1. To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Once-in-a-lifetime prospect? Scouts break down Clowney

Discussion in 'RAMS - NFL TALK' started by Ramifications, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. mr.stlouis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Yes I do. For example....

    WINNING!!! Lol
     
    #201
  2. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,545
    Likes Received:
    8,100
    Are you all on the same menstrual cycle or something?

    I heard that happens when you spend a lot of time together in a group.

    #bitchassness [​IMG]
     
    #202
    Tron and rams24/7 like this.
  3. mr.stlouis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    We can most likely get Lewan at 13 and obviously Clowney at 2... (I'm still a "trade down and pick Watkins" first over Clowney, though.) Then we can all be friends again...

    I don't like it when you guys fight.. :(
     
    #203
  4. MerlinJones Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    580
    Sorry about the delay in responding, the real world calls.

    So are you saying that "proven starter" is the same as being elite?
    My point was that when you already have the (current) best player at a position who is still under 25 why wouldn't you address other areas instead of doubling up at the DE?
    I understand your point of view about Clowney, I just don't agree with it.

    I'm really not sure that I was trying to revise history in my previous response. I guess I'm just not on your level when it comes to interpreting things like that. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
     
    #204
  5. tonyl711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    185
    im sensitive, you have no clue what your talking about, where the freak did I say anyones opinion is wrong? and what crack did I say about TM? making stuff up don't help your case, I simply said im tired of rehashing the same thing over and over, don't like it? I don't care. get the freak off my back.
     
    #205
  6. I didn't say they would keep all three interior OL, I just said I doubt all three will be gone, but I can see how you would confuse these two, they sound so much alike... also complicated by the fact that you are spending most of your thought coming up with a maximally sarcastic rejoinder.

    Try just reading what I said in the thread next time, rather the what you thought I said that you could cherry pick to insult and ridicule. We get that you want all OL with the first three picks, it's not going to happen.

    When you draft guards or centers later in the draft, it enables you to spend $4 million on vet OL. That isn't a backbreaking contract. Also, it doesn't need to be for a six year deal, ONE OF THEM could be a helpful bridge to transition to a future younger OL, it may not all happen this year. We still have our first and second and third 2015 picks where we stand now, we may add extra picks if we trade down (with CLE and still get Clowney).

    Everybody wants the same thing, for the draft to strengthen us as much as possible, and not just for 2014. Maybe Robinson or Watkins does that, maybe Clowney does that, and we have to account for the extra pick in trade down permutations. But I don't agree that we must get three OL early which you said at other times.

    How many games do you think Long misses... 16? 12? 8? 4? 2?

    Long has had a lot of surgeries, but he was still playing a high level last year. If there was going to be some signs of a catastrophic cumulative toll, wouldn't we have seen more evidence of that last year.
     
    #206
  7. LosAngelesRams Janoris Ogletree

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    428
    LOL (y)
     
    #207
    mr.stlouis likes this.
  8. tonyl711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    185
    jerry im trying to let it go, but ramification wont let me, I said my peace, and agreed to disagree then told you I respect everyones opinions on here and he comes back at me telling me im wrong not to want to rehash things over and over, he is the one that needs to let it go.
     
    #208
  9. MerlinJones Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    580
    I totally agree that you don't draft a guard at 2 overall, but if a potential franchise left tackle is there at 2 I'd think you'd have to at least consider selecting him.

    I guess I just don't understand why investing high picks on the best O-linemen available is such a bad idea.
     
    #209
  10. Who was the player I didn't scout.

    MANDARICH.

    Try and keep up, I know it is difficult when you are apoplectic.

    It is very amusing when you can make fun of others, but when you are questioned, it is get the freak off my back time. Classy.

    Stop crapping in the thread, if you don't like it leave, instead of getting in pot shots first.
     
    #210
  11. MerlinJones Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    580
    I'll agree that you couldn't select a player with as much hype and perceived potential as Clowney later, but in spite of popular opinion to the contrary nobody knows how Clowney, or anyone else in the 2014 draft, is going to do in the NFL.

    Drafting a player later who ends up having a better career than Clowney is entirely possible.
     
    #211
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
    flv and LosAngelesRams like this.
  12. Maybe I'm guilty of the same thing, but I don't want to leave, you keep saying you want to but don't.

    Is it possible you have a compulsion to get in the last word?

    I am looking in the mirror right now and can acknowledge that maybe I do, can you do the same?

    My main interest is to have you stop disrupting the thread. I do think it is wrong to make the Mandarich-RELATED crack, THAN say leave me alone.

    How about this, after you inevitably get in the last word because it is a compulsion, say get off my freaking back again, I'll ignore it, and the thread can move on.
     
    #212
  13. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,545
    Likes Received:
    8,100
  14. LosAngelesRams Janoris Ogletree

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    428
    :eek:
    Oh hell no you Didn't, gurrrl did he just say that? Mmmhmmm.
     
    #214
  15. Thordaddy Binding you with ancient logic

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,362
    Likes Received:
    2,905
    I think he and I are dialoging just fine on that point and we are capable of explaining our views to each other , thanks
    for the effort.
     
    #215
  16. Who said anything about guarantee, that is a straw man argument.

    Wouldn't it be easier to stick to what we are actually saying?

    If you have two or three prospects, and one is a once a year LT, and one might be once a decade DE, and BOTH are subject to your same critique, neither is guaranteed, that might recommend the payer with the higher upside.

    In saying I don't think DET or IND are unhappy with their picks, how did you get from that to guarantee.

    I don't know what you are advocating, as you are mostly focused on undermining my position. What is your own?

    Are you advocating ripping up all scouting reports because sometimes they are wrong?

    That ones that said Calvin Johnson, Andrew Luck and Clowney should be ignored, because they were wrong about Mandarich?
     
    #216
  17. Thordaddy Binding you with ancient logic

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,362
    Likes Received:
    2,905
    Not me, tubal ligation
     
    #217
  18. I agree with that.

    Just for the record, I'd be very happy with Robinson, Watkins, Matthews or Clowney.

    I used to be against Clowney, and so I wanted to explore reasons he might make sense.

    IMO, it is more obvious why the LTs or WR would make sense, since we do have a good/great DL, it is less obvious why Clowney, DESPITE THAT, would make sense. In explaining why I think he could, doesn't mean I would hate the other picks, just talking about them isn't my purpose in this particular thread. Just like if we trade down to 1.6 or 1.8, it is a moot point, but if we can't trade down, they decide they have to have Clowney (I find this unlikely), trade to down to the 1,4 where we could theoretically still get Clowney, IMO it is worth having this discussion.

    Somebody else raised the issue, and I'd like to acknowledge them but don't want to hunt around for it, that this discussion should properly be split off into two separate discussions.

    1) Is Clowney a great prospect? Clearly if people don't think so, the fact that they won't be too keen on using the 1.2 (or 1.4) is a foregone conclusion, falls into the category of information we already possess, and frankly probably clutters the thread when it comes to the second discussion about HOW BEST TO USE THAT PICK. But it doesn't clutter the discussion about whether he is an elite prospect, IMO, it is very important to have that discussion. But sequence is important, and we should have that FIRST.

    2) For those that think Clowney is an elite prospect (however you define it, doesn't have to be once-in-a-decade), does that pick with the early first make more sense than the LT or WR candidates, on a BPA basis?
     
    #218
  19. jjab360 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1,784
    There was an obvious disconnect somewhere along the line, just doing my civic duty as a ROD poster to clear up any miscommunications.
     
    #219
  20. Thordaddy Binding you with ancient logic

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,362
    Likes Received:
    2,905
    You didn't
     
    #220