You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2017 NFL Draft Winners/Losers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

H2ThaIzzo wrote:

The Browns were tight lipped throughout the entire draft process. Any speculation on the Browns targeting a specific QB was purely that, speculation. In fact, the swirling rumors of the Browns wanting Trubisky made things better for them, it dropped more defensive players down the draft board, cause the value of the next QB's, Watson and Mahomes to be inflated, and allowed them the flexibility that they obviously love in acquiring future picks.

The Chiefs have become a solid team built by defense and the ability to run the ball. They have a bottom of the league receiving corps, and a mid-level NFL QB in Alex Smith. The Texans just had one of the ugliest QB situations in the league, and managed to win some football games. The Cowboys went to the playoffs with a rookie 4th round QB.


Since 2011 there has arguably been more success from non 1st round QB's than 1st round QB's drafted.
Dalton
Kaepernick
Taylor
Wilson
Cousins
Carr
Prescott

vs

Newton
Luck
Tannehill
Winston
Mariotta
Wentz


I agree with not reaching for a QB in the 1st if you don't really think he will be your franchise guy. But that list of 1st rounders is actually a good example of when it's worth it to take a QB early. Apart from Tannehill, the rest of Newton, Luck, Winston, Mariota, and (I'm projecting here) Wentz all look to be franchise QB's, if not already established as such.

You only threw out the non-1st QB's the succeeded, you didn't include the ones that failed, at pretty early rounds, too. Now, a 2nd/3rd/4th is obviously nowhere near the investment cost, nor trading up like some teams did this year, but the comp probably needs to be more complete than just taking the best non-1st round QB's in that period. Now, there are 1st rounders missing as well, so if we complete the list for 2011-15...


2011 - 2015 1st round QB's not included above:

Bortles 2014
Manziel 2014
Bridgewater 2014
Manuel 2013
RGIII 2012
Weeden 2012
Locker 2011
Gabbert 2011
Ponder 2011

I didn't include 2016-2017, way too soon. But that whole list certainly drives home the point you don't reach for a QB if you aren't convinced they are a franchise QB. I admit that I thought Bridgewater would be OK, and ppl were all in on RGIII's insane athleticism (elite even for the NFL), but the rest were really big Q marks.

2011-15 QB Round 2nd-5th round QB's not included:

Garrett Grayson 2015
Sean Mannion 2015
Bryce Petty 2015
Brett Hundley 2015
(this excludes Trevor Siemien Rd 7 but I'll include them to be fair)
Jimmy G 2014
Logan Thomas 2014
Tom Savage 2014
Aaron Murray 2014
AJ McCarron 2014
Mike Glennon 2013
Ryan Nassib 2013
Tyler Wilson 2013
Landry Jones 2013
Brock Osweiler 2012
Nick Foles 2012
Ryan Mallett 2011
Ricky Stanzi 2011
TJ Yates 2011


I think the biggest lesson is not to reach Rd1 for a guy you don't think is a true franchise QB. And yes, you can find value later....but it's more of a crapshoot than at first glance, maybe think about taking the guys who are falling for reasons that are not football-related per se (Russell Wilson size, Carr his brother's shadow, etc.).
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
DraftHobbyist wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
Guys, we all get fired up at times, but once you've had your say, best to just agree to disagree and move on. By all means if you have another point to make, or new info to give, then bring it on. No one minds that. But if it's a rehash, well, we don't all have to agree.

Let's face it, I don't think you 2 are going to agree on Kupp.


That's not the main issue here. The main issue is that Jrry32 is saying that he won't respect me and will continue to talk down to me calling my opinions "trash", and lying to others about whether I watch film or not. He's literally going around telling people that I don't watch film. When confronted, he refuses to stop.

On Kupp, we don't even disagree very much. I said one minor point that he disagrees with that I blamed on scheme and not even Kupp, but he's guided so much by emotionalism that he doesn't even realize that. I mentioned that he sometimes runs into coverage, which he does, because Eastern Washington runs a bunch of timing slant routes. The Offense isn't advanced enough to break those off and find the open hole, which is perfectly reasonable. I simply think Kupp went a little too high.

It's amazing how Jrry32 basically makes one little comment I made into something it was never intended to be. And I'm sure he'll respond to this taking twisting something else, because that's what he does. It's not the disagreement that bothers me, it's the constant misrepresentation. Do people not deserve to be accurately represented?


DraftHobbyist wrote:
I think if you're looking at the positive you can find the highlight catches with some one-handers and the like, but if you look for the bad there is plenty out there. People love to tout his route-running, but I don't think it's that great at all. The Offense he played in was very basic, and so he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage. Fortunately for Kupp, he was playing against bad Defenses that rarely took advantage. even the FBS teams he played had pretty bad Defenses. He also takes all kinds of false steps and often takes forever to get to the open spot on a lot of those drag routes, and in college you might have that kind of time, but in the NFL you usually don't.


You didn't chalk it up to just the offense. You claimed he wasn't as good of a route runner as touted. You were wrong. Now, you're backtracking. Your point about him not sitting down in holes was wrong too. Now, you're trying to minimize what you said retroactively to avoid having to own it.(now, it's just "sometimes" and only on "timing slant routes") Hell, you even tried to criticize the gif I posted of him running a great route. You were wrong on that too.

By all means, continue to cry about what a meany I am. Nobody is going to feel sorry for you. I am the same meany to every poster here. Difference is that almost all of them earned my respect by putting their money where their mouth was when their opinions were challenged. You failed to do that.


