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

[ChrisW]

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.

Argumentative natures are why we dive into and take part in threads like this

 

[tonyl711]

Argumentative natures are why we dive into and take part in threads like this

true but I don't see the need to keep going over the same things over and over and over, I respect everyone on this sites opinions, might not agree with them, but respect them all the same.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

true but I don't see the need to keep going over the same things over and over and over, I respect everyone on this sites opinions, might not agree with them, but respect them all the same.

Because some people just need to get the last word to feel better about themselves, like they accomplished something.

 

[Thordaddy]

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.

I'm forgetting nothing, maybe you are forgetting the guy who drafted him got fired.If you are going to take your view then the owner should do the drafting,not a guy who won't be there in 5-10 years because he drafted FOR 5-10 years.

What MUST be said is "potential is the coach killer" what is more stability in coaching is vastly undervalued by draft "guhrus" who insist upon your view.
Instant gratification is not a luxury for coaches it's a life and death issue.

Your theory doesn't account for the reality of the environment.

 

[jjab360]

I'm forgetting nothing, maybe you are forgetting the guy who drafted him got fired.If you are going to take your view then the owner should do the drafting,not a guy who won't be there in 5-10 years because he drafted FOR 5-10 years.

What MUST be said is "potential is the coach killer" what is more stability in coaching is vastly undervalued by draft "guhrus" who insist upon your view.
Instant gratification is not a luxury for coaches it's a life and death issue.

Your theory doesn't account for the reality of the environment.

The coach who drafts scared deserves to be fired.

Instant gratification picks like Avery, J. Smith, and all those low ceiling later round picks like Gilyard, Salas, Murphy, D. Scott, B. Foster, H. Davis, etc. are what got Devaney and co. fired, not drafting Quinn.

 

[Rams and Gators]

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.

If Jerry is right and you can't assume that anyone you draft will be a quality day 1 starter, I'm sure he'd also argue that the longer you wait to take a player at a particular position the less chance that player has of being a quality day 1 starter.

 

[ChrisW]

If Jerry is right and you can't assume that anyone you draft will be a quality day 1 starter, I'm sure he'd also argue that the longer you wait to take a player at a particular position the less chance that player has of being a quality day 1 starter.

The second half of your statement is true. Historically, the later round players have a lesser chance of starting.

The first half of your statement is arguing semantics.

 

[Thordaddy]

The coach who drafts scared deserves to be fired..

stability in coaching is vastly undervalued by draft "guhrus" who insist upon your view.
.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[jjab360]

Thanks for proving my point

Honestly, I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that the long term future isn't important for coaches? And by long term I don't mean 5-10 years, I mean 2-4 years. If that was the case, why would any team ever draft a QB in the first round, seeing as rookie QBs are so rarely successful?

Anyway, I don't think whatever your point is even applies to us. Fisher has plenty of job stability as long as we don't take a big step backwards.

 

[jjab360]

2) I haven't read much or looked at players yet but there doesn't seem to be an elite OL prospect at #2. I don't hear of Matthews and Robinson comparing favourably to Fisher, Joeckel, Johnson, Cooper, and Warmack in 2013 or Kalil and DeCastro in 2012.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Ramifications]

If you take Clowney then you don't take an elite player at another position, you want to address the O line in the draft and FA then to some extent you have to neglect addressing one of the worst pass Ds ever. Or maybe it was just a Ridiculous statement and we should take a rotational DE at #2.

I can't speak for the other poster, but worst OL in the league seemed like hyperbole.

Did you see the SEA, IND and CHI games?

They looked pretty dominant.

How many OL do we know at this time won't be back?

* Why make it so black and white? Why does taking Clowney have to preclude drafting guards, safeties, CBs and LBs later?

Part of the problems with pass defense was scheme-related. SEA would look bad, too, if you made Sherman and the other CBs back off 10 yards from the WR every play. The defense already got better just with the addition of a competent DC, before making a single personnel move.

 

[Zaphod]

I personally think Long would do worse inside. But I suppose they could try it and see. He's more a speed guy IMO.
I think they need another "Suh" type player that can help Brockers dominate the middle. Then who do you double?

