I'm not lashing out or angry.
Call it what you want, but you abandoned any attempt at rational discourse and attacked everyone who you felt disagreed with your viewpoint with this:
Browns usually hire in their scouting department around this time. Since most of you have seen all the tape you need to, know JOK is generational and the best coverage LB since Lavonte David. All of you should apply. We'll never miss on a draft pick again.
We're all going to have a better time if you can try to discuss the actual topic and arguments at hand, instead of attacking people the way you did.
Annoyed? Sure. I'm reflecting on the last 9 pages and in the threads before the draft. An overwhelming amount of the comments are JOK is a can't miss prospect, one of the best ever college LBs, rated higher than any LB in the last X years, can do things other LBs can't, being compared to Troy Polamalu. Still hasn't played an NFL snap and no one knows how that will translate to the pro level.
Of course there are a lot of positive takes. Of course there are hyperboles. Of course there are uninformed takes. Everything you want is out there, whether it's in this thread, on Twitter, or on the stool next to you at the Winking Lizard. But, again, that's not the issue at hand. You responded directly to a specific post. You don't get to move the goalposts and say you're vindicated because some other posts were over the top. Moving the goalposts like this makes it hard to ever have a fruitful conversation.
I get it, we're excited about someone we drafted, I've been there many times. But this entire site has the tendency to overrate prospects, just a taddddd bit for the NFL (Goff), Cavs (Cedi) and Indians (Daniel Johnson)
Same point as above. This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand, where
@Jordan felt he might be a generational prospect, and I let you know why some people might feel that way--because he does things I can't remember another linebacker doing this generation.
Sorry that I don't track prospects like others on the board and can breakdown whose great in man/zone coverage, different schemes. Never been that guy and never will. Usually I leave that to the scouting department and rest of the front office. I get content from draft articles/podcasts.
So... if your argument is that you're coming from a position of ignorance, why are you so quick to dismiss and attack the opinions of others? I totally get being less knowledgeable. That's not a fault or a bad thing. Hell, if anyone is coming from a position of ignorance and openly admits it, that's
awesome. People who can admit their own faults and want to learn more, to engage and grow, are the best. That's kind of what we're all here for, right?
But I struggle to see why you have such a solid conviction against others when your bedrock is admittedly shaky. To tell people they're wrong, and JOK couldn't
possibly be a generational talent, you should have the ability to back that up besides lazy appeals to authority that can be refuted with concrete examples or by calling them out for the logical fallacies they are.
Can already picture it now if JOK is struggling.... "Joe Woods isn't using him correctly. We have to bring someone in that knows how to utilize his strengths". I hope I'm wrong about him and he proves he is the prospect you all think he is. But when you go against an RCF darling, it's never pretty.
It's entirely possible. Gregg Williams took a player like Jabrill Peppers, who excelled attacking horizontally around the line of scrimmage, and dropped him 20 yards behind the defense. I hope Woods uses JOK correctly, but it's entirely possible that he doesn't.
That last sentence is, again, incredibly shitty. Nobody has a problem with you "going against an RCF darling." When you make bad arguments, you should expect to get responses.