Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN.

IMU wrote:

Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN.

Who were rated higher?

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

IMU wrote:

Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN.

Who were rated higher?

Watson, Mahomes, Kizer

https://www.si.com/2017-nfl-draft-position-rankings

Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch.

IMU wrote:

Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better.

Nas wrote:

IMU wrote:

Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better.

Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro.

FavreFan wrote:

Nas wrote:

IMU wrote:

Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better.

Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro.

Not this season. Last season there was no question. As has been mentioned MANY times his body was the reason he likely wasn't the first quarterback taken. Mahomes is the only no doubt for me and part of me questions if the talent around him is the reason he's been this great.

Nas wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Nas wrote:

IMU wrote:

Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better.

Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro.

Deshaun Watson's stats this year and last year are so similar it isn't even worth breaking down. Go look.

i found it a few stories under blake bortles throws 5 practice int's....

IMU wrote:

Nas wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Nas wrote:

IMU wrote:

Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better.

Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro.

Deshaun Watson's stats this year and last year are so similar it isn't even worth breaking down. Go look.

I'm saying in comparison to (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. He's played in 8 games and Mitch has played in 6 and their numbers are very similar. Unless (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky sucks over the next couple of weeks his 8 game numbers will be superior.

So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations.

IMU wrote:

So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations.

Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production.

Nas wrote:

IMU wrote:

So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations.

Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production.

But Watson's production shows nothing that you'd criticize him for. He has nothing besides Hopkins. His statistics are exemplary, all things considered.

IMU wrote:

Nas wrote:

IMU wrote:

So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations.

Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production.

But Watson's production shows nothing that you'd criticize him for. He has nothing besides Hopkins. His statistics are exemplary, all things considered.

(Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky and most quarterbacks would love to have a similar safety net. I never criticized his production. I just said that you can't say he's "definitely" better than (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky when (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky has similar or better stats this season.

Author:	Crystal Lake Hoffy [ Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:	ESPN
Second story on their website right now: "Bears QB Mitchell (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky fumbles 3 snaps in practice drill" You know what ESPN, go fuck yourself hard.

Author:	IMU [ Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN.

Author:	billypootons [ Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
i found it a few stories under blake bortles throws 5 practice int's....

Author:	Don Tiny [ Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Why in the name of God are you surfing ESPN to begin with? OP is the DB here.

Author:	Brick [ Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN. Who were rated higher?

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

ESPN https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=107693	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Godfella [ Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
If that was Cutler, it would have been the center's fault...

Author:	IMU [ Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Boilermaker Rick wrote: IMU wrote: Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN. Who were rated higher? Watson, Mahomes, Kizer

Author:	Brick [ Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: IMU wrote: Blame your GM for drafting the fourth rated QB in the draft with the 2nd overall pick. Not ESPN. Who were rated higher? Watson, Mahomes, Kizer That doesn't seem right.

Author:	IMU [ Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
https://www.si.com/2017-nfl-draft-position-rankings

Author:	good dolphin [ Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: https://www.si.com/2017-nfl-draft-position-rankings NFL rankings had him #1 with a combine grade similar to that of Mariotta

Author:	Brick [ Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: https://www.si.com/2017-nfl-draft-position-rankings At a minimum, they were WAY off on Kizer. That's just a weird list though. I did like Watson though, especially because the Bears had to give up so much to get (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky.

Author:	IMU [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch.

Author:	FavreFan [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Kizer blows. Not a NFL quality QB.

Author:	Jbi11s [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Kizer fooled me.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Brick [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
I was sure when I saw this thread show up that it was going to be Hoffy complaining they weren't talking about the Cubs in the past few weeks.

Author:	Nas [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better.

Author:	America [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Kizer

Author:	FavreFan [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better. Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro.

Author:	Nas [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
FavreFan wrote: Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better. Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro. Not this season. Last season there was no question. As has been mentioned MANY times his body was the reason he likely wasn't the first quarterback taken. Mahomes is the only no doubt for me and part of me questions if the talent around him is the reason he's been this great.