In an obvious passing situation, sure you could probably move Long inside to compliment Brockers.

But against our division? What do you do, move Long back to end and play Clowney as an OLB? Of course starting out at the least you'd probably trust Quinn against the run more so would they switch sides if they were both playing DE?

Even if he did have the ability play OLB in two TE run formations, and I am salivating at the possibilities for stunts, would you really trust a rookie to pull all of that off?

So basically I'm just agreeing with you, if they took Clowney it would be with an eye toward the future. And while you'd certainly get to see him the first year, it would probably be more in 3rd down situations.

 

[jjab360]

I can't speak for the other poster, but worst OL in the league seemed like hyperbole.

Did you see the SEA, IND and CHI games?

They looked pretty dominant.

How many OL do we know at this time won't be back?

Between having one of the worst OLs in the league and one of the worst pass Ds ever, I think the Rams are SOL no matter what direction they go, lol.

 

[Thordaddy]

Honestly, I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that the long term future isn't important for coaches? And by long term I don't mean 5-10 years, I mean 2-4 years. If that was the case, why would any team ever draft a QB in the first round, seeing as rookie QBs are so rarely successful?

Anyway, I don't think whatever your point is even applies to us. Fisher has plenty of job stability as long as we don't take a big step backwards.

I tried to make it as simple as I could man.
You defined the coaches draft ethos as "scared" and fired him in the same sentence,pretty shoot from the hip single factor undervaluing of stability in the position,what other single factor do you want to fire a coach over?

It's just not reality that you give a guy a contract that doesn't include the results of his actions.Coaches get 4 year contracts in the NFL and have to win by the third year, but you and jrry want him to plan for 5-10,good luck with that.

Clowney is so far off our list of needs and some of our needs are so compelling,I consider advocating that we draft him unrealistic and those who advocate it slaves to their dogma.

 

[Rams and Gators]

I can't speak for the other poster, but worst OL in the league seemed like hyperbole.

Did you see the SEA, IND and CHI games?

They looked pretty dominant.

How many OL do we know at this time won't be back?

* Why make it so black and white? Why does taking Clowney have to preclude drafting guards, safeties, CBs and LBs later?

I suppose that's true, Jake Long could be back game 1, we could re-sign Saffold, Jones may become a very good OG. Give me a 100% guarantee of those three happening and we can draft whoever you want (although please get some DB help).

As I've said already nothing stopping it at all, just that your odds of finding a good one decrease exponentially the longer you wait.

 

[ChrisW]

Couldn't you also use all of FA and the rest of the draft to acquire a rotational DE?

This thread more or less assumes that you wouldn't not be able to trade out of #2, or tading down a spot or two and still have clowney there.

 

[Ramifications]

I suppose my problem is I'm viewing Clowney as Clowney rather than some mythical being who is so much better than any OL or DB we can pick up and comes along once in a life time. If you view Clowney as that mythical creature then I could absolutely justify completely ignoring needs to take him.

Also the number of TDs we gave up is a testament to our front 7, providing an upgrade to the front 7 would only lead to a minor improvement in the overall D, compared to upgrading the DBs to the extent that we can occasionally cover someone.

Clowney is that much better than any DB, check any source, or preferably multiple sources of pre-draft overall rankings. Many have Clowney #1 overall. Not a centaur, or griffin or cyborg. Human, but #1 overall.

If a team's biggest need is a blocking full back, should they completely ignore that need at 1.2 just to make a luxury DE pick?

You didn't address scheme.

 

[Thordaddy]

This thread more or less assumes that you wouldn't not be able to trade out of #2, or tading down a spot or two and still have clowney there.

Actually you can't say that for anyone but yourself,I am assuming trading out of the spot is an option and I think some others are as well

 

[ChrisW]

Actually you can't say that for anyone but yourself,I am assuming trading out of the spot is an option and I think some others are as well

That makes no sense. If you are trading out, you aren't selecting him. Fail logic does not compute.