1) I specifically mentioned that a lot of it had to do with Offensive scheme. I am continuing to claim that a lot of it had to do with the Offensive scheme. How is that backtracking in any way? Just as I predicted, you twisted things and misrepresented me yet again. Could you even give me one simple response where you aren't completely misrepresenting me? Why don't you try to actually explain why what I said is wrong instead of twisting what I said into something I didn't say and then arguing against the new twisted message. Where I come from, that's called a straw man argument. It's your favorite logical fallacy.

2) As for the bolded part, again, you claim I'm wrong based on what? Our disagreement? You speak as if it's fact that you are right and I am wrong but nobody has been proven right or wrong on Kupp yet. But yes, I still believe that Kupp's route running has some improving to do. He does have some wasted motions and false steps in his game. He does need to adapt to a more advanced Offense in the NFL, which includes more advanced route-running. You can disagree with this, but to say you are right and I'm wrong is just arrogant.

3) About sitting down in holes, again, because I've already told you previously, showing that he sometimes sits in holes does not show that he doesn't sometimes run into coverage. As I mentioned before, if you told me a LB misses tackles and I showed you a tackle he made, that does not make your claim wrong. And again, this all relates, that the scheme had something to do with him running into coverage at times because the Offense isn't advanced as a standard NFL Offense and did a lot of timing slant routes.

4) You posted a GIF, I disagreed that the route was perfect, and imagine that, you continue to have your original stance that you are right. And guess what? I have my original stance that I am right. But you know what the difference is? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying I disagree with you. You are acting as if you are objectively correct.

5) If you are the same meany to every poster here, you should consider that. I don't have to deal with your bullying. I'm going to continue to point it out until something is done about it. So by all means, be a jerk. You are admitting you are jerk, not only to me, but to everybody else. That is your problem and I think it says something about how happy in life you are. Don't try to bring everybody else down just because you're a depressed little baby.

6) I never changed my argument to "sometimes". What kind of fool do you have to be to think that I was claiming that Kupp always runs into the Defense and never sits down in a hole? That's absolutely pathetic, and it's a kindergarten level of argumentation.

7) To say that I didn't put my "money where my mouth is" on Kupp is ludicrous. Anybody can read through and see that I gave multiple points on Kupp. But of course, you fail to acknowledge the obvious and then act as if I refused to give my argument on Kupp at all. I don't know who you think died and made you king of these boards, but Jesus Christ man, you are not as smart as you think you are.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
DraftHobbyist wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
Guys, we all get fired up at times, but once you've had your say, best to just agree to disagree and move on. By all means if you have another point to make, or new info to give, then bring it on. No one minds that. But if it's a rehash, well, we don't all have to agree.

Let's face it, I don't think you 2 are going to agree on Kupp.


That's not the main issue here. The main issue is that Jrry32 is saying that he won't respect me and will continue to talk down to me calling my opinions "trash", and lying to others about whether I watch film or not. He's literally going around telling people that I don't watch film. When confronted, he refuses to stop.

On Kupp, we don't even disagree very much. I said one minor point that he disagrees with that I blamed on scheme and not even Kupp, but he's guided so much by emotionalism that he doesn't even realize that. I mentioned that he sometimes runs into coverage, which he does, because Eastern Washington runs a bunch of timing slant routes. The Offense isn't advanced enough to break those off and find the open hole, which is perfectly reasonable. I simply think Kupp went a little too high.

It's amazing how Jrry32 basically makes one little comment I made into something it was never intended to be. And I'm sure he'll respond to this taking twisting something else, because that's what he does. It's not the disagreement that bothers me, it's the constant misrepresentation. Do people not deserve to be accurately represented?


DraftHobbyist wrote:
I think if you're looking at the positive you can find the highlight catches with some one-handers and the like, but if you look for the bad there is plenty out there. People love to tout his route-running, but I don't think it's that great at all. The Offense he played in was very basic, and so he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage. Fortunately for Kupp, he was playing against bad Defenses that rarely took advantage. even the FBS teams he played had pretty bad Defenses. He also takes all kinds of false steps and often takes forever to get to the open spot on a lot of those drag routes, and in college you might have that kind of time, but in the NFL you usually don't.


You didn't chalk it up to just the offense. You claimed he wasn't as good of a route runner as touted. You were wrong. Now, you're backtracking. Your point about him not sitting down in holes was wrong too. Now, you're trying to minimize what you said retroactively to avoid having to own it.(now, it's just "sometimes" and only on "timing slant routes") Hell, you even tried to criticize the gif I posted of him running a great route. You were wrong on that too.

By all means, continue to cry about what a meany I am. Nobody is going to feel sorry for you. I am the same meany to every poster here. Difference is that almost all of them earned my respect by putting their money where their mouth was when their opinions were challenged. You failed to do that.


1) I specifically mentioned that a lot of it had to do with Offensive scheme. I am continuing to claim that a lot of it had to do with the Offensive scheme. How is that backtracking in any way? Just as I predicted, you twisted things and misrepresented me yet again. Could you even give me one simple response where you aren't completely misrepresenting me? Why don't you try to actually explain why what I said is wrong instead of twisting what I said into something I didn't say and then arguing against the new twisted message. Where I come from, that's called a straw man argument. It's your favorite logical fallacy.


You criticized his route running (claiming that people tout it as great, but it's not great at all) immediately followed by your point about him not settling in zone coverage. Now, you're trying to backtrack by claiming you were only blaming the scheme and not criticizing him as a player. Bull.

I did explain why what you said was wrong. I explained it back when I criticized your argument that he doesn't settle in zone coverage and posted a gif showing him settling in a hole in a zone. Then, I responded to another post of yours telling you to go watch a game where Kupp made a number of catches by settling into holes in the zone when you claimed one gif wasn't enough.

You then made your last post where you walked your statement back and limited it to only a certain type of route. I held up my side of the discussion. That's why you're backtracking.

