Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 134
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: JD Clowney anyone?

  1. #76
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,927
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie25 View Post
    Yeah I'm confused as to why Janoris has taken such a step back this year. Last year he looked like the steal of the draft, and this year he's getting burned by the likes of Golden Tate and Anquan Boldin. Trumain has looked bad this year also, and don't even get me started on Cortland Finnegan and Brandon McGee. I'm not sure if it's the scheme (why have them play 10 yards off the line so much Walton?) or if they just weren't that good to begin with, but something has to change.
    I mean, I think you've kind of answered your own question here. It's not as much that he's taken one step back -- it's that he's taken ten steps back off the line of scrimmage. It's obviously part of the scheme they run - it happened with Williams at almost-DC last year too - but last year Jenkins seemed to be able to get up a little more in players' faces.

    Part of this I guess could be attributed to the Safety play we've had the last couple of years; Mikell was an excellent Box safety but didn't do much by way of coverage, and none of us need to be reminded of Craig Dahl's level of play. I don't think it's a skill decline as much as it is a scheme that has disallowed him the opportunities to succeed, due in part to the fact that there's nobody to help over the top.

    I wouldn't be opposed AT ALL to us adding a corner early in next year's draft, but I think that improved safety play will definitely be imperative to our success next year.
    Last edited by Bar-bq; -12-30-2013 at 05:22 AM.


  2. #77
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,490
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    If, for instance, the Rams were deciding between Matthews and Clowney, I think it would boil down to need vs. value

    Obviously the bigger need of the two is OT.

    However, I don't think it would be too surprising if the Rams valued Clowney so highly over Matthews that they choose Clowney instead.

    Fisher has yet to draft an OL in the first round and the Rams brass, so far, loves to use their first rounders on elite athletes with sky-high ceilings.

    I don't think the Rams taking Matthews over Clowney is as clear-cut as many here think.
    For as much debate as we've had in this thread and in others about this topic, I don't think that anyone would be entirely shocked if the Rams took Clowney. Obviously the physical talent is there, and you can never rule out a coaching staff or front office siding with the talent. I've already said in this thread that I don't see it happening, but I've certainly been wrong before.

    Having said that, we've seen two Jeff Fisher led Rams drafts so far, and I'd challenge you to find a pick they've made on Day 1 or 2 that has been strictly BPA and not with need in mind.

    In 2013, rather than stay put at their selection spots and draft the BPA, they moved up and down respectively to fill holes at WR (Austin) and LB (Ogletree). In Round 3, they spent one of their two picks on a glaring need at safety by selecting TJ McDonald, and then continued to add needed offensive weapons by taking Stedman Bailey.

    In 2012, rather than stay put and take the best player available regardless of need at either the #2 or #6 spot, the Rams traded down twice and filled a big need at defensive tackle with Michael Brockers. In the second and third rounds, they attempted to fill big holes at WR, CB, and RB by drafting Brian Quick, Janoris Jenkins, Isaiah Pead, and Trumaine Johnson.

    If anything, Fisher and company have shown thus far that they're more willing to trade up/down and put themselves in a better position to address a team need than they are willing to stay put and pull the trigger on a player who doesn't help address a weakness on their team.

    So while I don't think you can ever completely rule something out when it comes to the draft, I think it's far more likely that Fisher and company orchestrate a trade down to acquire more picks to address weaknesses on their team than it is that they stay put and take a player at a position that is already the biggest strength of their roster.
    Rammed likes this.

  3. #78
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,626
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Of course the Rams could take Clowney. I would be very surprised if they did, though.

