Another rumor: 49ers May Go Watson 2nd Overall.

[top dawg]

Oh, and let's not forget what's likely coming.

http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/124576/sec-could-topple-record-for-players-picked-atop-2017-nfl-draft

[Toomers]

48 minutes ago, bandu said:

obviously reading comperhension is NOT your forte...week 1 active roster had nothing absolutely to do whatsoever with what i posted...

   Considering the topic was "stud" players, you adding PS scrubs was moronic, at best. And yet, you still haven't provided one shred of proof to back up anything...again. Just go back to the kids table and leave the turkey carving to the adults. As shown in Top Dawgs post above, there is plenty more to back up my statement. I'll let what we have posted speak for itself. The thread has been hi-jacked enough. Now you're just looking for attention. 

[bandu]

2 hours ago, top dawg said:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2016-04-28/nfl-draft-colleges-conferences-most-represented-last-10-years

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cleveland.com/articles/19230418/which_colleges_and_conferences.amp

http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/91053/breaking-down-nfl-rosters-by-conferences-and-colleges

http://247sports.com/Article/Since-2005-SEC-dominates-conferences-in-producing-NFL-talent--29686479

I could go on, but really no need. Keep arguing an unsubstantiated point.

 

yes the SEC as a conference has more players in the NFL than ANY other collegiate conference.and i never said otherwise.so why are you WASTING my time with this?

i listed INDIVIDUAL schools.to be more specific the number of players that were on an NFL roster at some point during the entire 2016 season including IR and practice squad,and even players that were cut let me spell it out for you EVERYONE

where you're making a mistake is that those are ACTIVE rosters

type in this keyword...TROJAN PLAYERS NFL and it will take you to their offical atheletic website. it will clearly state that there were 51 ex-trojans on an NFL roster at the beginning of the 2016 NFL season.however,it only lists the 36 players on an active roster as your links do.your going to have to do alot of homework to include EVERYONE.

do that and so forth and you will be enlightened,think about it for a second...your lists doesn't even show a single player that was cut...i give you more credit than this

[bandu]

1 hour ago, Toomers said:

   Considering the topic was "stud" players, you adding PS scrubs was moronic, at best. And yet, you still haven't provided one shred of proof to back up anything...again. Just go back to the kids table and leave the turkey carving to the adults. As shown in Top Dawgs post above, there is plenty more to back up my statement. I'll let what we have posted speak for itself. The thread has been hi-jacked enough. Now you're just looking for attention. 

on your level what a joke.

[Saca312]

How tf did this thread turn from a rumor report to arguing which college conference is better?

 

[caatfan]

This mock in the Observer today has Watson dropping to 25. Now this guy is speculating #2? There seems to be a consensus that nobody knows WTF they're talking about concerning QBs in this draft. 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article145731769.html

[bandu]

11 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

How tf did this thread turn from a rumor report to arguing which college conference is better?

 

i've tried to explain over and over to both of them to include everyone even those that were PS,IR.cut,simply just freaking include everyone as i did.but they both continue to post links with an active roster which had nothing to do with my initial post?

i'm truly sorry...and i will ignore both of them because they are apperantly doing this on purporse or can not comperhend what they read

[top dawg]

39 minutes ago, bandu said:

i've tried to explain over and over to both of them to include everyone even those that were PS,IR.cut,simply just freaking include everyone as i did.but they both continue to post links with an active roster which had nothing to do with my initial post?

i'm truly sorry...and i will ignore both of them because they are apperantly doing this on purporse or can not comperhend what they read

Please do, if that's how you debate the FACT that the SEC players are drafted more than any other conference.  It's as simple as that. No need to cloud that fact.  

And you're talking about reading.

[bandu]

13 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Please do, if that's how you debate the FACT that the SEC players are drafted more than any other conference.  It's as simple as that. No need to cloud that fact.  

And you're talking about reading.

talk about reading...literally lmfao at this point

my initial post clearly states INDIVIDUAL colleges..so why do you find it necessary to keep reminding me that the SEC conference produces more NFL players than any other collegiate conference is beyond me?

and also in my initial post it clearly states an NFL roster and not one word is mentioned nowhere about an active roster.however,you continue to show me links for an 2016 ACTIVE roster for some reason?

whats your problem?

[top dawg]

Just now, bandu said:

talk about reading...literally lmfao at this point

my initial post clearly states INDIVIDUAL colleges..so why do you find it necessary to keep reminding me that the SEC conference produces more NFL players than any other collegiate conference is beyond me?

and also in my initial post it clearly states an NFL roster and not one word is mentioned nowhere about an active roster.however,you continue to show me links for an 2016 ACTIVE roster for some reason?

whats your problem?

My links support my original post in this thread, and are not really about active rosters or 2016.

You obviously wanted to change the subject entirely. My bad! 

[Saca312]

Well, Rock Hill in South Carolina produces the most NFL players out of any town.

Thought that was cool.

[LinvilleGorge]

Hey, a thread about a non-SEC QB and here we have people bickering and arguing about the SEC... why?

[bandu]

1 minute ago, top dawg said:

My links support my original post in this thread, and are not really about active rosters or 2016.

You obviously wanted to change the subject entirely. My bad! 

i'm not changing the subject.i initially posted that here is a list of the top 3 individual colleges that produced the most players on an 2016 NFL roster ...nothing more nothing less

where it's throwing you a curve is the fact that alot of those players were cut,and then also factor in the PS and IR.but still they were on an NFL 2016 roster 

my friend have a nice day and go Panthers...

 

[Toomers]

3 minutes ago, bandu said:

talk about reading...literally lmfao at this point

my initial post clearly states INDIVIDUAL colleges..so why do you find it necessary to keep reminding me that the SEC conference produces more NFL players than any other collegiate conference is beyond me?

and also in my initial post it clearly states an NFL roster and not one word is mentioned nowhere about an active roster.however,you continue to show me links for an 2016 ACTIVE roster for some reason?

whats your problem?

The problem is you jumped into a debate about conferences, and listed a few random individual teams. What did that have to do with the debate? And HOFers. Again, what relevance did that have with anything recent. And the discussion was about "stud" players and how the SEC failed to produce as many as others. Not total number, active or not. Because as you stated yourself, the SEC is far ahead on that by any metric. All I asked was where your info came from and you repeatedly answered with insults instead of any sort of facts or links. Now you say..."I googled Trojans in NFL" . Why would it matter what one school had? Why not PAC 12? What was your purpose with your original post? None of this makes any sense to the topic that was being discussed and never did. I defy you to find one person on here that finds anything you stated as relevant to what was being discussed. Anyone. Even the guy who took the shot at the SEC gave up on it. But we are the ones who don't understand? Good luck with that.