Hub's picks for Bears Top 5 Big Board

[Bearin' Down]

x 1 million.

You're too dumb for words. You seeing Tuitt getting "stonewalled" is him playing technique gap sound football.

As I said you have ZERO clear as to what you are evaluating. I've explained why and how repeatedly. You repeating the same incorrect evaluation points isn't a counter to them being proven wrong. it's just you being wrong...AGAIN.

The rest of what you posted is basically you, repeating your already ignorant evaluation points.





Piece of advice: you don't want to be called an idiot, cease being one.

LOL At Tuitt going in Round 3. Tell ya what, if Tuitt goes earlier than Round 3 you get banned from the board forever. Deal?

Maybe lighten up a bit. We aren't discussing the end of the world right now. We are talking about an NFL draft prospect. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not. It doesn't really matter, after all, it's only my opinion. My issue with your statement is that you've made this conclusion that I'm wrong and haven't backed it up, except by making other conclusions. At most, you've said one of my statements is wrong. You've also agreed on, at least, one of my statements. So, if you're in agreement with even one of my statements how could my original statement be laughably wrong? Maybe we are laughably wrong together? Regardless, there are still three more points you have to address to show me how I'm laughably wrong. Conclusions won't suffice. Put in the work and show me how I'm laughably wrong.

 

[FirstTimer]

Maybe I'm wrong.

There is no "maybe". You are.

My issue with your statement is that you've made this conclusion that I'm wrong and haven't backed it up

Wrong. I have. By explaining basic football to you. I've "put in the work.".


Here's some more advice: Buy this book.

You have no idea what you're looking at with film study. Your evaluations are awful. I've explained why.

 

[Bearin' Down]

There is no "maybe". You are.


Wrong. I have. By explaining basic football to you. I've "put in the work.".


Here's some more advice: Buy this book.

You have no idea what you're looking at with film study. Your evaluations are awful. I've explained why.

I've you've explained it to me, you wouldn't mind doing so again. Here are the five points, address them or stop replying to me in this thread:

1. Tuitt would get stonewalled consistently against college o-lineman

2. Every once in a while he'd bust through the line, or get a coverage sack

3. He's definitely not a DE. He's a project at DT, as that's not his natural position.

4. I don't like his burst, I don't think he's particularly strong, and I don't think he showed an ability to consistently win one on one matchups, let alone double teams.

5. Not that my opinion matters, but I graded him out as a 3-5th round guy. He has good athleticism for someone his size, but just hasn't shown why he should be a day 1, or even day 2, pick.

I've done some of the work for you, now please go through and explain exactly how I'm wrong providing support for your arguments. Conclusions are unacceptable and a waste of both our time. Thanks.

 

[FirstTimer]

I've you've explained it to me, you wouldn't mind doing so again.

How about you just go read?

1. Tuitt would get stonewalled consistently against college o-lineman

Faulty assumption. Explained.

2. Every once in a while he'd bust through the line, or get a coverage sack

Faulty assumption. Explained.

3. He's definitely not a DE. He's a project at DT, as that's not his natural position.

Faulty. Explained.

4. I don't like his burst, I don't think he's particularly strong, and I don't think he showed an ability to consistently win one on one matchups, let alone double teams.

Faulty assumption. Explained.

LOL the guy with bad burst at 6-5 305 ran a 4.8 40 yd dash.

BAD BURST!

5. Not that my opinion matters, but I graded him out as a 3-5th round guy. He has good athleticism for someone his size, but just hasn't shown why he should be a day 1, or even day 2, pick.

Special person/faulty. Explained.

I've already addressed everyone of these points.

You're illiterate.

 

[Bearin' Down]

How about you just go read?

I would if you actually provided insight. You don't. You conclude.

Faulty assumption. Explained.



Faulty assumption. Explained.


Faulty. Explained.



Faulty assumption. Explained.

LOL the guy with bad burst at 6-5 305 ran a 4.8 40 yd dash.

BAD BURST!


Special person/faulty. Explained.

I've already addressed everyone of these points.

You're illiterate.

All conclusions based on nothing. We are done with this discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[Bearin' Down]

I used to think that no one here actually watched football...but now I'm starting to realize that most people here DO actually watch football...they just have no understanding as to what is going on in front of their eyes.

I could only get through Play #5 of your breakdown. Its god awful.

The first play Tuitt obviously has to contain his side of the field. He cannot get walled off inside nor can he rush wide and open up a lane. So obviously he would be the last to react to the snap, because he cannot commit himself before he can read the play.

The third play ND was blitzing their OLB. Tuitt was supposed to take the RT inside, which he did. USC called the perfect play, a quick slant to a WR who entered the OLB's vacated area. The QB threw the ball in 2 seconds. I don't know what you expected Tuitt to do that play...get to the QB in 2 seconds on an inside rush?

