Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Clowney vs Mathews

  1. #16
    RealRam's Avatar
    RealRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    8,391
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by LAram0 View Post
    For me this comes down to a want vs a need.

    Clowney is a want in my opinion and Mathews is a need.

    I go with the need.
    And there is the essential solution to the equation!
    laram0 likes this.


  2. #17
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,138
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by MauiRam View Post
    Clowney is probably going to be a great player. Jake Matthews will likely have a long illustrious career. Greg Robinson may turn out to be even better than Jake. That said, I agree with those who realize our O-line needs bolstering. If successful, a Jake Matthews or Greg Robinson could arguably help our defense as well. How? By giving Sam that extra tick to hit an open receiver, by pancaking or walling off opposing linemen/linebackers when we need that crucial yard for another first down, which of course keeps our defense on the sidelines. Too many times our D has been required to stay on the field too long. A "gassed" defense is not a great defense regardless of its personnel.

    Clowney if there when we pick, will be great trade bait!
    I agree they where gassed but not because of the offense.

    Fisher at the end of the season after we lost to Cards in Dec...

    "If you look at one area in particular, it's third down," Fisher said. "That's where I'm not impressed or pleased right now, to say the least, in our third-down efficiency defense. We've got to get better there."
    "We've got to get better," Fisher said on Monday evening. "We've got to do better up front. It's a total defensive effort."
    Good defenses, their third down efficiency's usually in the low 30s and that's got to be a goal to for us."
    "That's got to be a big area of emphasis here as we finish up the year."
    Our defense was not very good at getting off the field on third down.

  3. #18
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,480
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I agree they where gassed but not because of the offense.
    I'm sorry, but it absolutely had something to do with the offense.

    The Rams were not a great team in terms of time of possession. According to Sporting Charts, they ranked 25th in the league in TOP. According to Team Rankings, they were 23rd. Either way you slice it, that's awful for a team that would like to feature a strong running component.

    Now sure, you could argue that better defensive efficiency on third down can put the ball back in the offense's hands, and that's accurate. But the Rams ranked 19th in the league in defensive efficiency on third down compared to an abysmal 28th in the league in offensive efficiency on third downs.

    Could the defense improve in its ability to stop the opposition on third down? Sure. But looking at the numbers, if there's a side of the football that desperately needs to improve their third down play, it's the offense.

  4. #19
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,138
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I'm sorry, but it absolutely had something to do with the offense.

    The Rams were not a great team in terms of time of possession. According to Sporting Charts, they ranked 25th in the league in TOP. According to Team Rankings, they were 23rd. Either way you slice it, that's awful for a team that would like to feature a strong running component.

    Now sure, you could argue that better defensive efficiency on third down can put the ball back in the offense's hands, and that's accurate. But the Rams ranked 19th in the league in defensive efficiency on third down compared to an abysmal 28th in the league in offensive efficiency on third downs.

    Could the defense improve in its ability to stop the opposition on third down? Sure. But looking at the numbers, if there's a side of the football that desperately needs to improve their third down play, it's the offense.
    How about after the Rams changed their scheme after week five? My guess is after the Rams stopped trying to be something they are not and started running the ball those numbers changed right? Over the last 12 games the Rams ranked 10th in the NFL in rushing attempts and 30th in passing attempts. I'm sure time of possession got better.

    Now sure, you could argue that better defensive efficiency on third down can put the ball back in the offense's hands, and that's accurate. But the Rams ranked 19th in the league in defensive efficiency on third down compared to an abysmal 28th in the league in offensive efficiency on third downs.
    Once Sam is back I don't think it's a stretch to think we get better on the offense. Clemens did his best but he's not as accurate as Sam he just isn't. The defense had all it's stars playing and they where 19th... as Fisher said they need to get better.

    Could the defense improve in its ability to stop the opposition on third down? Sure. But looking at the numbers, if there's a side of the football that desperately needs to improve their third down play, it's the offense.
    The closest thing I can see to what we will look like next year with the addition of Stacy, Tavon, Cook is the three games when they all played together and we averaged 29 per game. Sam had 111 RAT, had 7 TDs and one INT. Not saying we are that good just saying that is closer to what we are when Clemens was the QB... at least we better be or we should be talking about drafting a QB.
    Last edited by Rambos; -01-22-2014 at 03:50 PM.

  5. #20
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    This thread is somewhat of a non sequitur.

    Premise: The defense needs to be improved for the team to improve.
    Conclusion: The Rams should take Jadeveon Clowney with the 2nd pick in the draft.

    The conclusion does not follow from the premise. First, there are many ways to improve the defense apart from selecting Clowney. Indeed, reasonable minds may differ on whether and how much Clowney would improve the defense.

