Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Does *getting* smoked by tortoise JT Barrett show up in a urine test?

 

Token mistake. Don't weed him out. He'll light up the NFL. I'm bowled over by his potential.

 

His entire week has gone to pot. What a shame.

 

For the record, if it's weed, I give precisely less than one-quarter of a !@#$. Like mentioned earlier via Joe Thomas, it's an intelligence test. It's a set date on the calendar for months. Only issue I have is if he's juicing to bulk up, which is plausible if he's a tweener trying to prove he can get to a WLB playing weight.

And because I know Yolo will love it:

 

@MichSportsZone

ESPN is reporting that Jabrill Peppers tested positive for a diluted sample at the combine. RT to show JABRILL IS INNOCENT

https://twitter.com/MichSportsZone/status/856572631134478336

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

No position? Don't worry about it!!

No production? Don't worry about it!!

Failed drug test at the combine? Don't worry about it!!!

as many failed drug tests as career INTs?
Posted

as many failed drug tests as career INTs?

...and more than fumble recoveries and forced fumbles combined!! This all assumes that this is his first failed test. If you look at him though he's just like Mathieu and Buccannon (if you overlook tackles, turnovers, any other metric of production).
Posted

If you look at him though he's just like Mathieu and Buccannon (if you overlook tackles, turnovers, any other metric of production).

 

Funniest part of this - Deone wasn't even Deone in college and Deone also isn't very good as that "money backer" either.

Posted (edited)

 

He's destined for it, an expert in meh already.

 

Can't wait for next week when I find my 2018 class whipping boy :D

an "expert in meh." I'm taking that one to the O-zone forum :lol: Edited by YoloinOhio
Posted (edited)

No position? Don't worry about it!!

No production? Don't worry about it!!

Failed drug test at the combine? Don't worry about it!!!

No production? He had 13 tackles for a loss last season and 3 sacks. That's not fumbles or INTs, but it's definitely fairly solid production. Hooker had 5.5 tackles for loss plus 0.5 sacks last season and Jamal Adams had 7.5 TFLs and 1 sack.

Edited by dave mcbride
Posted

 

Don't worry, I'll win them over in 3 years time when I write a love letter about their slot WR Eddie McDoom.

Seriously? I googled Eddie McDoom. That is a real fella.

Posted

Where's all the wolverine cultists when you need them to provide explanations?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's worth repeating that the "no production" argument is pretty skewed.

Posted

No production? He had 13 tackles for a loss last season and 3 sacks. That's not fumbles or INTs, but it's definitely fairly solid production. Hooker had 5.5 tackles for loss plus 0.5 sacks last season and Jamal Adams had 7.5 TFLs and 1 sack.

 

Peppers played linebacker. That's not production that he'll be getting in the NFL. He'll need to force fumbles and make picks stick to be a game-changing safety.

Posted

No production? He had 13 tackles for a loss last season and 3 sacks. That's not fumbles or INTs, but it's definitely fairly solid production. Hooker had 5.5 tackles for loss plus 0.5 sacks last season and Jamal Adams had 7.5 TFLs and 1 sack.

...and Peppers played a good bit of LB. He has never made plays in space which he will be asked to do at the next level. Compare him to Mathieu or Buccannon (the 2 guys lazy analysts always compare him to) and they dwarf his production. He isn't a playmaker. You don't take guys in the secondary that don't make plays.
Posted

 

Peppers played linebacker. That's not production that he'll be getting in the NFL. He'll need to force fumbles and make picks stick to be a game-changing safety.

Regardless, by college football standards, 13 TFLs is *a lot*. Reuben Foster had 13 TFLs, for instance, and played in more games.

×
×
  • Create New...