The fifth play USC called a quick play action play. Tuitt drew both the RT and RG to him on the outside. Two ND players are on the USC QB, and the QB has to throw after 3 seconds. The early throw sails wide and short, the USC WR cannot catch the ball while rolling out of bounds, and the hurried pass is incomplete. Compare that reality to your "breakdown":

Pass; rushes to the outside; single blocked by right tackle; right guard shades over but no help necessary; generates no pressure; QB sits in pocket for 4 seconds before easily completing a pass downfield

So Tuitt draws a double team on a pass play, ND is on the QB within 3 seconds despite play action, and the hurried pass is incomplete. What actually are you watching???

Thank you for actually providing support for any point you are making. Maybe my analysis of the game is faulty. I understand you are jumping into this late, so the real question is do you actually disagree with my assessment that Tuitt's better suited as a 3-5 round prospect as opposed to 1-2 round prospect, for the reasons I stated earlier? As that is what this discussion was in reference to. If not, where do you see that I'm wrong and what am I missing?

 

[FirstTimer]

I used to think that no one here actually watched football...but now I'm starting to realize that most people here DO actually watch football...they just have no understanding as to what is going on in front of their eyes.

I could only get through Play #5 of your breakdown. Its god awful.

The first play Tuitt obviously has to contain his side of the field. He cannot get walled off inside nor can he rush wide and open up a lane. So obviously he would be the last to react to the snap, because he cannot commit himself before he can read the play.

The third play ND was blitzing their OLB. Tuitt was supposed to take the RT inside, which he did. USC called the perfect play, a quick slant to a WR who entered the OLB's vacated area. The QB threw the ball in 2 seconds. I don't know what you expected Tuitt to do that play...get to the QB in 2 seconds on an inside rush?

The fifth play USC called a quick play action play. Tuitt drew both the RT and RG to him on the outside. Two ND players are on the USC QB, and the QB has to throw after 3 seconds. The early throw sails wide and short, the USC WR cannot catch the ball while rolling out of bounds, and the hurried pass is incomplete. Compare that reality to your "breakdown":

Pass; rushes to the outside; single blocked by right tackle; right guard shades over but no help necessary; generates no pressure; QB sits in pocket for 4 seconds before easily completing a pass downfield

So Tuitt draws a double team on a pass play, ND is on the QB within 3 seconds despite play action, and the hurried pass is incomplete. What actually are you watching???

It's astounding really. BearinDown must work for PFF and not realize that within the game of football there are "schemes" and play designs. It's basic stuff really, especially with ND's defense under Bob Diaco, which was one of the most vanilla unimaginative 3-4's you'd ever see. If you were going to put on introductory tape of what a 3-4 looks like in it's most basic form you'd put on ND's tape under Diaco, especially 2012 and 2013. The basic problem is BD is stuck in some remedial universe where "THIS IS A DEFENSIVE END. HE RUSHES THE PASSER. ROAR. TRUCK STICK, SWIM MOVE. GO!" and he's trying to break down tape with no knowledge of (even the simplest version of the) scheme.

Frightening.

 

[FirstTimer]

I would if you actually provided insight.




All conclusions based on actual understanding of football.

Fixed this for you since I've repeatedly told you what my conclusions are based on.


LOL at me not providing insight when I mentioned specific game plans, schemes, and players on ND's roster and also specific ideas behind how Tuitt to you was 'getting stonewalled" but that wasn't the case.

What more insight do you want? Personal introductions to all these players and coaches?

 

[FirstTimer]

Maybe my analysis of the game is faulty.

Understatement of the month of April CCS Award goes to.............

 

[Bearin' Down]

Saying your analysis is "faulty" is like saying Trestman's decision to try a 47-yard FG on 2nd down was "questionable in retrospect". Your analysis wasn't just "faulty", it was factually incorrect. It would be like me doing a Mike Evans analysis, and on a play in which he drops a 5-yard hitch pass my analysis would be "Runs great route, catches short pass, breaks 3 tackles and turns it into a long-gainer".

Again, what were you actually watching? You obviously put in a lot of work to provide breakdowns of 70+ plays, but....

So, you have no interest in discussing the merits, just some crazy tangential point to back up your buddy's completely irrelevant point(s)? Gotcha.

 

[FirstTimer]

So, you have no interest in discussing the merits, just some crazy tangential point to back up your buddy's completely irrelevant point(s)? Gotcha.

I think the point is that your breakdown has no merits, so you're wanting to discuss something that doesn't exist.

 

[Bearin' Down]

I think the point is that your breakdown has no merits, so you're wanting to discuss something that doesn't exist.

My breakdown (pg 3) was done after my initial evaluation (pg 1). So, this would make zero sense. I think the point is you don't want to do the work to show me I'm wrong or backup your own opinions.

 

[bamainatlanta]

Tuitt is perfect a 3-4 DE. He will also be a player who can move around the line in a 4-3. This has been stated many times by many scouts.
He's a better version of Philip Daniels in a 4-3 as a DE.
I think of Tuitt as a poor man's Richard Seymour, which is still a compliment.
He is also a low 1st rounder or high 2nd rounder. I wouldn't be surprised if San Fran gets him at 30. Or Seattle at 32.

