I get the point you're making, and it's a valid one.
I would ask you (because I honestly don't know) who was playing opposite Roddy White before Julio Jones?
Who was opposite Cris Carter and Marvin Harrison before Moss and Wayne respectively.
In those instances it seems like those teams had one excellent receiver and just some guy for the other.
There was a need for that "home run hitter" receiver to stretch the defense. I know that Atlanta felt they were one player away from the Super Bowl, so they were comfortable going all in on Jones.
I don't know what your opinion of Chris Long is. I definitely wouldn't call him elite, but I think he's a very good DE and a good compliment to Quinn.
What it all really comes down to is that I don't believe the hype on Clowney.
No one questions his physical attributes, but his work ethic and drive are definitely in question.
I don't think anyone really expects the Rams to keep the second pick, but if for some reason they do I'd just rather see them go Robinson/Matthews/Watkins at that spot.
I get yours as well, it could be more valid, you raise good points.
That point is more well taken with IND, I agree with your JAG hunch (looking at 2000 IND stats, Wayne was drafted in 2001). Seemingly less so with MIN, they already had Jake Reed in addition to Carter (looking at 1997, Moss drafted in 1998), he was 68-1,138-6 the prior year. He was 85-1,175-4 in 1994, 72-1,167-9 in 1995 and 72-1,320-7 in 1996.
So in the case of IND, they didn't have a WR counterpart or doppleganger as good to their team as Chris Long is to ours, at his respective DE position. MIN arguably did.
Agreed ATL made a one-player-away thinking, all in-type move. They may not have been as close as they thought, though they did get to the playoffs. One thing I like about the Rams position relative to ATL, we don't have to blow up our draft to get to that spot needed to take a blue chip, elite prospect that could be a difference maker and future Pro Bowler. Imagine if ATL had been able to get Julio Jones and spend "only" their higher of two firsts, that would have been even sweeter for them.
As to Chris Long, I thought he played better in 2012, but some suggested he may have been hurt. He isn't old but not young either. Similar to Jake Long, I think they went 1.1 and 1.2 in the same draft. Chris hasn't been hurt as much as Jake. I don't like the fact that he doesn't seem to be that involved in run support, but maybe that is scheme-related (though his tenure overlaps with several regimes/schemes). He might be underrated nationally, playing for a sub-.500 team his entire career. Before this year (or maybe 2012?), I think he was close to top 5 in combined sacks in the trailing 3 years approx? That stat surprised me, I knew he was pretty good, but not quite that good. He led the team in sacks in 2012, and the defense tied-first in the NFL with 52 sacks, so that is commendable. Like I said, 2013 seemed like an off year, I hope, unless he is on a downward trajectory. In 2012, a better year, I think he was top 5-10 as a LDE (if we distinguish from a Robert Quinn-like RDE skill set), with top 10 being pretty good, top 5 maybe or maybe not great depending how you define it. I thought the 2012 iteration was a better complement to Quinn than the 2013 version.
If you don't like Clowney (important to make a distinction between the physical specimen and athlete and his character, passion for the game, desire to be great, work ethic, teammate and leadership intangibles and how that comprises his value as an overall prospect, as you have), than naturally you would like the LT or WR pick better. I like them, too. I view them as higher floor players, Clowney could be a higher ceiling. I was completely down on Clowney earlier and wanted nothing to do with him (like where some are at now), but am now in the process of reevaluating him, and started the thread in the hopes of learning something new that might give me more clarity on whether he was a good or bad pick. I'm not in the same position as others that have made up their mind one way or the other.
I do think this thread should have been two-pronged, as noted upthread, with the first establishing if others thought Clowney was elite (clearly many don't), and the second, for those that did, to have the discussion if he was elite enough to go for greatness in a BPA sense, even if it meant setting aside posited "more pressing needs". Answering the second question is sort of incoherent without nailing down the first premise.
Clowney's intangibles are in question, to what degree they should be is for me an open question. He reportedly had multiple injuries, I don't know how much they slowed him, or if he is a malingerer, or was coasting because of the unfortunate Lattimore injury. Some people in the thread seem to have an almost forensically-detailed level of recollection about the negative innuendo surrounding Spurrier's infamous press conference, but in some cases seem to be completely oblivious of his apology and retraction? I find that a bit one-sided.
Trading down and getting Clowney may not be mutually exclusive, if we trade to 1.4 and the first three picks are Bridgwater, Manziel and Bortles? If STL thinks 2012 was more representative of Clowney's ceiling than 2013, and that they can work with him, I trust Fisher and Snead to make that decision. Our team can use help in a few places, so if they decide OL or WR best, I'm definitely cool with that, too.
BTW, if Clowney was coming off a junior year as dominant as his soph campaign, if you thought he was one of the best prospects at the position since Mario Williams and Julius Peppers, would you be more inclined to take him? Still opt for the LT or WR?
I would just like to redefine "need" in less of a localized, hole-plugging sense, and more of a global, tipping point sense. What moves get us closer to winning the West and Super Bowl? Does adding effectively a guard for a few years, maybe longer (as long as Long and Barksdale are the bookends), tip the OL over to dominant, and could we fill that hole with a cheaper option this year or in a later draft, free agency, etc., since this is a long-term deal? Does adding Watkins make the WR corp dominant (maybe very good, I recognize that), if we also throw to Austin, Bailey, Givens, Quick, Cook, Kendricks, and are a run-centric offense, and maybe he only touches the ball 3-4 times a game (I'm aware they could throw to him more, but I thought they would throw to Austin more, Watkins is bigger and no doubt has a more obvious WR1 skill set)? Does Clowney make the DL dominant added to Quinn, Long and Brockers?
There is no one way to win, we could all cite many examples and blue prints. I thought of the Giants as a recent example, that kept drafting pass rushers when they were already loaded and stacked (see JPP), developed the all DE DL NASCAR package, and rode an outstanding, dominant pass rush to two Super Bowl wins.