jjab360
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 6,733
Then I have failed as a ROD poster.You didn't
Fret not, though, I will redeem myself in the future.
Then I have failed as a ROD poster.You didn't
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"
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?
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.
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.
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.
Slow your roll manhere'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.
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
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.
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.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?
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.
See my response above in BOLD.
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.
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.
Clowney has the ability to be one of those type of players.
A lot of guys come in with the ability, few live up to it.