  4. #79
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,205
    Rep Power
    21

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Having said that, we've seen two Jeff Fisher led Rams drafts so far, and I'd challenge you to find a pick they've made on Day 1 or 2 that has been strictly BPA and not with need in mind.
    Well duh, our roster was devoid of talent. In 2012 the only solidified positions were QB, MLB, and DE. Of course they're going to solidify another position. 2013 wasn't too much different. There were still a lot of holes to fill (FS, SS, OG, WR, RB, OLB). They were in no position to take BPA picks. We're are in a much better position now than the last two drafts if the Rams would like to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    In 2013, rather than stay put at their selection spots and draft the BPA, they moved up and down respectively to fill holes at WR (Austin) and LB (Ogletree). In Round 3, they spent one of their two picks on a glaring need at safety by selecting TJ McDonald, and then continued to add needed offensive weapons by taking Stedman Bailey. In 2012, rather than stay put and take the best player available regardless of need at either the #2 or #6 spot, the Rams traded down twice and filled a big need at defensive tackle with Michael Brockers. In the second and third rounds, they attempted to fill big holes at WR, CB, and RB by drafting Brian Quick, Janoris Jenkins, Isaiah Pead, and Trumaine Johnson. If anything, Fisher and company have shown thus far that they're more willing to trade up/down and put themselves in a better position to address a team need than they are willing to stay put and pull the trigger on a player who doesn't help address a weakness on their team. So while I don't think you can ever completely rule something out when it comes to the draft, I think it's far more likely that Fisher and company orchestrate a trade down to acquire more picks to address weaknesses on their team than it is that they stay put and take a player at a position that is already the biggest strength of their roster.
    Well, yeah, I think a trade down is by far the most obvious scenario, with all things considered. But, I clearly stated that my post was about the idea of them in the position were they're choosing between Clowney/Matthews.

  5. #80
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    If, for instance, the Rams were deciding between Matthews and Clowney, I think it would boil down to need vs. value

    Obviously the bigger need of the two is OT.

    However, I don't think it would be too surprising if the Rams valued Clowney so highly over Matthews that they choose Clowney instead.

    Fisher has yet to draft an OL in the first round and the Rams brass, so far, loves to use their first rounders on elite athletes with sky-high ceilings.

    I don't think the Rams taking Matthews over Clowney is as clear-cut as many here think.
    Trading down would take this decision out of their hands, which is what I'm anticipating they will do.

  6. #81
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,205
    Rep Power
    21

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bald_81 View Post
    Trading down would take this decision out of their hands, which is what I'm anticipating they will do.
    I agree all the way. A trade down is the most obvious scenario. My Clowney/Matthews choice was only hypothetical. I wasn't saying that would be the Rams decision come May. I hope they trade down two spots to Cleveland and get both their 1st rounds.

  7. #82
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,490
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    Well duh, our roster was devoid of talent. In 2012 the only solidified positions were QB, MLB, and DE. Of course they're going to solidify another position. 2013 wasn't too much different. There were still a lot of holes to fill (FS, SS, OG, WR, RB, OLB). They were in no position to take BPA picks. We're are in a much better position now than the last two drafts if the Rams would like to do so.
    The Rams went 7-8-1 in 2012 and were looked at as possible contenders for the NFC West in 2013. Obviously the team still had holes, but they were in a much better spot entering this season than they were the previous one.

    And yes, while we're in a better position to go BPA than we have been in the past, I'd contend they still have a number of glaring holes on the current roster. They need a top outside WR, OL across the board depending on cuts, DT next to Brockers, SLB, CB, and FS.

    These are areas that are keeping them from taking the next step and contending for the division and a post-season spot, and IMO need to be addressed before we start thinking about these luxury options.


    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    Well, yeah, I think a trade down is by far the most obvious scenario, with all things considered. But, I clearly stated that my post was about the idea of them in the position were they're choosing between Clowney/Matthews.
    Given the way this front office has operated, I think it's somewhat of a waste of time to debate any draft hypothetical where trading down is removed from the discussion.

    It's a clear possibility, we all acknowledge it, so why spend time debating a scenario where it's not considered?

