Curious. Did Snead go to West Virginia's Pro Day last year?
I don't know the answer to that- guessing it is no by your question. Again Memphis- lets see who we end up taking- betting they don't agree with you on Clowney- I could be wrong.
Curious. Did Snead go to West Virginia's Pro Day last year?
Yeah - I'd say you could punish the GSOT for a lot of that too being that a lot of our game was predicated on YAC.So you want to take a premier DE prospect and play him at DT at times? and Long at LB (not fast enough)?? yeah no thanks. If we didn't have the depth we have at DE- I would buy it- but we do. Our Dline is one of the best in the NFL- our DE's are surely among the top DE units in the NFL. no need to reduce snaps of productive players. Hayes and Sims give them the breather they need already.
now go to Oline and WR- surely we could use an elite level player there, and surely they will have a bigger impact.
and a 6'1 wr with 4.4 speed is a mismatch for most Cbs - who's average NFL height is 5'10. not to mention his great quickness as well.
you repeatedly punish him for catching the short passes. Last I checked he didn't design the plays at Clemson. they played off because trying to press him is suicide and they would get beat deep. He made plays all over- he isn't one dimensional- so I am not concerned about the 70% number you like to throw out. That isn't a knock- it is a result of that offense= one he THRIVED in. teams knew what was coming, and couldn't stop it! he has plenty size and plenty speed to be a top level NFL wr. Oh and great hands. oh and intelligence. Nothing about his game says he wont thrive at the next level- not to mention his insane drive and work ethic- two things Clowney is questioned about.
I think he did go to WV and that's why I wondered. Still - matters not. I like to think Snead has a lot to do. Schedules and plans allow for key individuals to go where needed most.I don't know the answer to that- guessing it is no by your question. Again Memphis- lets see who we end up taking- betting they don't agree with you on Clowney- I could be wrong.
I don't know the answer to that- guessing it is no by your question. Again Memphis- lets see who we end up taking- betting they don't agree with you on Clowney- I could be wrong.
You bet they don't agree with me with Clowney? Hopefully, you are reading my lines and not in between them again.
Clowney is a potential stud, but he's not greater than another top rated player AND a draft choice(s) haul.
Ah come on man. Let's not go there - eh? I think we all go there from time to time. I'm not being critical of you. We just get so wrapped up in our opinions. In the end - that's all we have and most of us morph them to fit our scenarios. Fun stuff to be able to do that without millions riding on it - eh?nah man- its tough to decipher when you constantly speak on both sides of your mouth.
Absolutely not! I know what all of you are thinking based on what you mash your keyboards with your fat fingers.Are you guys sure this isn't just a misunderstanding?
Here's what I understand Memphis to be saying. He thinks Clowney is a very good prospect but he doesn't want to draft him because he thinks that while Clowney is very good, he's not as good as who we'd draft instead (maybe Matthews or Robinson) plus the extra draft picks we'd get for trading down. Do you disagree with that tbux?
I think what he means is that everyone wants a #1 caliber WR but everyone also wants a #1 caliber O-line and D-line and RB and so on. He and I just think having a #1 caliber WR is not as high a priority as having a #1 caliber O-line when looking at the whole picture. I personally think that WR isn't even in second place priorities wise. DB is.
I think there will always be a fan base that hates drafting a lineman over a skill position. There is a fan base that will always want to draft the BPA. There is a fan base that will always want to draft the biggest perceived need. And then there are value guys, who want the best value, regardless of position.
What I am seeing on this board is a little bit of that, but there also seems to be a fracture of guys who think Sammy Watkins is a true #1, and guys who see him as just a good receiver prospect.
nah man- its tough to decipher when you constantly speak on both sides of your mouth.
Are you guys sure this isn't just a misunderstanding?
Here's what I understand Memphis to be saying. He thinks Clowney is a very good prospect but he doesn't want to draft him because he thinks that while Clowney is very good, he's not as good as who we'd draft instead (maybe Matthews or Robinson) plus the extra draft picks we'd get for trading down. Do you disagree with that tbux?
I think there will always be a fan base that hates drafting a lineman over a skill position. There is a fan base that will always want to draft the BPA. There is a fan base that will always want to draft the biggest perceived need. And then there are value guys, who want the best value, regardless of position.
What I am seeing on this board is a little bit of that, but there also seems to be a fracture of guys who think Sammy Watkins is a true #1, and guys who see him as just a good receiver prospect.
Good morning Memphis! :coffee:Memphis Ram probably being too harsh:
No I haven't spoken out of both sides of my mouth tbux. It's just a pattern with you to put words into other posters mouths. I've corrected you twice already in this thread for claiming things stated THAT WERE NEVER STATED.
Memphis Ram defining his position:
Basically, here's my thinking. If Clowney is on the board at #2 and the Rams cannot work a suitable deal to move down and consider him clearly the BPA, then I hope they take him. But, if they can get picks and another highly rated player such as Matthews, Robinson, or even Mack, then that is obviously the way to go. And, IMO, Watkins doesn't rank as highly as any of them.
Maybe it's just early in the morning, but that is, ironically, one of the most confusing things I've ever read.Good morning Memphis! :coffee:
That doesn't mean it was intentional does it Memphis? People can imply things without saying them and then excoriate another person for not getting your implication. Misunderstandings happen all the time and certain writing styles are sometimes problematical for some posters and easy for others to understand. I've frequently been unable to get my point across correctly. In fact, I just had a conversation with another poster who I never was able to express myself so as to get him to understand what I was trying to say. Is that his fault or mine? Myself, I think it's the responsibility of the writer to ensure his audience understands him. I always assume that the other guy isn't purposely trying to distort what I'm saying and I'm almost always correct in that assumption. Making the assumption that the other guy is purposely distorting what I said has never worked out well for me.
Then there are people like zn. Nuff said there.
Basically, here's my thinking. If Clowney is on the board at #2 and the Rams cannot work a suitable deal to move down and consider him clearly the BPA, then I hope they take him. But, if they can get picks and another highly rated player such as Matthews, Robinson, or even Mack, then that is obviously the way to go. And, IMO, Watkins doesn't rank as highly as any of them.
See what I mean. In this case I'm going to make an exception and blame it all on you cause I understood it perfectly.jjab360 offering himself as an example:
Maybe it's just early in the morning, but that is, ironically, one of the most confusing things I've ever read.![]()
A month ago we thought we might be able to sign Saffold. Now we have another hole to fill and we could use some extra picks to fill it. So it's not a contradiction, it's an adaptation. Assuming again?tbux forgetting that nothing remains static:
Well this is the first time you have said it clearly and distinctly- usually you make a ton of implications- some of which contradict other points you have made. A month ago you stated you wanted to stay at 2 and take Clowney. Now you want a trade down first and foremost- interesting.
and I couldnt disagree more that those three guys rank higher than Watkins. Not for our team anyways- only Robinson I think would be as good for our situation. Mack isnt a fit imho. So I wouldnt bold obviously- it is obvious to you- certainly not me- but I respect your opinions and always have. Agree to disagree.