Quote:
2) As for the bolded part, again, you claim I'm wrong based on what? Our disagreement? You speak as if it's fact that you are right and I am wrong but nobody has been proven right or wrong on Kupp yet. But yes, I still believe that Kupp's route running has some improving to do. He does have some wasted motions and false steps in his game. He does need to adapt to a more advanced Offense in the NFL, which includes more advanced route-running. You can disagree with this, but to say you are right and I'm wrong is just arrogant.


I have no doubt you still think that. Your earlier criticisms show that you don't have enough knowledge of the technical nuances of route running to be trusted on that point.

Yes, I know I am a meany. Oh well. I'm not going to sugarcoat things.

Kupp having to adapt to a more advanced scheme isn't a legitimate criticism. Every college player has to do that. He already runs routes like a pro and displays a NFL-caliber understanding of the game.

You're going to get people rolling their eyes at you when you choose Kupp's route running as one of the parts of his game to criticize him on considering he's easily the best route runner in this draft class.

I hope you notice that I'm not giving you a hard time for your criticisms of his physical attributes. I don't agree with everything you said, but it's a defensible criticism. I am giving you a hard time for choosing route running because it's absolutely silly to criticize him on that ground. It would be like criticizing Patrick Mahomes's arm strength or Obi Melifonwu's physical talent.

Quote:
3) About sitting down in holes, again, because I've already told you previously, showing that he sometimes sits in holes does not show that he doesn't sometimes run into coverage. As I mentioned before, if you told me a LB misses tackles and I showed you a tackle he made, that does not make your claim wrong. And again, this all relates, that the scheme had something to do with him running into coverage at times because the Offense isn't advanced as a standard NFL Offense and did a lot of timing slant routes.


You presented it as a criticism of Kupp's route running, not a criticism of the scheme he played in. You're now backtracking because I can easily disprove your argument.

Quote:
4) You posted a GIF, I disagreed that the route was perfect, and imagine that, you continue to have your original stance that you are right. And guess what? I have my original stance that I am right. But you know what the difference is? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying I disagree with you. You are acting as if you are objectively correct.


I am objectively correct. You can continue to insist that this is opinion, but it's not. You don't know the technical ins and outs of route running well enough to recognize that. Kupp's route was a thing of beauty. The fact that you're trying to argue otherwise is the strongest evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. Here's the gif:


Here's a post of mine breaking down why that route was so special:
Quote:
If you look at the opposite side of the field, the route combinations are mirroring each other. Accordingly, you can see how the defense is trying to defend Kupp's route by looking at the other side of the field. It's 4th and 3. EWU's offense is pretty predictable. They love the quick outs and slants. The defense is attempting to take away both. They have two ILBs sitting inside to take away the quick slant or spot route. They have the two DBs squatting at about five yards to jam the WRs and then slide underneath them in their hip pocket to prevent the QB from throwing the quick out. The defensive play-call here is actually perfect to stop what EWU's trying to do. They should have had to throw over the top, but Cooper Kupp is Cooper Kupp.

What Kupp does here is beautiful. He recognizes pre-snap that they're squatting on the route and are going to try and jam him. Kupp also knows that they want to keep him from running the quick inside route on 4th and 3. The DB has inside help, so he shouldn't care about the fake, but Kupp knows that a reaction is a reaction (you don't think about it). Kupp comes off the ball and throws a quick stutter at about 3 yards. This is the route depth for a speed cut for a quick slant. The DB reacts to the stutter by stepping in the wrong direction (widening his base) and deadening his feet. This serves both to get him moving the wrong way and freeze him right before he's supposed to jam Kupp. Kupp leverages his vertical stem just a little to the outside to gain him more room to prevent any chance of the DB getting his hands on him. From there, Kupp executes a textbook speed cut on the 9 yard out. After he comes out of his break, he snaps his head and hips around to prepare to aggressively work back to his QB. The ball is a tad inaccurate, but Kupp is still able to make the catch look easy.

Sean McVay said that Kupp always has a pre-snap plan. This is an example of Kupp recognizing pre-snap that the defense is perfectly aligned to win against the play the offense is running. Kupp adjusted how he ran his route to still manage to his offense an easy win on 4th and 3 on a play that the defense won on the white board (if you were to draw the offensive and defensive schemes on the white board, the defense should have won this down). This is a great example of the sort of football IQ, savvy, and techical skill that Kupp offers our offense. He can flip a lost down into an easy win. This is what the Patriots' offense is built around. They have smart WRs who recognize how to attack the defense, which is why they always seem to be open.


Here are your criticisms of his route:
Quote:
As for the route running, in your 1st GIF, I don't like that he continues to gain depth, then he takes a false step forward and is forced to jump backwards to catch the ball. Continuing to gain depth on after the cut is how you get your QB picked off at the next level, or even in much of the FBS. If you look for it, you can find him making unnecessary movements regularly. These movements slow him down, and being a guy who already isn't that fast, that'll close separation even more quickly.


Kupp gained exactly the amount of depth that he was supposed to gain on that route. He began breaking down at 7 yards, his plant foot hit at 8 yards, and he came out of his break at 9 yards. He remained on a horizontal line after coming out of the break, got his eyes and hips around to the QB, and prepared to work aggressively back downhill. The route was textbook except for the stutter. And I explained why the stutter was necessary to the route. Here's a graphic from the internet showing how a speed cut is run since you seem to doubt my analysis:


Look at that. You come out of your break one yard after your plant foot hits. It's just like I've been saying this entire time.

Quote:
5) If you are the same meany to every poster here, you should consider that. I don't have to deal with your bullying. I'm going to continue to point it out until something is done about it. So by all means, be a jerk. You are admitting you are jerk, not only to me, but to everybody else. That is your problem and I think it says something about how happy in life you are. Don't try to bring everybody else down just because you're a depressed little baby.