Author:	IMU [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better. Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro. Not this season. Last season there was no question. As has been mentioned MANY times his body was the reason he likely wasn't the first quarterback taken. Mahomes is the only no doubt for me and part of me questions if the talent around him is the reason he's been this great. Deshaun Watson's stats this year and last year are so similar it isn't even worth breaking down. Go look.

Author:	America [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Different eras.

Author:	Nas [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better. Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro. Not this season. Last season there was no question. As has been mentioned MANY times his body was the reason he likely wasn't the first quarterback taken. Mahomes is the only no doubt for me and part of me questions if the talent around him is the reason he's been this great. Deshaun Watson's stats this year and last year are so similar it isn't even worth breaking down. Go look. I'm saying in comparison to (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. He's played in 8 games and Mitch has played in 6 and their numbers are very similar. Unless (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky sucks over the next couple of weeks his 8 game numbers will be superior.

Author:	America [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
The era of stats being relevant for QB's is over.

Author:	Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
billypootons wrote: i found it a few stories under blake bortles throws 5 practice int's.... Those aren't interceptions, they are Bortle punts

Author:	IMU [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Well, Watson and Mahomes are definitely better. Kizer doesn't seem so, but who knows when he gets decent volume in a non-Browns system. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky might end up 4th. 3rd best is his ceiling. Very sad when you trade up 1 spot to #2 and take the first QB picked. Ouch. Mahomes is the only player who is "definitely" better. Watson's definitely been better so far as a pro. Not this season. Last season there was no question. As has been mentioned MANY times his body was the reason he likely wasn't the first quarterback taken. Mahomes is the only no doubt for me and part of me questions if the talent around him is the reason he's been this great. Deshaun Watson's stats this year and last year are so similar it isn't even worth breaking down. Go look. I'm saying in comparison to (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. He's played in 8 games and Mitch has played in 6 and their numbers are very similar. Unless (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky sucks over the next couple of weeks his 8 game numbers will be superior. So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations.

Author:	Nas [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations. Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production.

Author:	IMU [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Nas wrote: IMU wrote: So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations. Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production. But Watson's production shows nothing that you'd criticize him for. He has nothing besides Hopkins. His statistics are exemplary, all things considered.

Author:	Nas [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU wrote: Nas wrote: IMU wrote: So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations. Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production. But Watson's production shows nothing that you'd criticize him for. He has nothing besides Hopkins. His statistics are exemplary, all things considered. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky and most quarterbacks would love to have a similar safety net. I never criticized his production. I just said that you can't say he's "definitely" better than (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky when (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky has similar or better stats this season.

Author:	IMU [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
Nas wrote: IMU wrote: Nas wrote: IMU wrote: So you're judging talent based on volume? You're the NFL version of LTG. Congratulations. Production matters. Naturally gifted people don't always produce. Quarterbacks are judged by winning and statistical production. But Watson's production shows nothing that you'd criticize him for. He has nothing besides Hopkins. His statistics are exemplary, all things considered. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky and most quarterbacks would love to have a similar safety net. I never criticized his production. I just said that you can't say he's "definitely" better than (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky when (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky has similar or better stats this season. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky does not have Hopkins but he has more numerous outlets for short passes in a spread offense. He also has two reliable running backs that make sure defenses can't cheat as often as they do on Watson. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky having a 65% completion in this offense is sort of embarrassing. You want QB's to be judged by winning? Houston is 5-3 and in first place. Chicago is 3-3 and in last place. Watson for his career is 8-6. (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky is 7-11. QB win-loss is as bad as starting pitcher win-loss, but brought it up. It has been since Week 1 that you've allowed me to tutor you. We'll have to set something up again soon.

Author:	FavreFan [ Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: ESPN
IMU hasn't even mentioned the offensive lines yet, which has the biggest gap of any position group between Chicago and Houston. The tutor needs a tutor.