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

  • 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.

Ramifications

Guest
The question you asked is stupid and obvious, which is why I countered you with a stupid obvious question.

So we should just draft who ever X person/media outlet says is the "best player in draft" :ROFLMAO:

No that would be superficial and stupid for you to infer that is what I meant, when I have never said we should take players because of what the scouts said about how rare the prospect is, without also seeing if it conforms to your own scouting.

What do think I meant about not seeing Mandarich and being at a disadvantage. That was stupid of you to not infer what that meant. I've seen Johnso, Luck and Clowney, i.e. - I've scouted them.

Why do you think I posted 2012 clips and made comments about what I thought about the prospects, in relation to what the scouts are saying (the operative phrase there is what I thought).

Look, if you want to have a mature, adult, rational conversation about this without name calling, we can, but this isn't it.

I have yet to see you articulate coherently, or lucidly or intelligibly what you would do, in general (not this specific prospect), and if Mandarich busts means you dispense with ALL scouting reports, great, average and bad alike. That would be monkey and a dart board time. I guess you can do your own scouting, but not realistic for most to valuate hundreds of players.
 

LosAngelesRams

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
3,092
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?

you said....

Were Calvin Johnson and Andrew Luck hype?
They were called generational PROSPECTS.
Do you think their teams regret the picks?


The same thing was said about Tony Mandarich, which was completely wrong, WHICH IS WHY I BROUGHT IT UP.... to prove to you the scouts are not always right. but "you didn't scout him" so it doesn't count right to you.

You sure acted like it was a guarantee with the way you worded your posts.

Did I say that about the reports? I simply showed you that scouts are not always right and don't act like that's the only one they missed on. take it however you want.

like I said your picking 2 people to talk about and use as an example when I'm sure we can name plenty of people that DIDNT live up to the expectations picked high. What you are doing is the same shit reporters do, selective journalism to fit there agenda. what kind of response did you expect from anyone about if DET or IND was regretting picking Megatron or Luck? that's just silly to think anyone would say they do. Did DET have multiple quality WR's when they picked Calvin, Did IND have a solid back up behind a aging/injured at the time Peyton like we have solid backups in DE's?
 

LosAngelesRams

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
3,092
No that would be superficial and stupid for you to infer that is what I meant, when I have never said we should take players because of what the scouts said about how rare the prospect is, without also seeing if it conforms to your own scouting.

What do think I meant about not seeing Mandarich and being at a disadvantage. That was stupid of you to not infer what that meant. I've seen Johnso, Luck and Clowney, i.e. - I've scouted them.

Why do you think I posted 2012 clips and made comments about what I thought about the prospects, in relation to what the scouts are saying (the operative phrase there is what I thought).

Look, if you want to have a mature, adult, rational conversation about this without name calling, we can, but this isn't it.

I have yet to see you articulate coherently, or lucidly or intelligibly what you would do, in general (not this specific prospect), and if Mandarich busts means you dispense with ALL scouting reports, great, average and bad alike. That would be monkey and a dart board time. I guess you can do your own scouting, but not realistic for most to valuate hundreds of players.

here's a perfect response to you.

MY DICK.

I can see why tony is upset, you don't listen to shit anyone says and just keep running your mouth. which is why he needs to rehash himself over and over.
 

Ramifications

Guest
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.

Good points.

Maybe I could explain with a different position.

Why would ATL blow up their draft to add Julio Jones when they already had Roddy White (I think leads all WRs in receptions since 2007?).

1) He was a rare prospect, with A.J. Green the best since Calvin Johnson (people were saying this BEFORE the draft).

2) You can start more than one.

3) They thought he could be a difference maker, the kind of player that could tilt the field in their direction, and would help more than the sum of the lesser picks they gave up.

4) Having TWO Pro Bowlers (really three with Tony Gonzalez) might put their passing attack in a tipping point kind of position, where Jones would add more than just the obvious additive value of his own presence (like say if you added him without already having White), because than they are in a position to overload and overwhelm secondaries in a way they couldn't previously.

5) Why did MIN add Randy Moss to Cris Carter? Was that a bad move for them? Why add Reggie Wayne to Marvin Harrison? I don't remember how old Carter and Harrison were at these times, but I think they played a few more years after, and anyways, would MIN not have drafted Moss if Carter had been 25? Possibly, but I'm not sure about that, it isn't IMO obviously the case.
 

Ramifications

Guest
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.

And getting a player that was better than Calvin Johnson or Andrew Luck later was also possible, they were "hyped" to. It just wasn't likely, IMO, based on watching them.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
here's a perfect response to you.

MY DICK.

I can see why tony is upset, you don't listen to shit anyone says and just keep running your mouth. which is why he needs to rehash himself over and over.
Slow your roll man
 

Ramifications

Guest
here's a perfect response to you.

