View Poll Results: Would you be for/against cutting Long and drafting Clowney?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • For

    2 6.67%
  • Against

    28 93.33%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 74
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

  1. #31
    ramstiles's Avatar
    ramstiles is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    surrey, england,
    Age
    60
    Posts
    763
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    the reason quinn is having the year he is is because long is opposite him

    remember grant wistrom


  2. #32
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,468
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ramstiles View Post
    the reason quinn is having the year he is is because long is opposite him

    remember grant wistrom
    No. This is not true at all. Not even the least bit. Robert is being double and triple teamed nearly EVERY play. The fact that Chris only has 6.5 sacks is actually disappointing.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  3. #33
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,612
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Robert is being double and triple teamed nearly EVERY play.
    Hmm. Not sure I'd go that far.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  4. #34
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,468
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Hmm. Not sure I'd go that far.
    It's the truth. He's being chipped constantly with either a TE or an HB, or even both. Chris should absolutely be feasting right now. He should be having a career year. He hasn't taken advantage.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  5. #35
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,689
    Rep Power
    168

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    It's the truth. He's being chipped constantly with either a TE or an HB, or even both. Chris should absolutely be feasting right now. He should be having a career year. He hasn't taken advantage.
    This is the problem with the Fantasy Football Generation - they focus too much on a stat that does not tell the whole story.

    But, if we accept your premise, then here are some other players who are having a down year (6.5 sacks or fewer):

    Julius Peppers
    Ryan Kerrigan
    Demarcus Ware
    Clay Matthews
    Ndamukong Suh

  6. #36
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,689
    Rep Power
    168

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    In an act of pure awesomeness, here is Chris Long paying homage to the legend, Jack Youngblood:



    This is a player you win with. You don't throw that away for a guy who may or may not be a very good NFL player.
    macrammer likes this.

  7. #37
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,468
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    This is the problem with the Fantasy Football Generation - they focus too much on a stat that does not tell the whole story.

    But, if we accept your premise, then here are some other players who are having a down year (6.5 sacks or fewer):

    Julius Peppers
    Ryan Kerrigan
    Demarcus Ware
    Clay Matthews
    Ndamukong Suh
    If you asked every NFL evaluator in the league, they would tell you all the guys you named here (outside of Suh; he's a DT) are having a down year. Peppers and Ware have come out publicly and said they are not playing good ball themselves...

    And no, I'm the last person to look at sacks and say "Yup he's elite, nope he sucks". I know for many years Chris was one of the top DE's in the league and never was close to the top 5 in sacks.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  8. #38
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,689
    Rep Power
    168

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    never was close to the top 5 in sacks.
    Sigh, this is getting tiresome. I don't know how you define "close," but...

    2012 tied for 9th in sacks
    2011 tied for 7th in sacks
    2011-2013 tied for 9th in sacks

    That's among ALL players, including 3-4 OLBs who tend to have higher sack totals due than 4-3 DEs do.

    I don't know what you're expecting from your players, but that's good enough for me.

    Clowney is an unkown commodity. He could be great, or he could be a bust, or he could be somewhere in between. I'm not going to throw away a player like Long for his sake.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -12-13-2013 at 06:42 PM.

  9. #39
    macrammer's Avatar
    macrammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Livermore, Ca/ Arnold,Ca
    Age
    55
    Posts
    2,110
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Why oh why would we even be debating this when we clearly have so many other needs. Donning the Youngblood jersey alone is enough for me Let's look to our secondary, OL and WR's...........

  10. #40
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,468
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Sigh, this is getting tiresome. I don't know how you define "close," but...

    2012 tied for 9th in sacks
    2011 tied for 7th in sacks
    2011-2013 tied for 9th in sacks

    That's among ALL players, including 3-4 OLBs who tend to have higher sack totals due than 4-3 DEs do.

    I don't know what you're expecting from your players, but that's good enough for me.

