QBs hold two of the top three spots and three of the top eight.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/members/ratings/top750.php?draftyear=2018&sortby=rateall&order=ASC

Do the lists look to be interchangeable? Which more closer resembles the other major lists that have been published?

@the-gipper said:

And...in theory.....per that Draftscout report..they go along with what you say.  NONE or only 1 of those QBs is actually Top Ten Talent.  So....by their estimation, apparently....any QB taken above the 10 pick can likely be considered overdrafting.....for need.  Per them....we should be taking the likes of Chubb, Derwin James, Fitzpatrick, Roquon Smith...even Barkley...rather than a QB at either 1 or 4. 

Ignorant is the only word for this post. Rankings... even when attributed to the correct source... are never as rigid as 1-2-3. Teams cluster players of similar talent levels and then assuming there are no "red flags" they let need, fit, and positional importance break ties.

Only question is how willful is the ignorance on display.

@hoorta said:

True Gip, the players mentioned may be better prospects at their positions than the QBs, but no position affects the game more than the QB. It's why they're always over drafted. I won't bother to look it up, but I'd bet both Trubisky and Mahomes would be considered huge reaches based on their Draftscout rankings last year.

Can't seem to find where he was as overall prospect....but MT was rated the #1 QB by them.

@the-gipper said:

And...in theory.....per that Draftscout report..they go along with what you say.  NONE or only 1 of those QBs is actually Top Ten Talent.  So....by their estimation, apparently....any QB taken above the 10 pick can likely be considered overdrafting.....for need.  Per them....we should be taking the likes of Chubb, Derwin James, Fitzpatrick, Roquon Smith...even Barkley...rather than a QB at either 1 or 4. 

True Gip, the players mentioned may be better prospects at their positions than the QBs, but no position affects the game more than the QB. It's why they're always over drafted. I won't bother to look it up, but I'd bet both Trubisky and Mahomes would be considered huge reaches based on their Draftscout rankings last year.