MY DICK.

I can see why tony is upset, you don't listen to shit anyone says and just keep running your mouth. which is why he needs to rehash himself over and over.

I didn't mention the other person, you did, I said I wouldn't, so am at a disadvantage.

I'm running my mouth, says the hissy fit guy who's response is my dick. Are you 12?

I've listened to and acknowledged several people in the thread, selective on your part to not notice.

Calling me stupid FIRST when I didn't start the juvenile, classless name calling had a predictable result.

You keep obfuscating and deflecting and refusing to answer the obvious corollary question to the observation, Mandarich busted. Do you dispense with all scouts and information about some prospects being historically good, even if they accord with your own judgement.

How can you be repeating yourself when you are evading this point, you seem confused.
 

BonifayRam

Legend
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
13,435
Name
Vernon
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.
Ok... not sure where you came up with the number three, I was discussing just two Dahl & Wells & sharing my thoughts on on that issue. Not sure how that was confusing who is the third Ramifications? Don't be too concerned about my time . I did not spend much of my thought on maximally sarcastic rejoinder. It did not take more than a second I had plenty of time to spend on other ROD'mers responses. Trust me Ramification I was not close to Maximum in my sarcasm more like minimum attemp. I still trying to figure out what was complicated as you have alluded to in other responses back to me with that I had issues in understanding with your in-depth hard hitting questions.

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.
No sir I was not doing a cherry pick not sure where that was evident in my response but you should know that I was not desiring to insult or ridicule your post if you took it that way I sincerely apologize.

Its evident that my reading comprehension is not up to your level. I'll even go farther than that Ramifications & do you a big favor & not venture close to your posts after this response so not cause you distractions on my bad attempt to make lightness & try humor. In addition it will remove your time consuming desires to swat a mind gnat like me down.


We get that you want all OL with the first three picks, it's not going to happen.

I have never posted a mock yet but yes I am an advocate of bringing in upgraded OL'ers into this OL and feel that the Rams will not be able to purchase UFA that can begin to make this OL a better unit so the draft is the only other way to bring in fresh high off the shelf talent ready to compete to fill the big needs in this OL. Sure I have posted on one post recently that I would not be upset if the first three selections were Ol'ers but I would prefer that we target the best players as possible with the desire to improve & upgrade the units that are weakest @ 1.2, 1.13 & 2.44. The high suggestions over the last 3 to 4 months as most know who read my post that I desire the Rams to select the best CB/Nickle back prospect as possible too. My hope & desire is for the Rams Org. to finally provide Sam Bradford now in his 5th yr a good strong OL...that should be our no#1 goal.

When you draft guards or centers later in the draft, it enables you to spend $4 million on vet OL.

Do we have an example of this in the last decade?

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).
Not sure Sam Bradford can continue to wait till 2015 to see any Ram Org draft investment in the OL He has been here now since 2010. All we have under contract & signed for 2014 is just one third day Ram draft investment. Not sure where you will find any 4 mil vet who can start plus upgrade this OL now & onto the future. Could you name a OC/OG who @ 4 mil a yr that can do this? We have spent on vet OL'ers like Wells-Dahl & Long all of them cost much more than 4 mil a year overall plus we have already know what has happen with Wells & Dahl the last two years.

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.
Agree
But I don't agree that we must get three OL early which you said at other times.
One time ....not timeS & that was stated to stress a point & insure just how much I see the need for infusion of high skilled talent in the OL but have you so quickly forgotten all the dozens of post where I have voiced my happiness with the possible selection of DL'er Jadeveon Clowney?

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.
Long did show early more often than in the past years that he was having issues with quick speed RDE's You do recall what Fisher did after the Dallas game? Then we have the torn ACL & MCL of his right knee......the story will unfold much later just how much the new damage will effect his play? No way on earth can we know that.

See my response above in BOLD.
 
Last edited:

Zaphod

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,217
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?
Absolutely Clowney is a great prospect. Is he worth a second overall? That's tough to say, which is why I would defer to the Rams scouts doing their homework regarding himself, Bridgewater or anyone else they deem worth the second overall.

Now this is crazy hypothetical situation, but allow me to throw it out there for fun. Suppose the Texans draft Clowney and the Rams can't find a good trade down. Do you take Bridgewater? At least with a DE you can rotate him, but at QB, he's riding the bench until an injury or trade.
 

PhxRam

Guest
here's a perfect response to you.

MY DICK.

I can see why tony is upset, you don't listen to shit anyone says and just keep running your mouth. which is why he needs to rehash himself over and over.

Well someone got a timeout. Not sure why you thought that would fly.
 

Ramifications

Guest
I'd take the LT or WR.