    Clowney is an unkown commodity. He could be great, or he could be a bust, or he could be somewhere in between. I'm not going to throw away a player like Long for his sake.
    I never once said Chris isn't a good player, so I don't know why you're saying "I don't know what you're expecting from your players". I simply said he's having a down year as are the pass rushers that you mentioned earlier and I am correct on that front. Outside of that I don't care if we have Chris and Quinn, I wouldn't be hesitant to spend the #2 pick on the BPA, which is Clowney.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  11. #41
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,229
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    This is the problem with the Fantasy Football Generation - they focus too much on a stat that does not tell the whole story.
    I think you tend to do the same thing at times.

    For instance, Long's 11 TFLs.

    I say he's a liability in the run and you throw this stat out and you think that it's all that matters. I know you watch the games. Long gets washed out of so many run plays to his side its ridiculous. He also has a tendency to get blocked by tight-ends. No DE in the league should get run blocked by a tight-end. Overall, he's not good against the run. I don't know how you haven't noticed this.

  12. #42
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,689
    Rep Power
    168

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I simply said he's having a down year as are the pass rushers that you mentioned earlier and I am correct on that front.
    His sack total is down. His tackles for loss is slightly down. His total tackles, forced fumbles, fumble recoveries and stuffs are up.

    Its pretty clear that you are enamoured with Clowney, but that's not a reason to draft a player who does not make sense for the team.

  13. #43
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,689
    Rep Power
    168

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    I think you tend to do the same thing at times.

    For instance, Long's 11 TFLs.

    I say he's a liability in the run and you throw this stat out and you think that it's all that matters. I know you watch the games. Long gets washed out of so many run plays to his side its ridiculous. He also has a tendency to get blocked by tight-ends. No DE in the league should get run blocked by a tight-end. Overall, he's not good against the run. I don't know how you haven't noticed this.
    Its hard to argue with the "because I said so" approach, but let's give it a try...

    The Rams D has gone from 117.5 yard/game and 4.3 yards/carry allowed in 2012, to 108.8 yards/game and 3.9 yards per carry in 2013. At the same time, Chris Long has increased his total number of tackles (he already has as many as he had all of last year) and has more "stuffs" in 13 games this year (6) than he had all of last year (4). His tackles for loss are slightly down, from 15 (in 16 games) last year, to 11 (in 13 games) this year.

    So, on one side of the coin, we have my subjective viewpoint, backed up by a whole lot of data, and on the other, we have you saying 'he's not good against the run."

    I think I'll let Jeff Fisher decide who is right.

  14. #44
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,533
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    It's the truth.
    Then demonstrate it, with information or data that support your claim.

    If you want to just claim your opinion to be the truth without backing it up with any supporting evidence, then I'd be happy to link you to the PD board, where that kind of "I'm right, you're wrong, that's all there is to it" juvenility belongs.

    I've gone back and watched 12 of Quinn's 13 sacks this year, and he's been doubled, chipped, or delayed on only two of those twelve.

    So suffice it to say, I'm doubtful that Quinn has been doubled or tripled on nearly every play. But again, you're welcome to provide some actual evidence or support to try and demonstrate the accuracy of the claim.

  15. #45
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,229
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: BIG hypothetical move. Would you be for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post

    So, on one side of the coin, we have my subjective viewpoint, backed up by a whole lot of data, and on the other, we have you saying 'he's not good against the run."
    So when you use stats to support your argument, its data. But when someone uses stats to support their argument, those stats don't tell the whole story?

    Any and every stat can be misleading. It's up to every fan to watch the games and make their own conclusions. I, personally, don't see Long being worth what he's owed next year.

    Lets take a step away from Clowney and go another route. I would be OK with cutting Long(From what I've read we would save 10mil) and letting Hayes start. If you want to go the data route, he has 4 sacks and 8TFLs while playing in less than half the snaps that Long has. His salary is also less than a 1/3 of Longs.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hypothetical FA Question: Who Would You Rather?
    By THOLTFAN81 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: -12-12-2013, 09:28 AM
  2. The Rob Ryan Hypothetical
    By AvengerRam in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: -01-21-2013, 03:26 AM
  3. Hypothetical Question
    By RamFan_Til_I_Die in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -11-25-2010, 07:04 PM
  4. If you REALLY want to get hypothetical...
    By Bar-bq in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -01-14-2008, 04:29 PM
  5. Hypothetical Question....
    By Karl-Baker in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -03-13-2002, 10:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •