76

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

With all this arguing over QBs that probably won't even make a dent in NFL history, maybe we should realize the bears aren't drafting either of these QBs this year

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

77

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

chitownfan312 wrote:

With all this arguing over QBs that probably won't even make a dent in NFL history, maybe we should realize the bears aren't drafting either of these QBs this year

https://www.profootballfocus.com/draft- … the-bears/

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2017/4 … josh-jones

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo … story.html

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/03/22/ … the-bears/

https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-02-2015/hB0s9y.gif

"She was a charming middle-aged lady with a face like a bucket of mud. I gave her a drink. She was a gal who'd take a drink, if she had to knock you down to get the bottle."

Tim's Website

Share

Thank you!: blang84

Thumbs up Thumbs down

78

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Hahahaha, oh, Tim...

Ryan Pace doesn't read.

Share

Thank you!: vvarder, blang84, Tim

Thumbs up Thumbs down

79

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Here's my issue. We are discussing who the better prospect at QB is. Watson or Trubisky.  You like one over the other fine. Just dont like the misleading info. Watson and Trubisky played 5 games against common opponents. That's a lot of tape to compare the 2. I don't see how one could look at those games and say Trubisky doesn't compare favorable.

Its not misleading info.

Watson got lazy when his team got up big.  He wasn't sharp in the 2nd half when his team was up 40 and his back up wasn't quite warmed up yet.  We discussed that in the draft thread.

In closer games, Watson didn't get lazy or "mail it in." 

That Louisville game, Louisville had to score 26 in the 2nd half and take the lead only to see 2 capped off drives ending in Watson to Mike Williams and Watson to Leggett for Clemson to close it out and beat LU.  If you look at the picks through the lenses you are, its easy to see "turnover prone."

I see a guy who shredded a top NCAA defense with his arm and legs, albeit not a flawless game.

I allude to Watson's sluggish, nay lazy 2nd half--and he's had a few games like that.  My initial apprehension with him was that.  But in other games, particularly big games against big opponents that weren't run out of the building in the 1st half--Watson didn't take his foot off the gas.  That's my opinion.  He wont be up 40 at the half much, if at all in his NFL career.

Even with however you want to interpret Watson's turnovers/interceptions; I still like his game over Trubisky.  We can agree to disagree there, Rob.  I think if the Bears take Watson they can prioritize without a LT for another year or two because Watson can make up for not being a pocket passer with his legs or roll away from Leno.  I don't think Charles Leno is good enough to be a blindside for a pocket guy like Trubisky.  And I don't think Trubisky is a statue, but I also don't think he'll be beating any linebackers or pass rushers in foot races either......

I think Trubisky, if taken comes at a disadvantage--with an offense that needs a lot of help at tackle and playmakers that aren't Jordan Howard (primarily tackle).  I think Watson can temporarily be better in that he can use his athleticism and diverse offensive skillset to offset a well-below-average LT.  If Trubisky comes with an Antonio Garcia round 2--I'll roll with him......

This is breaking news from CNN...........or Fox..........or whatever--Fuck you

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

80

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Tim wrote:
chitownfan312 wrote:

With all this arguing over QBs that probably won't even make a dent in NFL history, maybe we should realize the bears aren't drafting either of these QBs this year

https://www.profootballfocus.com/draft- … the-bears/

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2017/4 … josh-jones

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo … story.html

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/03/22/ … the-bears/

https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-02-2015/hB0s9y.gif


If only...

burn Halas Hall to the ground

Share

Thank you!: Tim

Thumbs up Thumbs down

81

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

In closer games, Watson didn't get lazy or "mail it in."
That Louisville game, Louisville had to score 26 in the 2nd half and take the lead only to see 2 capped off drives ending in Watson to Mike Williams and Watson to Leggett for Clemson to close it out and beat LU.  If you look at the picks through the lenses you are, its easy to see "turnover prone."

In that Louisville game Watsons first pick came early in the game with the Tigers down 0-7. He under throws receiver and gets picked in the end zone.  Later in the game after Louisville got back within 1 point Watson makes another poor decision and gets picked trying to throw to a well covered receiver.

Against PITT in a game that could have cost Clemson a spot in the playoffs Watson threw another 3 picks. The last one costing them the game. Set up to put the game away Watsons pick that was almost a pick six put Pitt right back in it.

He had another 2 bad picks against Florida State.

What am I missing. When I watched the tape I expected to see a lot of picks in non meaningful moments of games like you and Aggie had eluded to. I was watching to try and get a grip on Watsons field vision. The large. Umber of troubling turnovers caught me off guard. That's where the misleading comes in.

As for the rest of your post I agree Watson does bring a lot of good to the table. Either way Glennon is getting first crack at it.