I'm very happy with my life, but I appreciate your concern. Laughing

I challenge people's opinions. I am blunt. Most people can handle it.

Quote:
6) I never changed my argument to "sometimes". What kind of fool do you have to be to think that I was claiming that Kupp always runs into the Defense and never sits down in a hole? That's absolutely pathetic, and it's a kindergarten level of argumentation.


You began with:
Quote:
People love to tout his route-running, but I don't think it's that great at all. The Offense he played in was very basic, and so he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage. Fortunately for Kupp, he was playing against bad Defenses that rarely took advantage.


Then it became:
Quote:
As for the play you found of him getting to the hole of the Defense, sure, he will find the holes in the zones at times. At times, he'll run into the coverage. Posting a play where he does it the right way and then calling my point garbage is very disingenuous. It's like if someone said a player will drop the ball, and I say, "What a load of garbage," with a GIF of a catch.


Now, it's:
Quote:
On Kupp, we don't even disagree very much. I said one minor point that he disagrees with that I blamed on scheme and not even Kupp, but he's guided so much by emotionalism that he doesn't even realize that. I mentioned that he sometimes runs into coverage, which he does, because Eastern Washington runs a bunch of timing slant routes. The Offense isn't advanced enough to break those off and find the open hole, which is perfectly reasonable.


You're moving the goalposts every time. I responded to your first and second iterations of the quote by providing specific examples that disproved the point you were trying to advance. You've now taken another shot at moving the goalposts to avoid admitting you were wrong. This third shot at "clarifying" your point directly conflicts with your original point (that Kupp not sitting down in zones proves that his route running is not as great as people claim).

Here are my responses to your points:
Response to your first quote:
Quote:
He'd just run into coverage and didn't sit down in holes? What a load of garbage. Here's one of many plays that shows that assessment is completely inaccurate:

Clears the LB, gets to the soft spot between the safeties and LBs, slows down, and works towards the middle to give his QB an easier throw. That's exactly how a WR is taught to work zone coverage.


Response to your second quote:
Quote:
If I posted the Richmond game, you'd see five or six different catches from Kupp in the first half of that game where he settled into holes in the zone. He has no issues finding the holes in the zone.

What you don't seem to recognize is that college offenses are a lot more rigid than NFL offenses. The route on the play might lead Kupp into coverage. He still has to run it. When he has a route that allows him to sit down in holes in the zone, he does it quite well. Kupp understands his role in the offense. He's not going to freelance out there. It can screw up the route tree.

There's nothing disingenuous about calling your claim that "he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage" against zone defense garbage. It was. Hell, it directly conflicts with what Sean McVay is saying. It directly conflicts with what I've seen on film.


Funny how your most recent attempt mirrors the way I explained it while replying to your second attempt. I explained that Kupp does a great job of sitting down in the zones when his route allows him to do it. However, due to the rigidity of the scheme, he is sometimes forced to run into coverage because the route demands it. That's not an issue linked to Kupp's route running prowess; rather, it's linked to the rigidity of the scheme.

Now, suddenly, you are saying the same thing. This is despite the fact that it conflicts with your original point (that Kupp runs himself into zone coverage rather than sitting down in zones because his route running isn't as great as we claim).

If you had simply owned it after my second post, I would have respected you for it. You could have simply said: "I think you're right about Kupp and the zone coverage. I saw him running into coverage, but now that I look back, it probably was the scheme and not Kupp's route running ability." Instead, you're trying to paint it as me misrepresenting your argument as you try to retroactively change what you were saying to reflect the points I made.

You may not like me. Oh well. But I will give you respect if you earn it. You are just doing everything possible not to earn it. You aren't owning being wrong. I don't care if I've changed your opinion about Kupp. An opinion is an opinion. However, you've made multiple incorrect claims in this thread. Rather than stepping up to own them, you backtrack and move the goalposts. This is something you did in the past with me. I don't respect people who do that.

You may not care about my respect. That's certainly your prerogative, but as long as you don't have my respect, I'm going to treat everything you say with extreme skepticism and challenge your opinions often. If you don't like that, tough. Earn my respect, and I won't do that. I don't hold grudges, but I do have a very good memory.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JammerHammer21


Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 39766
Location: Anywhere
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lawyered
_________________

Bohlmann20 (On The 95 Cleveland Browns Staff) wrote:
Lombardi - Isn't that the guy the trophy is named after? If so, top 3 coach of all time.

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ragnarok


Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 904
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry...DH...for the sake of everyone else here...



Let it goooooooo
_________________
Come join BDL!

Seriously, we're awesome. We all may or may not have mild-at-best psychological issues, but we are damn fun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iamcanadian


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Wallaceburg, Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thomas5737 wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
stl4life07 wrote:
ramssuperbowl99 wrote:
stl4life07 wrote:
No I agree with you on everything you said but I was just pointing out that the past can't be erased in memory.
Maybe not for fans, but it is only one data point in a whole lot of data points that make up an evaluation of a draft. To this regime, the Johnny Manziel pick or Julio Jones trade is not any more relevant than Blaine Gabbert pick or the Jared Goff trade.

And the only relevance there is that it just provides a data point for what the market is. Beyond that, it has no basis in the Browns' decision making nor should it have any basis in our evaluation of their performance.

stl4life07 wrote:
The new regime obviously has a plan but my question still stands about the Browns approach at QB. 2 years in a row they coveted a guy and 2 years in a row the didn't get the guy and settled for another one. Now it can work at other positions but at QB it's vital that a team don't screw it up.
Welcome to the Nerd Football League.

