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

[mr.stlouis]

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

Yes I do. For example....

WINNING!!! Lol

 

[-X-]

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

 

[mr.stlouis]

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..

 

[MerlinJones]

So you can only play one DE at a time? In 2010, the Rams had a DE that was a former top 2 pick that was the second best DE in the NFL at pressuring the QB. They had another DE that recorded 10.5 sacks. And yet they still had the audacity to draft a rotational DE.

You can't move the goal-posts(or revise history as you just did). They drafted a rotational DE with a 1st round pick when it appeared they had two set and proven starters at DE coming off strong years.

Well, I'll keep singing. And while you argue against those songs, keep in mind what parts of your argument would also apply to the Robert Quinn selection.

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.

 

[tonyl711]

Like I said, I responded to several of earlier posts before reading every single one of them, you have a shitload of posts in here, many saying why do we post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... we get it, you aren't having fun.

You aren't saying the same thing, you made a crack about Tony Mandarich, but I have to let it go because you are so sensitive about others being critical of your posts, though not above laughing at others.

This isn't some kind of life or death military tribunal, relax.

im sensitive, you have no clue what your talking about, where the fuck 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 fuck off my back.

 

[Ramifications]

Fisher & Boudreau are not dummies either & know better to throw away 8.5 million in priceless rare cap $$$ funds in two often injured, in decline @ age 33 yrs where both have had four surgeries & have been IR'd three times the last two seasons. yes I am sure that their preferences for well seasoned vets will kick the crap of of their wisdom side braincells making Fisher & Boudreau fully believe that Dahl & Wells are dependable wonderful starting Ol'ers here to help the Rams knock the weak Seahawks down from the top of the NFL.

Agreeing with you on your comment "'key concept is the draft isn't for one season'" I sure wish I had your ability to think so soundly that Jake Long who at this time has not even began his first rehabbing event... an event that he been through with his body numerous times as you & I debated previously that his reconstructed right knee as you prescribed will be fully healed and back to his previous playing level @ 2014 @ season beginnings...damn your good! I know from my lifes experiences that things just don't normally go as planned For close to 60 yrs now I find that this happen over & over & over again. Any move on insurancing the blind side OLT will never be a short term move.

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.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Yes I do. For example....

WINNING!!! Lol

LOL

 

[tonyl711]

Tony, it's just a debate, man. Let it go. I think we're all good with agreeing to disagree. Some of us just wanted to continue the discussion. If you don't want to, you don't have to. If you do want to, no reason to get so heated. We're all friends here(or at least we pretend to be...that X guy cannot be trusted).

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.

 

[MerlinJones]

See SEA and CHI. OL was dominant. So far, we don't know the entire OL will be unavailable en masse, though that seems to be prevalent assumption in the thread.

The 1.2 isn't the only pick in the draft. You don't take guards at 1.2.

IMO, some remember the heinous DAL and SF games in the first month with the turnstile comments. That was before they inserted Stacy into the starting lineup and found their running identity. In the 2-3 games AFTER that before Bradford went down, he was something like the #2 QB. Not exactly a turnstile from that perspective.

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.

 

[Ramifications]

lol, so only the players you scouted count? yeah ok.

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 fuck off my back time. Classy.

Stop crapping in the thread, if you don't like it leave, instead of getting in pot shots first.

 

[MerlinJones]

Not that would be as talented as Clowney, no.

Could you get once-in-a-decade prospects like Calvin Johnson or Andrew Luck with FA or lower draft picks?

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.

 

[Ramifications]

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.

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 fucking back again, I'll ignore it, and the thread can move on.

 

[-X-]

 

[LosAngelesRams]

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

:eek:
Oh hell no you Didn't, gurrrl did he just say that? Mmmhmmm.

 

[Thordaddy]

I think you missed the point. He's saying "this thread is assuming we won't be trading down" as in the premise of the thread, not that the posters in this thread think we won't be trading down.

I think the majority of Rams fans see us trading down, I honestly don't see how we couldn't.

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.

 

[Ramifications]

OK so what about Tony Mandarich? did you not see my other comment? the point i'm trying to get across is no one is a guarantee, no one.

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?

 

[Thordaddy]

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

Not me, tubal ligation

 

[Ramifications]

It's not entirely short term thinking either. You could easily say that drafting Matthews is a long term move that gives them depth at tackle, which is one of the things that's honestly plagued this team for some time.

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?

 

[jjab360]

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.

There was an obvious disconnect somewhere along the line, just doing my civic duty as a ROD poster to clear up any miscommunications.

 

[Thordaddy]

There was an obvious disconnect somewhere along the line, just doing my civic duty as a ROD poster to clear up any miscommunications.

You didn't