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

[tonyl711]

In that case, I would say you don't actually know what shortsighted means, lol.

you define it for me then, impart your superior knowledge upon us lesser souls, lol.

 

[Rams and Gators]

How quickly people have forgotten.

We drafted this #42 after a year in which our RDE had 10.5 sacks and 6 FFs and our LDE had 8.5 sacks and led the NFL in pressuring the QB. This #42 was a rotational DE in his first year. DO YOU REGRET THIS PICK?

I feel like this must be said. YOU ARE NOT DRAFTING FOR 2014! YOU ARE DRAFTING FOR THE NEXT 5-10 YEARS!!!!!

The VAST majority of rookies aren't ready to be top starters their rookie years. It's pretty rare. Most guys are inconsistent. When you truly see them start to become top tier players(if they're going to be that) are years 2 through 4 for most positions. This idea that we should be drafting to plug holes in 2014 is such a short-sighted plan. It is not strategic planning. IT IS INSTANT GRATIFICATION. And that's not what the draft is for. Because your rookies may not be ready to start or may not be ready to be impact players(quality starters) in 2014. And lets say, like Robert Quinn, they're ready to be a dominant player in 2016. WHO HERE KNOWS WHAT OUR NEEDS WILL BE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

So...if you don't expect players to be good in their rookie year (I expect an OL to be better than what we have now rookie year or not) at what point do you start filling holes in your roster? Or do you only start filling holes through free agency, where teams know you're desperate?

 

[Rams and Gators]

I see it as more than a minor improvement now that we have Greg Williams. This guy loves to blitz. When you have Quinn, Clowney, and Brockers on the line. All three who command double-teams, who do you block? Now throw a blitzer or 2 in there. Now who do you block?

You don't block anyone as your receivers are running wide open.

 

[jrry32]

so you are saying we should draft with "what if" in mind instead of filling holes we "know" are needed now? im not looking to 2016 if your willing to wait that long to win that you, me I want to improve what needs improvement now, looking at next year winning. I mean really what player on any team is guaranteed not to get hurt? so why not just take all WRs since they might get hurt?

Nope. I'm saying we should draft with a mindset of grabbing the best talent we can rather than looking to plug holes. You want to plug holes? Do it in Free Agency. You know exactly what those players are and if they are ready to start. The draft is for building for the future with the best talent you can grab.

And your assumptions that drafting for needs will lead to winning now is a poor one. Look at Tavon, Quinn and Chris Long. Three draft picks that have panned out for us(at least I think Tavon will) and none of them were difference making starters as rookies. Because that's rare.

So you're plugging holes in order to win now with guys that might not be ready to play...you don't see why that is poor reasoning?

And don't insult my intelligence with condescending questions.

 

[jrry32]

So...if you don't expect players to be good in their rookie year (I expect an OL to be better than what we have now rookie year or not) at what point do you start filling holes in your roster? Or do you only start filling holes through free agency, where teams know you're desperate?

I fill holes on my roster in Free Agency. In the draft, I am drafting for talent. If that talent happens to fill a hole, then that will be even better and make him more likely I'll draft him. But I'm not going to ignore the best talents to fill a need. That's how you draft poorly.

And you can never assume that a rookie is going to come in and be a quality starter immediately...well, in most cases, Jake Matthews is one of the few where I'd say you're welcome to assume that...but it's rare. Most rookies are inconsistent and have very up and down years.

 

[jjab360]

you define it for me then, impart your superior knowledge upon us lesser souls, lol.

It'll be hard, but since you asked so nicely I'll give it a shot. Shortsighted means to look at what you need for the immediate future and not what's best in the long term future. Drafting a lesser player because that player will get more PT next year is shortsighted. Drafting a superior player that isn't a need right now, but will be in 2-3 years is not shortsighted. See how that works?

 

[jrry32]

It'll be hard, but since you asked so nicely I'll give it a shot. Shortsighted means to look at what you need for the immediate future and not what's best in the long term future. Drafting a lesser player because that player will get more PT next year is shortsighted. Drafting a superior player that isn't a need right now, but will be in 2-3 years is not shortsighted. See how that works?