If the Browns are operating like how I think they are, they done make it a binary "yes, we like him" or "no, we don't like him" decision. They put a price on what Mitch is worth. They put a price on what Goff was worth. They were outbid both times. Doesn't mean they didn't like them, they just didn't like them enough to justify the cost.

Side note: This is a market inefficiency. On Friday morning after the draft, Dan Patrick was talking about the Bears and his thoughts were basically, "well if you think he's the guy or your (TM) "franchise QB", who cares what you paid?" That's stupid. You should always care what you pay for a guy. If you are a GM who thinks Mitch Trubisky is such a good prospect that it doesn't matter what you pay to acquire him, you haven't evaluated the odds that he busts correctly and you're probably not good at your job.

stl4life07 wrote:
Why you think Jerry Jones said he regret not trading up to get Lynch after Day 1 of last year draft? He thought highly of Lynch and knew with Romo injury issues, he needed a long term answer and thought Lynch would be the answer but he failed to go get him. Now the Cowboys were fortunate that Prescott panned out when they settled for him later in the draft. So if Kessler or Kizer ends up working out then the QBs the Browns settled for after missing the QBs they coveted the past two drafts, then the Browns will come out like bandits with all these trades but we will just have to wait and see.
There is no version of "if, then" that is required to validate what the Browns are doing. We don't have access to a time machine, but we do have access to a whole lot of previous data which says they've come out way ahead on value.

They might bust, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the decision makers are doing a good job with the cards they are dealt.


I agree with what you are saying but again my question still remains, what are the Browns doing at QB? If I said that Niners are waiting to see what might happen with Cousins in 2018 and they are rebuilding the defense right now. If I said the Jets are seeing what they have in Heckenberg and Petty. Like we sort of have a clue what those teams are trying to do as far a the QB position goes. The only data, if you will, that I know about the Browns was last year they signed RG3 and wanted Goff, drafted Kessler, didn't trade McCown. This season they didn't resign McCown, traded for Osweiller with no plans to keep, cut RG3, tried hard to get Garoppolo but failed, wanted Trubisky, drafted Kizer. All this activity at the QB position just in two offseasons. I'm not even a Browns fan and find that frustrating. I know all about it being a Rams fan and going through the same thing in recent memory, at least the Rams as an organization came together on getting Goff and even though we know no more now than we did last season just based on poor coaching staff around him up help ease him into his rookie season, but at least there is no looming questions about what the Rams will do at QB. Now it's about getting the right coaching staff to help develop Goff and putting the right players around him to help him succeed and that's what the Rams did this offseason. The Browns are still trying to figure out the QB position and it's not like they don't have good weapons on offense. Last year they had Coleman, Barnidge, Crowell, Pryor, Johnson, and a solid oline. This year they lost Pryor but Britt is a nice pick up as far as talent goes, Njoku is talented even though I don't see why the cut Barnidge. So it's still about figuring the QB situation out for the Browns. That's all I'm trying to say.


I could not agree more. Until the Browns find a franchise QB, all the picks in the world will not make them a serious consistent contender.

The Browns have had 20 years already looking for a franchise QB with zero luck or basically a terrible owner and FO.

You need to be extremely lucky to find a franchise QB, Washington gave up 3 firsts to draft RG111, outbidding the Browns who had an excess of picks to offer. Picks never automatically = a franchise QB.

I believe the Browns drafted pretty well, but in Kizer and Kessler, they have squat and that isn't going to change. They are putting all their eggs in one basket, praying they can secure a franchise QB in next year's draft, but to guarantee that, they have to be drafting no higher than #2 overall. If they are drafting higher than #2, then the odds of securing a franchise QB in the draft become miserable, because in all likelihood, the teams drafting #1 and #2 will be QB desperate teams and no amount of picks will entice them to pass on a potential franchise QB and the Browns will be back again the following year, no better off and probably drafting even higher. This is how franchises can remain mediocre for anywhere between 20 to 50 years.

I am a Brown's fan and am praying I am dead wrong and that a franchise QB either develops or just falls into their lap, but I am not holding my breath.


You're a Browns fan?

Which owner are you talking about? Jimmy, Randy or Al?

It was widely reported that the Browns offered more for the #2 pick than the Redskins did. A higher 1st round pick and a second 1st round pick along with a 2nd and a future 1st. The Rams took #6, a 2nd, and 2 future 1sts. I believe Holmgren was right when he said no offer would have been good enough to have Fisher trade with the Browns instead of Shanahan. I was happy we didn't do the deal then and it appears that would have been a bad move.
Quote:


I believe the Redskins paid 3 first rounders to move up to draft RG111 and a 2nd and a 6th. As far as I remember, the Browns tried to lowball the Rams, I have never seen anywhere hat the Browns tried to top Washington's offer. It was only after the deal was done that Holmgren tried to save his job claiming he had offered more. The excuse that Fischer wouldn't trade with the Browns, is hogwash, just another Holmgren excuse for failing to make the trade.

Of course, as it turned out, we lucked out on that one, but there was no way we should not have been able to complete that trade. Our first was a higher one than Washington's.


The Browns didn't select Kizer hoping to get a QB in next years draft, they selected him hoping he was the real deal. I still like Kessler, he is a good QB he just has a subpar arm. If you build a great team you can win without a great QB. The Broncos did. The Chiefs are a top AFC team with a QB that doesn't throw downfield.

Quote:

Yeah, the Chiefs feel so good about Alex Smith, that they just drafted Another QB who they hope can lead them to a SB, because they strongly suspect, Smith will never get them there. Do you want to be a consistent SB contender or just another 1 and done team.



Quote:
Yeah, teams pray they will find another Tom Brady by drafting QB's later in the draft, but the odds are prohibitive. After the 10th pick, the odds are somewhere around 6% and after that the odds continue to decline at a rapid pace. We tried Weedon and Manziel late in round 1 = total failure and now your praying 2nd and 3rd round QB's will come through, well I hope your right, because otherwise, the way we are drafting, you could be waiting another 20 years before we strike it rich.

