Damnit, I'm not denying his talent. It's the when he wants to go part. That's it. I won't get butthurt if he does get drafted by the Rams, he's the guy I just want to least want to be seen drafted b/c of said issues. I feel the either one of the 2 tackles or Sammy Watkins can upgrade positions of weakness/uncertainty and the Rams have a need for, w/o worrying about effort.
I dont buy for one second that guys like Quinn, JL, Long would let some rook come in and dog it.
Agreed. And all his former players say that Gregg Williams doesn't allow the same. You either buy in and play your heart out or he rides you and benches you.
What then if that happened with anyone? All this talk of not being a hard worker is being generated from Spurrier saying he isn't AS great of a work out machine as Latimore and then teams doing everything in their power to take him out of games? I'm not on the draft Clowney train but I also think there is a bit of tear down mentality going on around the media and it filters down to fan boards.And what then if that happened?
Does that make it any less effective?jrry32 with these thoughts:
And that's really something that's misrepresented. People assume that because 95% of coaches talk in circles and say nothing but platitudes(coach talk) that if a coach says something negative, it must mean more than it does. But that's just Spurrier.
The guy has ripped his own starting QBs a new arsehole. He's ripped his own OL and OL Coach. He's ripped his offense. That's who he is. He's blunt and a little too candid to the media.
And Spurrier really didn't say anything bad. So yea, I think that's making a mountain out of a molehill.
My point, though, isn't so much that it can be flipped...only that Sammy Watkins has warts on his character that people are all too eager to overlook. And I like Watkins. I just think the people are giving Clowney way too much grief.
No but questions about his ability to translate to elite at the NFL level do.Does that make it any less effective?
As for your point, I already agreed that Watkins character concerns should receive a little more scrutiny. Possibly Clowney's should receive a little less but it's that time of year where all things get magnified to provide the talking heads with material to talk about. Having said that, I totally disagree with your contention that Watkins foibles are in the same ballpark as those of Clowney. I'm talking from a performance standpoint here. Watkins less than fantastic stats in the middle of his college career can easily be explained away in terms that don't involve questions about his abilities on the field. Clowney's lack of production can't be explained away so easily and the comments from his coach are only a tiny molehill the equation. That's the problem. His lack of production last year brings into question just how good is he. Those questions don't exist when talking about Watkins.
That's true of every player in the draft isn't it?RamFan503 with this:
No but questions about his ability to translate to elite at the NFL level do.
Yes but was lesser with other prospects. A 6'1" receiver with less than elite speed and some drop issues in his history doesn't excite me personally unless we already had the line that could allow him to flourish. Add to that a bust for performance enhancing drugs.... I think there are significant questions - not just the "no guarantee" reservation.That's true of every player in the draft isn't it?
Yes but was lesser with other prospects. A 6'1" receiver with less than elite speed and some drop issues in his history doesn't excite me personally unless we already had the line that could allow him to flourish. Add to that a bust for performance enhancing drugs.... I think there are significant questions - not just the "no guarantee" reservation.
Of course I reserve the right to love the guy and everything he could bring if we draft him.
I dont buy for one second that guys like Quinn, JL, Long would let some rook come in and dog it.
"Because Spurrier was so hands-off on defense, it got to the point where guys on defense were doing whatever the heck they wanted to do," Hasselbeck said. "You had LaVar Arrington freelancing and Jeremiah Trotter doing his own thing. I think they even tried to bench Bruce Smith at one point because he wasn't the same player, but [Smith] went above Spurrier and started the following week.
"Spurrier definitely has a reputation for being laid-back and relaxed and not having a whole bunch of rules," Hasselbeck said. "You'd have guys with their cell phones going off in the meetings, and there wouldn't be any consequences. That kind of thing permeates the whole culture being created in a bunch of different areas.
"Coaches who are successful in creating a comfortable environment also know what boundaries to set up, and I don't know that any boundaries were ever set up when I was there.
That's a very subjective view on your point isn't it? You see so many things you like about him that you've come to the conclusion that he's very low risk. That conclusion isn't unique to you in that every GM has to think that way about every player they draft or they wouldn't draft them. Still, everyone has their own unique assessment for each player.RamFan503 with this:
Yes but was lesser with other prospects.
Which is why it's kind of funny to me. Lets flip the script, lets say Clowney had his "down" year as a sophomore and his dominant year as a junior.(flip his sophomore and junior years) Whereas Watkins has his dominant year as a sophomore and his subpar year as a junior(flip his sophomore and junior years), do you think that Watkins would be getting the same treatment as Clowney?
IMO, yes. Clowney didn't even get arrested and suspended. So it's weird to me how people never question Watkins's character but believe Clowney will be some mega bust. Like I said earlier, I think if you flipped the script, people would be saying the same thing about Watkins while not questioning Clowney's character. Victims of the moment.
"Alan - trying to pigeon hole my argument pontificates with]That's a very subjective view on your point isn't it? You see so many things you like about him that you've come to the conclusion that he's very low risk. That conclusion isn't unique to you in that every GM has to think that way about every player they draft or they wouldn't draft them. Still, everyone has their own unique assessment for each player.
How's the can't miss Aaron Curry doing? The concerns about Watkins remind me of the concerns about Stedman. There are so few college programs that run a program that mimics the NFL that questions will abound about virtually every player.
At least that's what I think. :coffee:
RamFan503 hitting me when I'm only partially armed:
I haven't come to the conclusion that Clowney is very low risk any more than someone like Watkins.
If you switch Watkins' sophomore and junior years, he'd be getting the same treatment as Marqise Lee or worse right now.Which is why it's kind of funny to me. Lets flip the script, lets say Clowney had his "down" year as a sophomore and his dominant year as a junior.(flip his sophomore and junior years) Whereas Watkins has his dominant year as a sophomore and his subpar year as a junior(flip his sophomore and junior years), do you think that Watkins would be getting the same treatment as Clowney?
IMO, yes. Clowney didn't even get arrested and suspended. So it's weird to me how people never question Watkins's character but believe Clowney will be some mega bust. Like I said earlier, I think if you flipped the script, people would be saying the same thing about Watkins while not questioning Clowney's character. Victims of the moment.