Miyagi-Do Karate Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 3/19/2020 at 12:46 PM, dneveu said: 3 sacks in a walk year. Yet to get double digits in a season. I know sometimes things fall in your lap and the number goes up and down... but 3? all year? for a guy who wants to be paid the highest at the position? 4 forced fumbles is a nice stat - but you don't pay run stopping DE's 20 million a year. Expand I agree. Sort of similar to Sammy Watkins— talent doesn’t match production. 2
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 2:45 PM, JR in Pittsburgh said: I agree. Sort of similar to Sammy Watkins— talent doesn’t match production. Expand So does that mean he doesn't use his talent or the numbers you're looking at are not the right ones?
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 2:49 PM, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said: So does that mean he doesn't use his talent or the numbers you're looking at are not the right ones? Expand To me, if you are paying a DE elite money, he has to play a lot and get a lot of sacks. Clowney seems to miss games and not get sacks. And I’m not entirely sure why, especially on sacks. (And if a reason is that he is double-teamed a lot, every great DE gets double teamed). 1
BuffAlone Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 2:57 PM, ScottLaw said: Watkins just won a super bowl and was the leading receiver in the playoffs and key contributor to why the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..... agreed, who needs talent like that? ? Expand yet he's not their #1. He led receivers in playoffs because everyone concentrated on Hill. Thats why he didn't sign a new contract conducive to a #1 WR. Not saying he's not talented, but in Buffalo he was a #1 and would have required #1 money. And that, not necessarily due to faults of his own, did not match production. 3 1
dave mcbride Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 3/19/2020 at 3:54 PM, That's No Moon said: Twice as many forced fumbles and 12 fewer games played because Bruce missed almost all of 1991. It is eye opening. Bruce's overall impact on the game compared to Mario Williams isn't even close. Expand And Bruce’s best season was 1996, two years after this time comparison.
BuffAlone Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 3:08 PM, ScottLaw said: Ok? Watkins was a key reason the Chiefs won the Super Bowl. You could argue without him they don’t win. My point was his comparison of Watkins to Clowney and not wanting that type of talent is a ridiculous statement. Expand I hear ya. My point is I don't believe anybody would not want that talent. But in relationship to money and production, as well as specific scheme and other factors, sometimes it just don't fit
AlCowlingsTaxiService Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 The prove it deals have worked out pretty well for mcbeane thus far ... 2
Jerboski Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 I wouldnt mind a 2 year deal at 15M... you should spend big money at 3 positions (qb, OT, and pass rushers)
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 2:57 PM, ScottLaw said: Watkins just won a super bowl and was the leading receiver in the playoffs and key contributor to why the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..... agreed, who needs talent like that? ? Expand No doubt he did well in the super bowl, but that’s the point. He’s talented— like no. 1 receiver talented. Yet he can’t even match the Consistent level of production of cole Beasley. And the market reflects that— he had to take a paycut and is on a 1-year deal (and he would have probably been cut outright but the chiefs wanted to avoid a $7M cap hit). i don’t want to hijack the thread talking about watkins, but my point is you can be the most talented guy in the world, but teams should and usually do pay for players based on some degree of consistent production. 1
NewEra Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) On 4/4/2020 at 2:57 PM, JR in Pittsburgh said: To me, if you are paying a DE elite money, he has to play a lot and get a lot of sacks. Clowney seems to miss games and not get sacks. And I’m not entirely sure why, especially on sacks. (And if a reason is that he is double-teamed a lot, every great DE gets double teamed). Expand sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks aren’t the only things that matter with regards to pass rushers. Yes, sacks matter. As do qb pressures, QB hits, TFL, playing the run and being disruptive on a weekly basis. Jerry Hughes doesn’t get many sacks. He’s a very good pass rusher. He affects the game and is part of the reason our defense is so good. If we had Hughes, Addison and Clowney plus our stable of DTs, I’m confidant our pass rush wouldn’t be an issue. Regardless of how many sacks we get. Edited April 4, 2020 by NewEra 4 1
AlCowlingsTaxiService Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 5:54 PM, NewEra said: sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks aren’t the only things that matter with regards to pass rushers. Yes, sacks matter. As do qb pressures, QB hits, TFL, playing the run and being disruptive on a weekly basis. Jerry Hughes doesn’t get many sacks. He’s a very good pass rusher. He affects the game and is part of the reason our defense is so good. If we had Hughes, Addison and Clowney plus our stable of DTs, I’m confidant our pass rush wouldn’t be an issue. Regardless of how many sacks we get. Expand Sacks are good. Pressuring a QB into an errant throw resulting in a turnover is much better. 2
AlCowlingsTaxiService Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 On 3/19/2020 at 3:44 PM, thebandit27 said: Mario was a Bill for his 7th-10th NFL seasons. A simple apples-to-apples comparison of the 2 players’ 7th-10th NFL seasons is eye-opening to say the least: http://pfref.com/tiny/03fWq Expand Enough facts! Stick with the inaccurate narrative that Mario was an overpaid bum.