QB's drafted after the top 10 only have around a 6% chance of suceeding, no it is possible to find one after the top 10, but the odds are extremely low.


Kessler had more air yards per attempt than many QBs such as Carr, Wentz, Eli, Flacco, Stafford etc... There is a chance he is the guy. There is also a chance Kizer is. There is also a chance that Wentz, RGIII and whoever else you think they should have acquired aren't.



Quote:
I guess we will have to wait and see on Wentz, all I am saying is that the Browns are not trying to build their franchise in the traditional way, they are passing on potential franchise QB's when they could have gotten one at a top 5 pick, where the odds are at least decent in attempting to get a solid one. There is a true and tried method for building a winning franchise in the NFL, it has been followed by practically every team that has found success and again, all I am saying is that the Browns are not following that method.


Our last 2 owners have not done a thing for the Browns, Lerner was a disgrace as an owner and our current owner insisted we draft Manziel. We have become the laughing stock of pro football, which I find hard to take having been a Brown's fan since Jimmy Brown was a rookie??
_________________
and proud of it!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
DraftHobbyist wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
DraftHobbyist wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
Guys, we all get fired up at times, but once you've had your say, best to just agree to disagree and move on. By all means if you have another point to make, or new info to give, then bring it on. No one minds that. But if it's a rehash, well, we don't all have to agree.

Let's face it, I don't think you 2 are going to agree on Kupp.


That's not the main issue here. The main issue is that Jrry32 is saying that he won't respect me and will continue to talk down to me calling my opinions "trash", and lying to others about whether I watch film or not. He's literally going around telling people that I don't watch film. When confronted, he refuses to stop.

On Kupp, we don't even disagree very much. I said one minor point that he disagrees with that I blamed on scheme and not even Kupp, but he's guided so much by emotionalism that he doesn't even realize that. I mentioned that he sometimes runs into coverage, which he does, because Eastern Washington runs a bunch of timing slant routes. The Offense isn't advanced enough to break those off and find the open hole, which is perfectly reasonable. I simply think Kupp went a little too high.

It's amazing how Jrry32 basically makes one little comment I made into something it was never intended to be. And I'm sure he'll respond to this taking twisting something else, because that's what he does. It's not the disagreement that bothers me, it's the constant misrepresentation. Do people not deserve to be accurately represented?


DraftHobbyist wrote:
I think if you're looking at the positive you can find the highlight catches with some one-handers and the like, but if you look for the bad there is plenty out there. People love to tout his route-running, but I don't think it's that great at all. The Offense he played in was very basic, and so he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage. Fortunately for Kupp, he was playing against bad Defenses that rarely took advantage. even the FBS teams he played had pretty bad Defenses. He also takes all kinds of false steps and often takes forever to get to the open spot on a lot of those drag routes, and in college you might have that kind of time, but in the NFL you usually don't.


You didn't chalk it up to just the offense. You claimed he wasn't as good of a route runner as touted. You were wrong. Now, you're backtracking. Your point about him not sitting down in holes was wrong too. Now, you're trying to minimize what you said retroactively to avoid having to own it.(now, it's just "sometimes" and only on "timing slant routes") Hell, you even tried to criticize the gif I posted of him running a great route. You were wrong on that too.

By all means, continue to cry about what a meany I am. Nobody is going to feel sorry for you. I am the same meany to every poster here. Difference is that almost all of them earned my respect by putting their money where their mouth was when their opinions were challenged. You failed to do that.


1) I specifically mentioned that a lot of it had to do with Offensive scheme. I am continuing to claim that a lot of it had to do with the Offensive scheme. How is that backtracking in any way? Just as I predicted, you twisted things and misrepresented me yet again. Could you even give me one simple response where you aren't completely misrepresenting me? Why don't you try to actually explain why what I said is wrong instead of twisting what I said into something I didn't say and then arguing against the new twisted message. Where I come from, that's called a straw man argument. It's your favorite logical fallacy.


You criticized his route running (claiming that people tout it as great, but it's not great at all) immediately followed by your point about him not settling in zone coverage. Now, you're trying to backtrack by claiming you were only blaming the scheme and not criticizing him as a player. Bull.

I did explain why what you said was wrong. I explained it back when I criticized your argument that he doesn't settle in zone coverage and posted a gif showing him settling in a hole in a zone. Then, I responded to another post of yours telling you to go watch a game where Kupp made a number of catches by settling into holes in the zone when you claimed one gif wasn't enough.

You then made your last post where you walked your statement back and limited it to only a certain type of route. I held up my side of the discussion. That's why you're backtracking.

Quote:
2) As for the bolded part, again, you claim I'm wrong based on what? Our disagreement? You speak as if it's fact that you are right and I am wrong but nobody has been proven right or wrong on Kupp yet. But yes, I still believe that Kupp's route running has some improving to do. He does have some wasted motions and false steps in his game. He does need to adapt to a more advanced Offense in the NFL, which includes more advanced route-running. You can disagree with this, but to say you are right and I'm wrong is just arrogant.


I have no doubt you still think that. Your earlier criticisms show that you don't have enough knowledge of the technical nuances of route running to be trusted on that point.

Yes, I know I am a meany. Oh well. I'm not going to sugarcoat things.

Kupp having to adapt to a more advanced scheme isn't a legitimate criticism. Every college player has to do that. He already runs routes like a pro and displays a NFL-caliber understanding of the game.

You're going to get people rolling their eyes at you when you choose Kupp's route running as one of the parts of his game to criticize him on considering he's easily the best route runner in this draft class.

