Whoa, for someone who claims a love of philosophy you are very down on the people who have decided to devote their lives to it (I am certainly not one of them). "Professional" philosphers have indeed read widely around the subject, learning what other great thinkers have said/thought before them. Is this a bad thing?
You call them sheep but I think you are missing the point of what philosphy is at its heart - tools and techniques for analysing arguments. By reading the greats you can aquire new tools, new ways of thinking whether you agree with their conclusions or not.
You state that philosphy isn't a science and try to separate the two with words like "facts". You are correct phillosphy is not a science, however you have failed to understand that science is in fact a philosphy. Indeed back in the days of Isaac Newton et al scientists called themselves "natural philosphers".
Here is a 'argument' for you...
Premise: You have not read any real philosphy (by your own admission)
Conclusion: You have stated philosphers use too much Jargon and overcomplicate things (again you stated this above)
If the premise is true then you have no justification for your conclusion as by your own admission you have not read any philosphy in order to judge that too much Jargon is being used.