Recruiting Forum Football Talk XXX

[theutvolunteers]

In the hardest division in college football? At a historically mediocre program? I understand they are in Texas, but getting an upgrade is far from a sure thing.

Imagine all the legendary coaching careers that would have taken hits if they were fired after 3-5 years like it happens today.

I'm not a fan of today's coaching carrousel.

 

[Outofmyvolcanmind]

Auburn has to lose, don't they?

They play a small game against Bama tomorrow.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

When the game plan is to run right at a certain defender that defender is not the best defensive player in the country.

It shows he's a one trick pony. Speed rush and that's all.

NFL scouts will show the world who is the best, most complete DE...Barnett will be drafted before Garrett.

 

[WallyBalls]

I'm not a fan of today's coaching carrousel.

It's getting absolutely ridiculous. The compressed timelines are getting silly and counterproductive.

 

[Glitch]

NFL scouts will show the world who is the best, most complete DE...Barnett will be drafted before Garrett.

It's hilarious seeing that poster talk about Garrett as "transcendent. Lol. Clowney is a giant d-bag but he was an amazing college DE. He was far more "transcendent" than Garrett and he has only had a good career so far in the NFL. Nothing HOF worthy so far IMO. Garrett will be similar.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Ask Florida which one gave them more fits. We actually scored on Bama with our backup linemen in. Giving them no respect after Florida beat them with backups.

I don't think it was our OL that gave them fits lol LSU actually had a lot more success tuning the ball on them than we did (4.9 YPC vs 3.9 YPC).

Orange colored shades are stylish and all but come on lol

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

It's hilarious seeing that poster talk about Garrett as "transcendent. Lol. Clowney is a giant d-bag but he was an amazing college DE. He was far more "transcendent" than Garrett and he has only had a good career so far in the NFL. Nothing HOF worthy so far IMO. Garrett will be similar.

I don't think Garrett is as good as Clowney was in college. Garrett is a one-trick pony, and that disappears against good competition. The media needs to erase from their minds that he was the #1 recruit coming out of HS, and see that he's a pass-rushing specialist at the next level, and that's it.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

It's hilarious seeing that poster talk about Garrett as "transcendent. Lol. Clowney is a giant d-bag but he was an amazing college DE. He was far more "transcendent" than Garrett and he has only had a good career so far in the NFL. Nothing HOF worthy so far IMO. Garrett will be similar.

To be fair though Clowney hasn't been healthy.


I agree that Garret is overrated, but you're blind if you can't see why teams would take him over Barnett. From a measureable standpoint, he's exactly what every NFL GM would create in a laboratory if they were able to. Plus pass rushers are considered super valuable nowadays.


That doesn't make him better at football than Barnett, but his potential upside and value is higher because of it.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I don't think Garrett is as good as Clowney was in college. Garrett is a one-trick pony, and that disappears against good competition. The media needs to erase from their minds that he was the #1 recruit coming out of HS, and see that he's a pass-rushing specialist at the next level, and that's it.

Pass rush specialists are super valuable nowadays though.


That's why a guy like Von Miller can go second overall despite being under 6'3 250 and being a liability against the run in college.

 

[Glitch]

To be fair though Clowney hasn't been healthy.


I agree that Garret is overrated, but you're blind if you can't see why teams would take him over Barnett. From a measureable standpoint, he's exactly what every NFL GM would create in a laboratory if they were able to. Plus pass rushers are considered super valuable nowadays.


That doesn't make him better at football than Barnett, but his potential upside and value is higher because of it.

Clowney will have a very good career when it is all said and done. Maybe even HOF. He is an incredible athlete.

Garrett's measurables are great but if you dig down into his production you see he dominates lesser competition and is mediocre against higher level competition. Who is he gonna see week in and week out in the NFL? The best.

Barnett is a little tougher to predict but he plays his best games against the tougher competition. He is relentless and plays the run almost as well as he rushes the passer. Anyone thinking Garrett is the better college player is blind.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

To be fair though Clowney hasn't been healthy.


I agree that Garret is overrated, but you're blind if you can't see why teams would take him over Barnett. From a measureable standpoint, he's exactly what every NFL GM would create in a laboratory if they were able to. Plus pass rushers are considered super valuable nowadays.


That doesn't make him better at football than Barnett, but his potential upside and value is higher because of it.

You'd think after a while that GMs would throw dependence on measurables out the window. They should draft football players, not uniform models. Garret hasn't done anything at all against good competition. He is not going to suddenly play better just because he looks good in his uniform.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Clowney will have a very good career when it is all said and done. Maybe even HOF. He is an incredible athlete.

Garrett's measurables are great but if you dig down into his production you see he dominates lesser competition and is mediocre against higher level competition. Who is he gonna see week in and week out in the NFL? The best.