I hope you notice that I'm not giving you a hard time for your criticisms of his physical attributes. I don't agree with everything you said, but it's a defensible criticism. I am giving you a hard time for choosing route running because it's absolutely silly to criticize him on that ground. It would be like criticizing Patrick Mahomes's arm strength or Obi Melifonwu's physical talent.

Quote:
3) About sitting down in holes, again, because I've already told you previously, showing that he sometimes sits in holes does not show that he doesn't sometimes run into coverage. As I mentioned before, if you told me a LB misses tackles and I showed you a tackle he made, that does not make your claim wrong. And again, this all relates, that the scheme had something to do with him running into coverage at times because the Offense isn't advanced as a standard NFL Offense and did a lot of timing slant routes.


You presented it as a criticism of Kupp's route running, not a criticism of the scheme he played in. You're now backtracking because I can easily disprove your argument.

Quote:
4) You posted a GIF, I disagreed that the route was perfect, and imagine that, you continue to have your original stance that you are right. And guess what? I have my original stance that I am right. But you know what the difference is? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying I disagree with you. You are acting as if you are objectively correct.


I am objectively correct. You can continue to insist that this is opinion, but it's not. You don't know the technical ins and outs of route running well enough to recognize that. Kupp's route was a thing of beauty. The fact that you're trying to argue otherwise is the strongest evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. Here's the gif:


Here's a post of mine breaking down why that route was so special:
Quote:
If you look at the opposite side of the field, the route combinations are mirroring each other. Accordingly, you can see how the defense is trying to defend Kupp's route by looking at the other side of the field. It's 4th and 3. EWU's offense is pretty predictable. They love the quick outs and slants. The defense is attempting to take away both. They have two ILBs sitting inside to take away the quick slant or spot route. They have the two DBs squatting at about five yards to jam the WRs and then slide underneath them in their hip pocket to prevent the QB from throwing the quick out. The defensive play-call here is actually perfect to stop what EWU's trying to do. They should have had to throw over the top, but Cooper Kupp is Cooper Kupp.

What Kupp does here is beautiful. He recognizes pre-snap that they're squatting on the route and are going to try and jam him. Kupp also knows that they want to keep him from running the quick inside route on 4th and 3. The DB has inside help, so he shouldn't care about the fake, but Kupp knows that a reaction is a reaction (you don't think about it). Kupp comes off the ball and throws a quick stutter at about 3 yards. This is the route depth for a speed cut for a quick slant. The DB reacts to the stutter by stepping in the wrong direction (widening his base) and deadening his feet. This serves both to get him moving the wrong way and freeze him right before he's supposed to jam Kupp. Kupp leverages his vertical stem just a little to the outside to gain him more room to prevent any chance of the DB getting his hands on him. From there, Kupp executes a textbook speed cut on the 9 yard out. After he comes out of his break, he snaps his head and hips around to prepare to aggressively work back to his QB. The ball is a tad inaccurate, but Kupp is still able to make the catch look easy.

Sean McVay said that Kupp always has a pre-snap plan. This is an example of Kupp recognizing pre-snap that the defense is perfectly aligned to win against the play the offense is running. Kupp adjusted how he ran his route to still manage to his offense an easy win on 4th and 3 on a play that the defense won on the white board (if you were to draw the offensive and defensive schemes on the white board, the defense should have won this down). This is a great example of the sort of football IQ, savvy, and techical skill that Kupp offers our offense. He can flip a lost down into an easy win. This is what the Patriots' offense is built around. They have smart WRs who recognize how to attack the defense, which is why they always seem to be open.


Here are your criticisms of his route:
Quote:
As for the route running, in your 1st GIF, I don't like that he continues to gain depth, then he takes a false step forward and is forced to jump backwards to catch the ball. Continuing to gain depth on after the cut is how you get your QB picked off at the next level, or even in much of the FBS. If you look for it, you can find him making unnecessary movements regularly. These movements slow him down, and being a guy who already isn't that fast, that'll close separation even more quickly.


Kupp gained exactly the amount of depth that he was supposed to gain on that route. He began breaking down at 7 yards, his plant foot hit at 8 yards, and he came out of his break at 9 yards. He remained on a horizontal line after coming out of the break, got his eyes and hips around to the QB, and prepared to work aggressively back downhill. The route was textbook except for the stutter. And I explained why the stutter was necessary to the route. Here's a graphic from the internet showing how a speed cut is run since you seem to doubt my analysis:


Look at that. You come out of your break one yard after your plant foot hits. It's just like I've been saying this entire time.

Quote:
5) If you are the same meany to every poster here, you should consider that. I don't have to deal with your bullying. I'm going to continue to point it out until something is done about it. So by all means, be a jerk. You are admitting you are jerk, not only to me, but to everybody else. That is your problem and I think it says something about how happy in life you are. Don't try to bring everybody else down just because you're a depressed little baby.


I'm very happy with my life, but I appreciate your concern. Laughing

I challenge people's opinions. I am blunt. Most people can handle it.

Quote:
6) I never changed my argument to "sometimes". What kind of fool do you have to be to think that I was claiming that Kupp always runs into the Defense and never sits down in a hole? That's absolutely pathetic, and it's a kindergarten level of argumentation.


You began with:
Quote:
People love to tout his route-running, but I don't think it's that great at all. The Offense he played in was very basic, and so he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage. Fortunately for Kupp, he was playing against bad Defenses that rarely took advantage.


Then it became:
Quote:
As for the play you found of him getting to the hole of the Defense, sure, he will find the holes in the zones at times. At times, he'll run into the coverage. Posting a play where he does it the right way and then calling my point garbage is very disingenuous. It's like if someone said a player will drop the ball, and I say, "What a load of garbage," with a GIF of a catch.