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

82

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Sorry post police. I'll do a better job spell checking.  But going off your analysis I highly doubt you actually watched any film of anybody.

Post police?  Nice BigRobo, just thought a guy that studies as hard as you do would know how to spell the name of the QB you are touting.  I don't think you study shit, I think you are a contrarian who gobbles up whatever either the Bears organization is spewing or whatever article you read that day. 

As for my knowledge of college football it is based solely on my opinions of players I have watched and not from articles or anything else I read.

I don't need to go through your old posts. I can actually remember what I've read or watched. Unlike your memory of Watsons Ints.

Ok then asshole, start quoting from memory where I called Turubitsykkyy a bum.  Still waiting for that Professor Spell Check.

"It's time to man up and turn things around" - Kyle Long prior to win over Green Bay on Thanksgiving

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

83

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Drafting Trubisky early feels like an NBA team drafting an 19 year old who played one year in college. Too much risk for me in the top 10 for a guy who is extremely unimpressive on film.

Ok so you didnt use the word bum.  You have said things like unimpressive and disappointing.

Still waiting on you to admit you lied about Watsons ints.  And your attempt to save face on your claim that nobody has ever been a top 10 QB who only started one season in college is embarrassing.  Just admit you were wrong.  Dont try and make Cam look bad to suit your argument.

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

84

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Ok so you didnt use the word bum.  You have said things like unimpressive and disappointing.

And I am still sticking to that opinion.  Glad to see you actually did go back through the posts, guess that photographic memory of yours failed you when you said I called him a bum.

Still waiting on you to admit you lied about Watsons ints

That's funny, keep waiting.  Calling me a liar is funny, are my pants on fire too?

And your attempt to save face on your claim that nobody has ever been a top 10 QB who only started one season in college is embarrassing.  Just admit you were wrong.  Dont try and make Cam look bad to suit your argument.

Cam Newton is not a very good QB in my opinion.  He is a freak athlete who uses his athleticism to cover up for his lack of an ability to read defenses and be a leader from the QB position.  I think he pouts too much and is extremely immature. 

Also, he is still is your only weak example and 1 QB out of however many played more than one year that you could even point to in your weak counter argument.

Saving face is also hilarious and what is embarrassing are your attempts to discredit me when you are the guy on this board that is proven more wrong more than anyone else.

Again, you not agreeing with my opinions only makes my belief in them stronger.

"It's time to man up and turn things around" - Kyle Long prior to win over Green Bay on Thanksgiving

Share

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

85

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Also, he is still is your only weak example and 1 QB out of however many played more than one year that you could even point to in your weak counter argument.

What counter argument?  You said nobody has done it I pointed to one who has. Your the one arguing that Newton isn't good enough to qualify.

Saving face is also hilarious and what is embarrassing are your attempts to discredit me when you are the guy on this board that is proven more wrong more than anyone else.

You discredit yourself with your comments. I just point it out.

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

86

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

What counter argument?  You said nobody has done it I pointed to one who has. Your the one arguing that Newton isn't good enough to qualify.

Cam also started the year prior to going to Auburn at Blinn College after leaving Florida.  So he really started for two years prior to getting drafted.  So even if he is good enough by your standards, he still started over 20 games in college prior to getting drafted.

The point that I was making that I believe most of the other people have gotten in here whether they agree with it or not is that starting for less than 2 years in college is something to be concerned about when drafting QB's because it just hasn't been done successfully on a regular basis. 

Points like this are wasted on you because you like to nitpick certain aspects of people's posts and start an argument.  Yes, just to be clear, I am calling you a troll.

You discredit yourself with your comments. I just point it out.

Wow, look who has become the post police.  Unfortunately your arguments aren't good enough to be the post police, more like the post mall cop.  Thanks for monitoring the board and pointing out mistakes, according to you,that were made.  You are the best post hall monitor we have in here.

"It's time to man up and turn things around" - Kyle Long prior to win over Green Bay on Thanksgiving

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

87

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Apparently now the Browns are in fact taking Garrett.

fishing > work

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

88

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Bear-man 11 wrote:

Apparently now the Browns are in fact taking Garrett.

With the 12th pick as well, they probably can get a QB they want there. I think it would be silly for them not to take the best player in the draft.

I despise those self promoting twatwaffles -- Tuna

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

89

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

BTW, Shefter tweeting Trubisky going #1 to the Browns...

He also just tweeted Bears are actively trying to trade back.

I despise those self promoting twatwaffles -- Tuna

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

90

Re: Browns not taking Garrett at #1?

Mongo_76 wrote:

BTW, Shefter tweeting Trubisky going #1 to the Browns...

He also just tweeted Bears are actively trying to trade back.

Good call Shefty.

fishing > work

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down