Barnett is a little tougher to predict but he plays his best games against the tougher competition. He is relentless and plays the run almost as well as he rushes the passer. Anyone thinking Garrett is the better college player is blind.

I agree Barnett is the better college player.


But it's pretty obvious Garret has the higher upside long term.

 

[MockingVol]

I agree Barnett is the better college player.


But it's pretty obvious Garret has the higher upside long term.

I don't know. Garret's disappearing acts versus good competition has been too consistent to be nothing. It could be pretty damning for him at the next level.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

You'd think after a while that GMs would throw dependence on measurables out the window. They should draft football players, not uniform models. Garret hasn't done anything at all against good competition. He is not going to suddenly play better just because he looks good in his uniform.

Thats not always the case though. There are plenty of guys who tear it up at the college level but just don't have the size or speed to compete in the NFL.


Likewise sometimes you see guys like Chris Johnson who have a measureable or two that are off the charts and can become a gamebreaker.


Sometimes you have guys who tear up the combine and end up as busts because teams drafted off potential instead of talent.

And sometimes guys who lack the neasureables fall in the draft and have great careers because they're very good at the game (like Anquan Boldin).

There are examples of each case. Personally I think teams will draft Garret higher off upside (especially if there are some 3-4 defensive teams picking in the top 5 this year) but it will ultimately just come down to NFL GMs, scouts, and coaches deciding whether they think they can maximize his potential as a pass rusher or not.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I don't know. Garret's disappearing acts versus good competition has been too consistent to be nothing. It could be pretty damning for him at the next level.

I think he'll get a pass for this season since he's been struggling with injuries. And scouts and analysts will probably just say he was double teamed or triple teamed and held as an excuse for him as well.

Not saying that's right or that you can't make the same case for Barnett, but it will happen nonetheless.

 

[theutvolunteers]

Garrett will go higher than Barnett IMO. NFL teams get caught up in hype too.

 

[mrorange211]

Easily.

Myles Garrett is the next Bruce Smith. He'll have a Hall of Fame NFL career.

Derek Barnett is the next Michael Bennett or Charles Johnson. He'll be a good 10 year starter. Might even make a pro-bowl or two.

But he's not a transcendent player like Garrett.

Jesus. Can you please GTFO like you said you would after the SC game? I'm so tired of reading your stupid $hit.

 

[MockingVol]

I think he'll get a pass for this season since he's been struggling with injuries. And scouts and analysts will probably just say he was double teamed or triple teamed and held as an excuse for him as well.

Not saying that's right or that you can't make the same case for Barnett, but it will happen nonetheless.

The disappearing act has existed since day 1 for Garret though. If I remember correctly, only like 6 of his sacks over his career came in SEC play.

When Garret goes up against a good OT/ line, he gets down on himself or acts pissy. When Barnet goes up against a good OT/ line, he plays at an even higher level so that he can dominate them.

 

[UTMark]

Jesus. Can you please GTFO like you said you would after the SC game? I'm so tired of reading your stupid $hit.

1. Put him on ignore. Then you don't see his posts.

2. If you ignore #1, please do not hit the quote button so that those of us that did put him on ignore do not have to see his posts.

 

[AV_12]

The disappearing act has existed since day 1 for Garret though. If I remember correctly, only like 6 of his sacks over his career came in SEC play.

When Garret goes up against a good OT/ line, he gets down on himself or acts pissy. When Barnet goes up against a good OT/ line, he plays at an even higher level so that he can dominate them.

This.

 

[Catbone]

Auburn has to lose, don't they?

Yes

 

[WallyBalls]

The disappearing act has existed since day 1 for Garret though. If I remember correctly, only like 6 of his sacks over his career came in SEC play.

When Garret goes up against a good OT/ line, he gets down on himself or acts pissy. When Barnet goes up against a good OT/ line, he plays at an even higher level so that he can dominate them.

And last night was the worst example of it so far. He looked downright bad at times.

 

[snowvols]

Of course, it would be the Browns that get stuck with Garrett.

 

[Catbone]

If we miss out on Hooker, Thompson, Urich, and the other Thompson at QB do we give CJ Lewis another call?

 

[McGeesPub]

In the hardest division in college football? At a historically mediocre program? I understand they are in Texas, but getting an upgrade is far from a sure thing.

Imagine all the legendary coaching careers that would have taken hits if they were fired after 3-5 years like it happens today.

I think you can make decisions on most coaches within 3-5 years. A coach being at a school five years means it is totally his program, and has even had a recruiting class matriculate. Totally fair to make a judgment based upon that body of work in most cases. On the other hand, sometimes a coach is so bad (DEREK DOOLEY) that giving him more than three years is only injuring the program further.

Every situation is different though. Sometimes it's smart to give a coach more or less time than that window. Of course, that doesn't take into account a "for cause" issue coming up, like NCAA violations.