Now, it's:
Quote:
On Kupp, we don't even disagree very much. I said one minor point that he disagrees with that I blamed on scheme and not even Kupp, but he's guided so much by emotionalism that he doesn't even realize that. I mentioned that he sometimes runs into coverage, which he does, because Eastern Washington runs a bunch of timing slant routes. The Offense isn't advanced enough to break those off and find the open hole, which is perfectly reasonable.


You're moving the goalposts every time. I responded to your first and second iterations of the quote by providing specific examples that disproved the point you were trying to advance. You've now taken another shot at moving the goalposts to avoid admitting you were wrong. This third shot at "clarifying" your point directly conflicts with your original point (that Kupp not sitting down in zones proves that his route running is not as great as people claim).

Here are my responses to your points:
Response to your first quote:
Quote:
He'd just run into coverage and didn't sit down in holes? What a load of garbage. Here's one of many plays that shows that assessment is completely inaccurate:

Clears the LB, gets to the soft spot between the safeties and LBs, slows down, and works towards the middle to give his QB an easier throw. That's exactly how a WR is taught to work zone coverage.


Response to your second quote:
Quote:
If I posted the Richmond game, you'd see five or six different catches from Kupp in the first half of that game where he settled into holes in the zone. He has no issues finding the holes in the zone.

What you don't seem to recognize is that college offenses are a lot more rigid than NFL offenses. The route on the play might lead Kupp into coverage. He still has to run it. When he has a route that allows him to sit down in holes in the zone, he does it quite well. Kupp understands his role in the offense. He's not going to freelance out there. It can screw up the route tree.

There's nothing disingenuous about calling your claim that "he wouldn't sit down in the holes, he'd just run into the coverage" against zone defense garbage. It was. Hell, it directly conflicts with what Sean McVay is saying. It directly conflicts with what I've seen on film.


Funny how your most recent attempt mirrors the way I explained it while replying to your second attempt. I explained that Kupp does a great job of sitting down in the zones when his route allows him to do it. However, due to the rigidity of the scheme, he is sometimes forced to run into coverage because the route demands it. That's not an issue linked to Kupp's route running prowess; rather, it's linked to the rigidity of the scheme.

Now, suddenly, you are saying the same thing. This is despite the fact that it conflicts with your original point (that Kupp runs himself into zone coverage rather than sitting down in zones because his route running isn't as great as we claim).

If you had simply owned it after my second post, I would have respected you for it. You could have simply said: "I think you're right about Kupp and the zone coverage. I saw him running into coverage, but now that I look back, it probably was the scheme and not Kupp's route running ability." Instead, you're trying to paint it as me misrepresenting your argument as you try to retroactively change what you were saying to reflect the points I made.

You may not like me. Oh well. But I will give you respect if you earn it. You are just doing everything possible not to earn it. You aren't owning being wrong. I don't care if I've changed your opinion about Kupp. An opinion is an opinion. However, you've made multiple incorrect claims in this thread. Rather than stepping up to own them, you backtrack and move the goalposts. This is something you did in the past with me. I don't respect people who do that.

You may not care about my respect. That's certainly your prerogative, but as long as you don't have my respect, I'm going to treat everything you say with extreme skepticism and challenge your opinions often. If you don't like that, tough. Earn my respect, and I won't do that. I don't hold grudges, but I do have a very good memory.


So on the GIF You posted, my criticism of it was that he continues to fade his route deeper as he runs laterally post-cut. Are you saying that's what he should be doing? Because if so, it's you who doesn't know what they are talking about. I stick to my original criticism on that GIF that he should not be fading his route deeper, because doing so will lead to INT's.

I also noticed that you haven't dealt with my level of competition argument, either. You had a real problem with me bringing that up, yet you used these bottom-tier FBS Defenses to try and show that there is no concern with level of competition.

And you still don't get it about your uncivility. It's not that my feelings are getting hurt because you are being a - or anything like that, it's that you are attacking my credibility based on misrepresentations of me. You tell people I don't watch film, which is a lie. You tell people I'm walking about this argument on Kupp, which is a lie. I don't need you to sugarcoat things, I need you to accurately represent me and stop lying about me. Everybody on this board deserves to be accurately represented and not lied about constantly. You call your lies and misrepresentations "extreme skepticism", but that's not what they are doing at all. To be extremely skeptical you have to at least accurately represent my argument first.

And do you listen to yourself when you talk? What you're saying is you would respect me if I had just admitted I was wrong and agreed with you. I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. Why the [inappropriate/removed] would I admit I was wrong when I don't think I'm wrong? And why do you assume you are correct like a child? I guess you aren't exactly the humble type, are you? And quit saying I'm moving the goalposts when I'm not. I still have the same stance I started with, and the same aim I started with. You don't even know what moving the goalposts means, so just stop.

I see that you are trying to use my style of argumentation against me, but you are just embarrassing yourself.

EDIT: And btw, you list four comments I made. None of the are contradictory to each other. I believe all of those statements. And what the [inappropriate/removed] do you mean that it's funny how the most recent explanation mirrors what you said? I'm not copying what you said at all, dude, I have my own opinions. Get over yourself. You know what the issue is here? You're convinced we're so far off and I've stated from the beginning that we have a minor disagreement that you are blowing out of proportion. Yeah, isn't it weird when two people who have a minor disagreement looking at the same play end up explaining it close to the same way?

So to be clear, so far this is what you have argued:
1) That I'm very wrong on Kupp, to the point of being not credible as a poster.
2) That my argument mirrors yours.
3) That you are a credible poster.
Hmmm...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ragnarok wrote:
jrry...DH...for the sake of everyone else here...



Let it goooooooo


I'm moving on. I've proven my case.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
Page 12 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group