Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Undisclosed Location
    Posts
    8,659
    Quote Originally Posted by TBATB54 View Post
    How many people would break their TVs if they took Barkley at 20?
    Right after I took a dukey on it.
    "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians -- you are not like him."

    -Gandhi

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Undisclosed Location
    Posts
    8,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikefive View Post
    ...I wouldn't throw stuff at my TV.
    May I suggest taking a dukey on it?
    "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians -- you are not like him."

    -Gandhi

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by PSUmtj112 View Post
    No, but he was at USC's for Matt Barkley.
    If he was at their pro day it was for Woods and Holmes.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    6,404
    Quote Originally Posted by FearTheBeard View Post
    If he was at their pro day it was for Woods and Holmes.
    Or Barkley. Or TJ McDonald. He's a scout. He's not going to not look at all the talent.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    7,560
    I'd be pissed if they took Barkley because, you know, he sucks.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Just south of Methland
    Posts
    20,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Navin101 View Post
    I'd be pissed if they took Barkley because, you know, he sucks.
    Yeah, the whole doesn't-play-football-very-well angle kinda puts me off to him, too.
    That the world is explicable is miraculous, and so explanations need not be the undoing of miracles.

    We never learn anything, never in the world, and in spite of all the history books written. Thereís a regular warehouse of fine suggestions, and if weíre not better it isnít because there arenít plenty of marvelous and true ideas to draw on, but because our vanity weighs more than all of them put together.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    3,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Navin101 View Post
    I'd be pissed if they took Barkley because, you know, he sucks.
    Yep. He sucks.
    "I despise money" -NoSlowBuffalo-

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    6,356
    Who's older Campbell or Weeden?
    Basic, yes, but it was something we rarely saw under former Bears coordinator Ron Turner. Turner's idea of in-game adjustments involved his boxer shorts. -Rick Morrissey.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,275
    I don't particularly love Barkley. In fact, my best friend is a USC fan, so it is been my immense privileged to rag on Barkley for the last two years, particularly through the crappy season they just had.

    That said.... Does this situation feel at all like the Aaron Rodgers situation to anyone?

    Qb who was at one time ranked as the #1 prospect, tumbling down the draft board, likely to be taken after a fast rising Qb from a gimmicy college offense, with pro style size and good stats?

    Barkley is actually a little bigger than rodgers (6'3", 227 lbs vs 6'2", 225 lbs) and put up very similar numbers to Rodgers in college. Both threw for about 62% completion percentage on average, both threw for similar TD/INT ratios and yards per season.... The biggest difference seems to be that Barkley is a 4 year starter, which means that the biggest indicator of pro success (games started) favor Barkley over Rodgers.

    Again, I'm not advocating for barkley, but I couldn't be too pissed if we took him, either. He would fit the system we supposedly will want to run, he would be the first young Qb with pro Qb size we've had in forever, and he has the resume that says he has a high ceiling.

    In fact, the only reason I would dislike the pick is that I've been harassing my buddy for years about how many USC Qb's have been busts. I'd never hear the end of it, whether he was good or bad. But as a prospect, it would be hard to hate the pick.....
    Tall, Dorky, and Ham-handed

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Just south of Methland
    Posts
    20,711
    Quote Originally Posted by chewtoy View Post
    I don't particularly love Barkley. In fact, my best friend is a USC fan, so it is been my immense privileged to rag on Barkley for the last two years, particularly through the crappy season they just had.

    That said.... Does this situation feel at all like the Aaron Rodgers situation to anyone?
    Not to me, at least. Rodgers might be a hair smaller, but he's an immensely superior athlete to Barkley. Factor in his JuCo experience, and he was over the 30-start plateau, just like Barkley. Comparing just their PAC-10 years, Rodgers was considerably more accurate and efficient than Barkley, and goodness knows he was playing on a much less talented team. Barkley was a heralded high schooler, polished for a kid, who hit the campus of a (college) QB factory when no starter was set. And he's continued to look like a polished QB ever since. Which is the problem: he's as good as he's likely to be, and like many of his predecessors at USC, his skill set doesn't translate all that well to the NFL. Rodgers took a bumpier road, but he developed his game all throughout his JuCo and NCAA career. He wasn't all that polished as a high schooler, or even as a transfer, and that's a huge mark in his favor: he continued to grow (literally and as a QB), and hit the draft with momentum that Barkely just doesn't have.

    Anyone remember Chris Smith? Old UConn point guard who had a cup of coffee with the Bulls? He was Jim Calhoun's first big recruit in Storrs, and Calhoun credits him with launching that program. When he finished school and was a big name heading into the NBA draft, the great Marty Blake (the league's Director of Scouting) was asked about him. "Chris Smith? $*#%, he can't play." Blake was right. I've got the same feeling about Barkley.
    That the world is explicable is miraculous, and so explanations need not be the undoing of miracles.

    We never learn anything, never in the world, and in spite of all the history books written. Thereís a regular warehouse of fine suggestions, and if weíre not better it isnít because there arenít plenty of marvelous and true ideas to draw on, but because our vanity weighs more than all of them put together.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,275
    I haven't watched much of Barkley, and I watched next to none of Rodgers in college, so I'll take your word for it on most of this. The only thing I would question is the basis for this comment:
    Comparing just their PAC-10 years, Rodgers was considerably more accurate and efficient than Barkley
    As I see it, their stats are pretty similar.

    Rodgers: 63.8% completion, 3.3:1 TD/INT ratio, 150.3 rating
    Barkley: 64.1% completions, 2.4:1 TD/INT ratio, 148.7 rating

    Rodgers threw fewer INT's compared to his TD's, but everything else was nearly identical.
    Tall, Dorky, and Ham-handed

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Just south of Methland
    Posts
    20,711
    Matter of interpretation, I guess. I think those TD/INT ratios are significantly different, and if memory serves Rodgers threw for something like half a yard more per attempt than Barkley; considering to whom they were throwing, that jumps out at me, too.
    That the world is explicable is miraculous, and so explanations need not be the undoing of miracles.

    We never learn anything, never in the world, and in spite of all the history books written. Thereís a regular warehouse of fine suggestions, and if weíre not better it isnít because there arenít plenty of marvelous and true ideas to draw on, but because our vanity weighs more than all of them put together.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    7,560
    Karhu said it far more eloquently than I could.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    6,404
    Barkley doesn't have the arm to throw the deep out in CHI. And don't give me the "adequate arm strength" bit.

    He's Andy Dalton-ish. With blonde hair.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.