Camp Barnett for #12

[Mark O]

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.

[The Gipper]

 

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.

[The Gipper]

 

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.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[wargograw]

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?

[wargograw]

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.

[wargograw]

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?

[wargograw]

 

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.

[wargograw]

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.

[wargograw]

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

[The Gipper]

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.

[The Gipper]

 

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?

[The Gipper]

 

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?

[wargograw]

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.

[wargograw]

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?

[The Gipper]

 

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.

[The Gipper]

 

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.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

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?

[The Gipper]

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.

[The Gipper]

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.

[The Gipper]

 

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.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

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.

[LogicIsForSquares]

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.

[wargograw]

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.

[wargograw]

In five years we may know if that is true.

 

So again, then why discuss?

[wargograw]

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 Gipper]

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 Gipper]

Go back to step one and repeat.

 

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

Good luck with your Prozac.

[The Gipper]

 

Some of us with more insightful commentary than others.

Yes....WE do.

 

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

[The Gipper]

 

So again, then why discuss?

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