 

[FirstTimer]

My breakdown (pg 3) was done after my initial evaluation (pg 1). So, this would make zero sense. I think the point is you don't want to do the work to show me I'm wrong or backup your own opinions.

Except I already have. Repeatedly. Even going as far as to cite ND's specific defensive scheme/strategy, specific players, and specific anchor end ideas and play styles.

You can't read.

 

[FirstTimer]

I watched Tuitt at the combine, and he ran a 6.9 40 and couldn't bench press 125 lbs. I think he's a 3rd - 5th round prospect. Do you disagree with my merits? How? Why?

I disagree because his combine performance was an elaborate smokescreen by Emery. He paid Tuitt off. Emery will trade up and take him #1 overall.

 

[botfly10]

I think you see the most dramatic difference between fans and pros when trying to evaluate DT tape.

Fans seem to have insane expectations from a DT when it comes to tape.

They will watch 10 min and be like, wtf, that DT got blocked every play and didn't even do anything.

Look at it this way. A starting DT is going to average 50 - 60 snaps per game.

If that DT comes away from a stat like like this:

2 sacks, 2 pressures, 4 tackles, 2 TFL's...

...he would have had an INSANE game with a dominant performance. But add the plays up from that stat line. You are talking about 10 impact plays TOTAL out of 60. That is only 1 play out of every 6 where that DT shows up on the tape. And this is a dominant performance (for perspective, Geno Atkins has never had a single game stat line this well rounded).

All this to say, when people get to actually looking at tape of DT's they seem to lose all sense of proportion and expectations are ridiculous.

 

[Bearin' Down]

I'm not an "expert" on Tuitt. From what I've heard, I think there is a 0% chance that he lasts to the 5th round. Based on your film review, I would question anything you have to say on the subject of Tuitt, because you are biased almost to the point of blindness.

I DO NOT agree with your assessment of Tuitt being a 3-5 round prospect, because you obviously have no understanding of football. I would disagree with all of your football-related assessments just on principle.

I think something needs to be clarified here on my end, I'm not claiming to be an expert on Tuitt, I just offered my analysis from what I saw; right or wrong. Your buddy is the one who claims to be the Tuitt expert, as he's watched more film on Tuitt than 99.9% of people on this board, so he took offense to my statement. I have no bias against Tuitt. I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I have no feelings (bad or good) towards Notre Dame, or anything therein that could be construed as a bias. Right or wrong, I offered my opinion. You have the right to disagree with me, I just ask that when someone does they back it up, especially when they say everything I've said is "laughably wrong." I think I deserve to know why I'm "laughably wrong" on each of my points. That's the issue here.

Now, if you have nothing to offer as to my original point, as that is all this is about, and are just assuming I'm wrong based on my sentence fragments as I reviewed the film, why would post in this thread? Based on past history, I think the only logical conclusion is that you saw your buddy in an argument and decided to back him up. Which is fine, I suppose.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think something needs to be clarified here on my end, I'm not claiming to be an expert on Tuitt, I just offered my analysis from what I saw; right or wrong. Your buddy is the one who claims to be the Tuitt expert, as he's watched more film on Tuitt than 99.9% of people on this board, so he took offense to my statement. I have no bias against Tuitt. I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I have no feelings (bad or good) towards Notre Dame, or anything therein that could be construed as a bias. Right or wrong, I offered my opinion. You have the right to disagree with me, I just ask that when someone does they back it up, especially when they say everything I've said is "laughably wrong." I think I deserve to know why I'm "laughably wrong" on each of my points. That's the issue here.

Now, if you have nothing to offer as to my original point, as that is all this is about, and are just assuming I'm wrong based on my sentence fragments as I reviewed the film, why would post in this thread? Based on past history, I think the only logical conclusion is that you saw your buddy in an argument and decided to back him up. Which is fine, I suppose.

Which I explained.

 

[bamainatlanta]

I think some people just don't like Tuitt because he went to Notre dame. Same with nix. I get that some Notre dame players have been overhyped--Brady Quinn comes to mind--but Brian Kelly does a few things his predecessors don't --
he develops talent, even low rated talent like Tyler Eifert,
recruits big nastys from the South, which is a must to be competitive in college football
Transitions players to other positions. (Troy niklas, kavirae Russell)

and diaco was a very vanilla and predictable DC

 

[Bearin' Down]

Except I already have. Repeatedly. Even going as far as to cite ND's specific defensive scheme/strategy, specific players, and specific anchor end ideas and play styles.

You can't read.

The point is you haven't addressed my original five points. Defensive scheme/strategy, specific players, and specific anchor end ideas and play styles have nothing to do with whether he's got good burst. Burst isn't about a 40 yard dash. It's when you see the ball snapped how quick are you out of your stance and in the lineman's face. He's slow. And thanks for letting me know I can't read. I have no idea how I've been able to respond to you on this message board.