Without using an application to football, shortsighted means that you lack foresight. Basically, you're not looking ahead to/planning for the future. What you're doing is only considering what you need/want in the present.

 

[ChrisW]

You don't block anyone as your receivers are running wide open.

Not sure I'm following your logic here. Just because we take Clowney at 2 doesn't mean we won't get back end help later in the draft.

 

[jrry32]

Not sure I'm following your logic here. Just because we take Clowney at 2 doesn't mean we won't get back end help later in the draft.

And I don't happen to think that Tru Johnson and Janoris are completely incompetent hacks.

 

[jjab360]

Without using an application to football, shortsighted means that you lack foresight. Basically, you're not looking ahead to/planning for the future. What you're doing is only considering what you need/want in the present.

Psshh, I could have said the same thing had I taken a trip to Webster's dictionary first.

Btw, I wish that smiley didn't look so damn happy lol.

 

[-X-]

And I don't happen to think that Tru Johnson and Janoris are completely incompetent hacks.

So they're only partially incompetent hacks?

Real nice.

Some Rams fan you are.

 

[jjab360]

Not sure I'm following your logic here. Just because we take Clowney at 2 doesn't mean we won't get back end help later in the draft.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp.

 

[ChrisW]

And I don't happen to think that Tru Johnson and Janoris are completely incompetent hacks.

For sure. I think Tru played better than Janoris this year, but they both had a bad year in Walton's off coverage system. As for right now, I'm stoked to see what Williams brings with him, and he's a reason that I'm perfectly fine with Clowney at 2.

 

[ontilllit]

Plus drafting clowney would help are dbs we have now. less time to throw the ball less time they have to cover the wrs
.which lowers the rate of are dbs gettong beat.

 

[jrry32]

For sure. I think Tru played better than Janoris this year, but they both had a bad year in Walton's off coverage system. As for right now, I'm stoked to see what Williams brings with him, and he's a reason that I'm perfectly fine with Clowney at 2.

Agreed. Williams has eased a lot of my fears for next year.

 

[tonyl711]

It'll be hard, but since you asked so nicely I'll give it a shot. Shortsighted means to look at what you need for the immediate future and not what's best in the long term future. Drafting a lesser player because that player will get more PT next year is shortsighted. Drafting a superior player that isn't a need right now, but will be in 2-3 years is not shortsighted. See how that works?

no I don't, do you think Fisher wants a player at #2 he can use 2 or 3 years down the road, or one that will help the team now? and who is to say Clowney will be superior? wont know the answer to that till he actually plays in the NFL. we disagree, neither of us is going to change the others mind, and neither of us can state that we are right and that's that. like I said, the Rams wont be calling either of us asking for advice so really uor opinions mean nothing.

 

[jrry32]

no I don't, do you think Fisher wants a player at #2 he can use 2 or 3 years down the road, or one that will help the team now? and who is to say Clowney will be superior? wont know the answer to that till he actually plays in the NFL. we disagree, neither of us is going to change the others mind, and neither of us can state that we are right and that's that. like I said, the Rams wont be calling either of us asking for advice so really uor opinions mean nothing.

And yet here we are on a forum that was built for us to express these opinions. So you're welcome to believe that your opinion means nothing but I come here to express mine and will continue to.

 

[ontilllit]

Are new dc will get him on the feild de dt and mabey lb and yes hes fast enough to play lb

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Lol, comical.

 

[tonyl711]

And yet here we are on a forum that was built for us to express these opinions. So you're welcome to believe that your opinion means nothing but I come here to express mine and will continue to.

and I have no problem with that, that's what we are all here to do, but we can only butt heads on a post so much before it becomes redundant. all im saying is your not going to change my mind and im not going to change yours so why keep this up? for whats its worth I never said our opinions mean nothing on here, what I was saying is those opinions are not going to be discussed in the warroom on draft day so really they are nothing but our personal opinions.