    Again, I believe the Rams will either orchestrate a trade down or take Jake Matthews before they spend the #2 overall pick on Clowney. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

  8. #83
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,205
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Given the way this front office has operated, I think it's somewhat of a waste of time to debate any draft hypothetical where trading down is removed from the discussion. It's a clear possibility, we all acknowledge it, so why spend time debating a scenario where it's not considered?
    Because its a only possibility, not a sure thing. Fisher also has never drafted an OL in the 1st, but that doesn't mean we're not going to debate a scenario where its considered. And besides, who knows if anyone will even want to move up to #2. This draft isn't nearly as strong up top as others in the past. If I'm a GM, I'm not so sure I want to give up extra DPs for a Blake Bortles type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Again, I believe the Rams will either orchestrate a trade down or take Jake Matthews before they spend the #2 overall pick on Clowney. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
    I agree. I was more or less playing devils advocate because I wouldn't be shocked if they chose Clowney's value over Matthew's need.
    Last edited by Nick; -12-31-2013 at 04:18 PM. Reason: Merging back to back posts

  9. #84
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Again, I believe the Rams will either orchestrate a trade down or take Jake Matthews before they spend the #2 overall pick on Clowney. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
    I believe if the Rams stay at #2 (in a scenario where they make the executive decision to NOT seek a trade down) then the pick has a much, much higher likelihood of being Clowney over Matthews.

    The only team selecting in the top six that really needs a OT, at the sixth spot no less, is Atlanta. The Jaguars, Browns and Raiders are almost certain not to be looking at Jake Matthews. A trade down should be initiated easily even if the Rams are willing to sacrifice fair market value just for the sake of getting out of #2. If they don't, all that will tell me is they want Clowney.

    That being said, if I'm Snead and Fisher I wait and drag out the process to as close to May as possible this time around. It was no secret we wanted Justin Blackmon badly back in 2012. We made our trade with Washington in late February giving Jacksonville ample time to work the phones and trade ahead of us to take Blackmon. I think they have learned from their mistake and we won't see a trade that early this time around if there is one to be made.

  10. #85
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,626
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bald_81 View Post
    That being said, if I'm Snead and Fisher I wait and drag out the process to as close to May as possible this time around. It was no secret we wanted Justin Blackmon badly back in 2012. We made our trade with Washington in late February giving Jacksonville ample time to work the phones and trade ahead of us to take Blackmon. I think they have learned from their mistake and we won't see a trade that early this time around if there is one to be made.
    I don't think that was mistake at all. The Rams struck while the iron was hot and made a great trade. If they had waited, one of the two interested parties (Washington, Cleveland) could have dropped out, which would have lowered the Rams' bargaining power.

    If a good deal presents itself, pull the trigger.

  11. #86
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,490
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    Fisher also has never drafted an OL in the 1st, but that doesn't mean we're not going to debate a scenario where its considered.
    Not this silliness... anything but that...


    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    And besides, who knows if anyone will even want to move up to #2. This draft isn't nearly as strong up top as others in the past. If I'm a GM, I'm not so sure I want to give up extra DPs for a Blake Bortles type.
    Valid point. But if we're going to talk about the options, let's talk about the options. Snead has already come out and said the pick is for sale, so it's silly to spend a lot of time discussing a scenario that doesn't include that as a possibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    I agree. I was more or less playing devils advocate because I wouldn't be shocked if they chose Clowney's value over Matthew's need.
    I don't think anyone would be "shocked" after it's been discussed so much already and it's not even January.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bald_81 View Post
    The only team selecting in the top six that really needs a OT, at the sixth spot no less, is Atlanta. The Jaguars, Browns and Raiders are almost certain not to be looking at Jake Matthews.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bald_81 View Post
    It was no secret we wanted Justin Blackmon badly back in 2012. We made our trade with Washington in late February giving Jacksonville ample time to work the phones and trade ahead of us to take Blackmon. I think they have learned from their mistake and we won't see a trade that early this time around if there is one to be made.
    I think the fact that you bring up how Jacksonville leapfrogged the Rams to take Blackmon in 2012 is one reason why you can't assume it's safe to move behind Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Oakland for an OT. Maybe those three teams aren't interested in one, but they could also trade with someone who is, and we'd have a repeat of the 2012 situation.