    Moreover, merely stating the defense needs to improve does not make the defense a higher priority than the offense.

    The Rams have many needs. The question is, if the Rams make a selection (rather than a trade) at No. 2, which player will have the greatest positive impact on the team.

    My current vote goes to Matthews.

  6. #21
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,480
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    How about after the Rams changed their scheme after week five? My guess is after the Rams stopped trying to be something they are not and started running the ball those numbers changed right? Over the last 12 games the Rams ranked 10th in the NFL in rushing attempts and 30th in passing attempts. I'm sure time of possession got better.
    Not significantly.

    Over the last 10 games of the season, having gone back and reexamined the TOP for each of those games, I still come up with an average TOP in the 29-minute range, which is where both of those sites already have the Rams.

    That ranking could shift up a spot or two depending on the number of seconds, which frankly I'm not particularly inclined to spend a lot of time figuring out, but it won't be a significant change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Once Sam is back I don't think it's a stretch to think we get better on the offense.
    It's not a stretch to think we'll be better than we were with Clemens, but it is a stretch IMO to think that we're not still going to have issues on offense that will need fixed with or without Sam. You can't point to a three-game stretch during a 16-game season and think that's enough of a sample size to conclude that Bradford is the magic bullet to this team's offensive ailments. If that were the case, the Rams would already be a playoff contender.

    I mean, since we're talking about third down efficiency, did you realize Kellen Clemens ranked 6th in the NFC in terms of first down percentage on third down passes while Bradford ranked 16th in the conference with 36.6%? I'm sure the excuses are going to rush out of the flood gate for that one, but the point remains the same - Bradford by himself isn't going to make the offense great and remove all the other areas of need on that unit. That's fairy tale talk.

    Besides, if we were taking an honest look at the defense as the area that needs to be improved, Av has already pointed out where the improvements need to be made if the defense is really going to become better. The Rams are already one of the most effective pass rushing teams in the league, first last year in sacks and third this year. Despite that, opposing QBs are completing 68.1% of their passes against this D, which ties for dead last in the league. They're averaging 8.1 yards per attempt against the Rams, which actually is the worst in the league. Opposing QBs are also putting up an average QB rating of 94.7 against the Rams, which ranks 24th.

    Consider that, according to Pro Football Focus, none of the Rams' safeties finished in the Top 30 in the league when it came to opposing QB rating when throwing in their coverage area, and Janoris Jenkins was actually one of the worst in the league in that regard by allowing QBs to achieve a rating of 115.3 when throwing at him. That's almost as bad as Finnegan, whom most acknowledge was downright awful this year.

    Again, this is with one of the best pass rushes in football terrorizing the opposition's quarterback. If you want to see the Rams focus on making the defense better, then you should be advocating for improvements in the secondary rather than the pass rush.
    HUbison likes this.

  7. #22
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    I feel like the only reason we're having this discussion is that there is not an "elite" DT or CB in this year's draft. If there was an Ndamukong Suh or Patrick Peterson available, would anyone be advocating for Clowney?

  8. #23
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,359
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    If you use the draft to fill holes, you'll fail LONG TERM over taking the best player.
    Free agency is how you fill holes.

  9. #24
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,591
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    The Rams are already one of the most effective pass rushing teams in the league, first last year in sacks and third this year. Despite that, opposing QBs are completing 68.1% of their passes against this D, which ties for dead last in the league. They're averaging 8.1 yards per attempt against the Rams, which actually is the worst in the league. Opposing QBs are also putting up an average QB rating of 94.7 against the Rams, which ranks 24th.
    This is must read for anyone wishing to opine on this issue.
    "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

  10. #25
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,480
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    If you use the draft to fill holes, you'll fail LONG TERM over taking the best player.
    Free agency is how you fill holes.
    Can you tell me how many teams in the first round of last year's draft selected someone that did not fill a hole on their roster?

    Look at San Francisco last year. They lost a Pro Bowl caliber safety to free agency, then traded up to take Eric Reid to fill that hole. They've played in the NFC championship game three years running now, do you consider them or their approach a failure?

    The argument isn't need vs. BPA. That's a draft cliche that assumes they're mutually exclusive. They're not. The best drafting teams in the league are ones who are able to manipulate the draft to accomplish both - to address their needs by taking one of the best players available.

    If teams actually do lean one way or another, it's a lot closer to drafting for need than drafting for BPA, and that applies for even the good, successful teams.

  11. #26
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,138
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Not significantly.

    Over the last 10 games of the season, having gone back and reexamined the TOP for each of those games, I still come up with an average TOP in the 29-minute range, which is where both of those sites already have the Rams.