That strategy worked with GB (getting Rodgers when they had Favre - of course it would be more justified in our case since Bradford is about as far from Favre as you could possibly get as far as a sure thing), but I think they were a better team at the time, and they didn't use a 1.2 pick.

I think it is a move the team would make if either we thought Bradford wasn't the long term answer, or were heavily concerned he might not be, not if we intend to go forward with him. It would be injury insurance, but awfully expensive, when we could use the pick on Robinson, Watkins or Clowney, for instance, who would not need a possible injury to contribute.

I can't think of a recent example where a team was behind their franchise QB, and drafted another with so high a pick. SD took Rivers, but my recollection is that they clearly had moved on from Brees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ramifications

Guest
My apologies to Tony if he thought I was badgering him.

I tried to explain that there were so many posts that I was responding to as I went along, and may not have seen the later drop it request at the time I was responding to earlier posts, so it may have been a miscommunication. Maybe it could have later been avoided going off the rails further if I had stopped until I first did a better job making sure as best I could this point was understood, which I failed to do, I take responsibility for that.

There are other things I could say, but they would be antithetical to a straightforward apology, I'll leave it at that.
 

Ramifications

Guest
See my response above in BOLD.

I was starting to compose a lengthy response, but noticed you said you won't be responding, so I don't really have an interest in adressing a pre-aborted/terminated dialogue. But thanks for your input.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MerlinJones

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
1,020
Good points.

Maybe I could explain with a different position.

Why would ATL blow up their draft to add Julio Jones when they already had Roddy White (I think leads all WRs in receptions since 2007?).

1) He was a rare prospect, with A.J. Green the best since Calvin Johnson (people were saying this BEFORE the draft).

2) You can start more than one.

3) They thought he could be a difference maker, the kind of player that could tilt the field in their direction, and would help more than the sum of the lesser picks they gave up.

4) Having TWO Pro Bowlers (really three with Tony Gonzalez) might put their passing attack in a tipping point kind of position, where Jones would add more than just the obvious additive value of his own presence (like say if you added him without already having White), because than they are in a position to overload and overwhelm secondaries in a way they couldn't previously.

5) Why did MIN add Randy Moss to Cris Carter? Was that a bad move for them? Why add Reggie Wayne to Marvin Harrison? I don't remember how old Carter and Harrison were at these times, but I think they played a few more years after, and anyways, would MIN not have drafted Moss if Carter had been 25? Possibly, but I'm not sure about that, it isn't IMO obviously the case.

I get the point you're making, and it's a valid one.

I would ask you (because I honestly don't know) who was playing opposite Roddy White before Julio Jones?
Who was opposite Cris Carter and Marvin Harrison before Moss and Wayne respectively.

In those instances it seems like those teams had one excellent receiver and just some guy for the other.
There was a need for that "home run hitter" receiver to stretch the defense. I know that Atlanta felt they were one player away from the Super Bowl, so they were comfortable going all in on Jones.

I don't know what your opinion of Chris Long is. I definitely wouldn't call him elite, but I think he's a very good DE and a good compliment to Quinn.

What it all really comes down to is that I don't believe the hype on Clowney.
No one questions his physical attributes, but his work ethic and drive are definitely in question.

I don't think anyone really expects the Rams to keep the second pick, but if for some reason they do I'd just rather see them go Robinson/Matthews/Watkins at that spot.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
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.

Because you have two DEs on the field at all times. And I want the two best DEs in the NFL if I can get them. Would only make our team stronger. There are ~20-30(or something like that) elite players in the NFL. That means not every team has one. Most teams don't have more than one. That should tell you how rare those type of players are. If you have a shot at one, you need to take it.

Here would be my list of elite players in the NFL(currently):
QB Peyton Manning
QB Aaron Rodgers
QB Tom Brady
QB Drew Brees
HB Adrian Peterson
HB Jamaal Charles
WR Calvin Johnson
TE Rob Gronkowski
TE Jimmy Graham
LT Joe Thomas
DE Robert Quinn
DE JJ Watt
DT Geno Atkins
DT Gerald McCoy
OLB Aldon Smith
OLB Von Miller
OLB Lavonte David
ILB Patrick Willis
CB Darrelle Revis
CB Richard Sherman
FS Earl Thomas

That's it. 21 players. Maybe I forgot a player or there are 10-15 other players that are arguable. But it's a short list. Clowney has the ability to be one of those type of players. That's rare. And that's what makes him worth picking.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
A lot of guys come in with the ability, few live up to it.

I wouldn't go quite as far as a lot. But there's nothing you can do about that. Only can trust your coaches. And I don't know about you but I trust Waufle, Williams and Fisher to get the most out of Clowney. Look at what Quinn and Brockers have become with Waufle.