    That's why I wouldn't conclude that staying at the second overall pick is a clear sign that Clowney is more likely. Staying at the second overall pick could happen for a number of reasons. Perhaps the trade offers aren't acceptable for the Rams to want to move down, but perhaps they also just don't want to miss out on a guy they really like as they did in 2012.

  12. #87
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,205
    Rep Power
    21

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Valid point. But if we're going to talk about the options, let's talk about the options. Snead has already come out and said the pick is for sale, so it's silly to spend a lot of time discussing a scenario that doesn't include that as a possibility.
    My one post specifically highlighted my opinions on what could happen if the Rams pick comes down to Matthews/Clowney. It doesn't need to involve a trade that isn't guaranteed to happen in the future. A trade is very possible, but my post leaned more towards if we stayed with the second pick, which is also very possible. I don't understand the problem with that. And, to be clear, I don't think Fisher not drafting an OL in the first has anything to do with future picks. Just using it as an example.
    Last edited by FestusRam; -12-31-2013 at 08:52 PM.

  13. #88
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    To be fair, Sam was on a pace to have a well above average year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    ... or was he having a great year? Or an excellent year? it's becoming abundantly clear in this thread that you need to choose your adjectives VERY carefully, pal.
    Yeah, I don't want to get into semantics here. Sam's stats through 7 games would have projected to about 3856 yards, 32 TDs, 9 ints over the course of 16 games--which is just a little bit off Tony Romo's stat line as
    the nearest comparison. He'd project to 13th in yards if he didn't miss any games (15th in yards/game), tied for 5th in TDs and tied for 9th most interceptions, 11th in QB rating. That stat line isn't bad, but he's also less mobile than a number of the other quarterbacks who fall in the same QB rating range (e.g., Newton, Kaepernick, Roethlisberger, Alex Smith) and his yards per attempt would notably rank 34th in the league.

    He's early '00s Jon Kitna. (And the Bengals draft Carson Palmer)
    Last edited by Goldenfleece; -01-01-2014 at 01:47 AM.

  14. #89
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,205
    Rep Power
    21

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece View Post
    Yeah, I don't want to get into semantics here. Sam's stats through 7 games would have projected to about 3856 yards, 32 TDs, 9 ints over the course of 16 games--which is just a little bit off Tony Romo's stat line as the nearest comparison. He'd project to 13th in yards if he didn't miss any games (15th in yards/game), tied for 5th in TDs and tied for 9th most interceptions, 11th in QB rating. That stat line isn't bad, but he's also less mobile than a number of the other quarterbacks who fall in the same QB rating range (e.g., Newton, Kaepernick, Roethlisberger, Alex Smith) and his yards per attempt would notably rank 34th in the league. He's early '00s Jon Kitna. (And the Bengals draft Carson Palmer)
    2 TDs per game and about an INT every other game. I'll take that over any QB in the draft this year, all day. And unlike Romo, Sam has never found a way to blow close games. Also, don't forget Sam did this WITHOUT any semblance of a rushing attack. For a one dimensional offense, those numbers look quite good.
    Last edited by FestusRam; -01-01-2014 at 06:26 AM.

  15. #90
    bigdogg2834 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: JD Clowney anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    2 TDs per game and about an INT every other game. I'll take that over any QB in the draft this year, all day. And unlike Romo, Sam has never found a way to blow close games. Also, don't forget Sam did this WITHOUT any semblance of a rushing attack. For a one dimensional offense, those numbers look quite good.
    Exactly! Can't wait to see what he can do with a good running game for a full season!

Similar Threads

  1. Prediction: Clowney Goes #1
    By Barry Waller in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: -12-29-2013, 05:30 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: -12-09-2013, 08:08 PM
  3. Jadeveon Clowney
    By Rambos in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: -10-18-2013, 11:29 AM
  4. Jadeveon Clowney or Teddy Bridgewater?
    By RosieJones in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -09-27-2013, 09:23 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-16-2013, 05:33 PM

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
  •