    That ranking could shift up a spot or two depending on the number of seconds, which frankly I'm not particularly inclined to spend a lot of time figuring out, but it won't be a significant change.




    It's not a stretch to think we'll be better than we were with Clemens, but it is a stretch IMO to think that we're not still going to have issues on offense that will need fixed with or without Sam. You can't point to a three-game stretch during a 16-game season and think that's enough of a sample size to conclude that Bradford is the magic bullet to this team's offensive ailments. If that were the case, the Rams would already be a playoff contender.

    I mean, since we're talking about third down efficiency, did you realize Kellen Clemens ranked 6th in the NFC in terms of first down percentage on third down passes while Bradford ranked 16th in the conference with 36.6%? I'm sure the excuses are going to rush out of the flood gate for that one, but the point remains the same - Bradford by himself isn't going to make the offense great and remove all the other areas of need on that unit. That's fairy tale talk.

    Besides, if we were taking an honest look at the defense as the area that needs to be improved, Av has already pointed out where the improvements need to be made if the defense is really going to become better. The Rams are already one of the most effective pass rushing teams in the league, first last year in sacks and third this year. Despite that, opposing QBs are completing 68.1% of their passes against this D, which ties for dead last in the league. They're averaging 8.1 yards per attempt against the Rams, which actually is the worst in the league. Opposing QBs are also putting up an average QB rating of 94.7 against the Rams, which ranks 24th.

    Consider that, according to Pro Football Focus, none of the Rams' safeties finished in the Top 30 in the league when it came to opposing QB rating when throwing in their coverage area, and Janoris Jenkins was actually one of the worst in the league in that regard by allowing QBs to achieve a rating of 115.3 when throwing at him. That's almost as bad as Finnegan, whom most acknowledge was downright awful this year.

    Again, this is with one of the best pass rushes in football terrorizing the opposition's quarterback. If you want to see the Rams focus on making the defense better, then you should be advocating for improvements in the secondary rather than the pass rush.
    I stated its small sample size didn't I?

    The Rams offense avg 29 points a game with Bradford, Stacy and a commitment to running the ball. That was only over a three game period small sample size for sure.

    But it's all I have to go by other then Sam threw 14 TD in seven games...and 4 INTs. Backup threw 8TDs 7INTs in 9 games, That's a drop off the cliff if you ask me. You can use last year stats to gauge where our offenses is, go for it I'm going to look at it differently. I don't see Sam as a magic bullet, I see a more productive QB that is already on the roster.

    In this thread I mentioned taking a DB or S... didn't I?
    I think the players that you mentioned should be considered along with Clowney if we are going to try and be elite on that side of the ball. Clowney and Darqueze Dennard would make this defensive unit scary. Why we are add it lets go get Jairus Byrd in mix! Lets put a unit on the field that kicks some ass and takes names!
    Look I don't want to go round and round with you this year Nick it's getting old.. if you want the last word have it but I won't respond. I already know where you stand on the pick it's been well documented.

  12. #27
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,359
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Look at San Francisco last year. They lost a Pro Bowl caliber safety to free agency, then traded up to take Eric Reid to fill that hole. They've played in the NFC championship game three years running now, do you consider them or their approach a failure?
    Your example is a team trades up to get someone they claim is an elite talent and it proves that taking the best player available isn't used by teams?

    If you choose your draft selection based upon need, you will be taking lesser players most of the time. There is simply no way around it. Whether that's in the first round or the 6th round.

    A lot of teams that need centers, safeties and MLBs simply don't draft those in the first round for a reason.

    The draft isn't about making your team great on week 2 of the season.

  13. #28
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,480
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I stated its small sample size didn't I?
    Yet the point I'm making is that you continue to hold it up as legitimate, which I disagree with. I'll elaborate on why in a moment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I don't see Sam as a magic bullet, I see a more productive QB that is already on the roster.
    I don't think anyone is disputing Sam is a more productive and better QB than Clemens. The questions is whether or not improvements need to be made offensively for this team to contend, or if Bradford's return will be enough.

    Bradford and the pieces the Rams have already may be enough to beat up on the Texans and Jags, but they were on their way to losing by double digits to Carolina when Bradford went out.

    You like to keep pushing that 29 ppg average over that span as supporting evidence, but you're ignoring that it's heavily tilted against two awful teams and that the Rams only put up 15 against the NFC South champs in that window of games.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    In this thread I mentioned taking a DB or S... didn't I?
    In the context of still taking Clowney second overall, which is the point of contention being debated here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Look I don't want to go round and round with you this year Nick it's getting old.. if you want the last word have it but I won't respond. I already know where you stand on the pick it's been well documented.
    Glad I saved myself some trouble by not doing the math on the TOP seconds, then.
    Rambos likes this.

  14. #29
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,480
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    Your example is a team trades up to get someone they claim is an elite talent and it proves that taking the best player available isn't used by teams?
    No, my example was in response to your claim that if teams use the draft to fill holes, they'll fail long term. And yet there's a championship caliber team that needed a safety, and not only used the draft to fill that need, but traded up in order to do so.

    It's great that the ***** claim Reid was an elite talent, but he certainly wasn't perceived that way at the time. You couldn't find a bigger Reid fan on this board than Barry, and Eric didn't crack Barry's final 22-pick mock. Reid didn't make the first round of Kiper's final mock, and was the very last pick in McShay's final first round mock. And besides, every team is going to tell you that they considered the guy they took to have been one of the best available, so it's kind of a moot point.

    But the point remains the same - the ***** needed a safety, and used the draft to fill that hole. I guess we'll see how it works out for them in the long term, but they seem to be doing okay right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    If you choose your draft selection based upon need, you will be taking lesser players most of the time. There is simply no way around it. Whether that's in the first round or the 6th round.
    I already touched on this in the part of my response you for some reason chose to cut out. I'm a firm believer that this idea that the draft being black and white - need vs. BPA - is a myth. Teams combine both when making their picks, and when they can't or feel like there's better value later, they move out of the spot.

    I think you'll find true BPA picks (with no need component) to be pretty rare, because teams don't have the luxury in today's league to take someone who isn't going to help quickly address a weakness. This is why I challenged you to go back and list all the first round picks from last year that didn't fill a hole on the team making the selection. I'll save you some time, since you chose not to try and answer in this response - you're not going to find many.


    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    A lot of teams that need centers, safeties and MLBs simply don't draft those in the first round for a reason.
    And yet three safeties and a center were drafted in the first round last year, and the #2 seed in the NFC this year spent a Top 10 pick on a MLB in 2012.

    I mean, people used to make the same claim about not taking guards high, and we had two in the Top 10 last year. Why? Because they're talented and they're going to fill a hole on a team and hopefully help them reach the post-season.

    Ultimately, it's about the talent. If the talent is there, teams will spend the pick on the guy. Unless you're a punter or kicker.

  15. #30
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,627
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Clowney vs Mathews

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    As you note, the defense had some issues last year, but they're not the type of issues that Clowney would address. Clowney's primary value is that of a pass rusher. The Rams have the most sacks in the NFL over the past two seasons, and have generated 66.5 (out of a total of 105) sacks from the DE position.

    If the problem is with the run defense (which, for the season as a whole, was not bad), then a run-stuffing DT (Louis Nix), a tackling-machine OLB (Ryan Shazier) or a big SS (Deone Buchannon) might be a good target. If the problem is with soft coverage, than a CB who can challenge at the LOS (Darqueze Dennard, Justin Gilbert) or a FS who can protect the back end (Ha'sean Clinton-Dix) might be the best option.

    I don't see how Clowney, at least in the short run, vastly improves our defense.
    He vastly improves our defense because if he plays to his potential, he is undoubtedly an upgrade over Chris Long. If the man plays to his potential, he is a rookie pro-bowler particularly with the leagues best opposite him. You can't double them both, but if you do Michael Brockers becomes a pro-bowler.

    But certainly I agree we have other needs to fill on the defense. Mainly, but not limited to a top end Safety. We could possibly address that if Minnesota comes calling for a QB. I think Harrison Smith and TJ McDonald would fill that bill nicely.

    Secondly, If our philosophy on offense was similar to that of the GSOT, I'd better understand those of you who disagree. But our current philosophy doesn't lend itself to an explosive offense, which is what I think most of you envision.

    I think Fisher wants an offense to control the clock and not turn the ball over (which could explain his seemingly closed minded support of Sam Bradford). And we don't need Jake Mathews to do that, IMO. In fact, this debate in Fisher's mind may be more about Greg Robinson anyway.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. JD Clowney anyone?
    By BarronWade in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: -01-13-2014, 02:19 PM
  2. Its Clowney Time!
    By jerseyramsfan in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: -01-12-2014, 09:07 AM
  3. The Jadeveon Clowney Poll
    By AvengerRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: -01-10-2014, 05:09 AM
  4. Prediction: Clowney Goes #1
    By Barry Waller in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: -12-29-2013, 05:30 PM
  5. Jadeveon Clowney
    By Rambos in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: -10-18-2013, 11:29 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
  •