NewEra Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 11:21 PM, AlCowlingsTaxiService said: Sacks are good. Pressuring a QB into an errant throw resulting in a turnover is much better. Expand They are. sacks are amazing. I don’t want to lessen the importance of getting sacks, rather give some attention to the plays that don’t pop up in the regular box score. Forcing a QB to throw the ball away or hurry his throw into an incompletion is almost as good as a sack on 3rd.....and forcing the qb into an interception is even better. Disruption and versatility. Clowney brings both
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 5:54 PM, NewEra said: sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks aren’t the only things that matter with regards to pass rushers. Yes, sacks matter. As do qb pressures, QB hits, TFL, playing the run and being disruptive on a weekly basis. Jerry Hughes doesn’t get many sacks. He’s a very good pass rusher. He affects the game and is part of the reason our defense is so good. If we had Hughes, Addison and Clowney plus our stable of DTs, I’m confidant our pass rush wouldn’t be an issue. Regardless of how many sacks we get. Expand I will admit that sacks can be a misleading stat. But what’s weird about clowney is his consistently low sack numbers over his career. It defies the odds for any good edge rusher. It’s really strange. 2
NewEra Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/5/2020 at 1:06 AM, JR in Pittsburgh said: I will admit that sacks can be a misleading stat. But what’s weird about clowney is his consistently low sack numbers over his career. It defies the odds for any good edge rusher. It’s really strange. Expand I agree. It is. He’s definitely not as good as I thought he’d be (or anyone thought he’d be). I feel like every time I turn on a game and he’s playing, he’s causing a ruckus.
njbuff Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 I wonder if the Browns swoop in knowing they don't have Garrett to start the season and they still have 43 million in cap space?
LSHMEAB Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) On 4/4/2020 at 5:54 PM, NewEra said: sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks sacks aren’t the only things that matter with regards to pass rushers. Yes, sacks matter. As do qb pressures, QB hits, TFL, playing the run and being disruptive on a weekly basis. Jerry Hughes doesn’t get many sacks. He’s a very good pass rusher. He affects the game and is part of the reason our defense is so good. If we had Hughes, Addison and Clowney plus our stable of DTs, I’m confidant our pass rush wouldn’t be an issue. Regardless of how many sacks we get. Expand I share many of the concerns about Clowney's low PR production, but I would be ALL in a short term/HIGH DOLLAR contract. The sack numbers are concerning, but he appears to do everything well and has not always been tasked with rushing the passer. He's an elite ATHLETE. The defense desperately needs an elite athlete on the edge. Someone you know can track a ball carrier/QB(maybe it happens down the field in his case). I'm with you on the combination aspect. Clowney would be a perfect compliment to Hughes and Addison(both long in the tooth and neither elite athletically). I could see that combination generating a ton of pressure and wreaking havoc on backfields. If we're talking about a short term deal, sign me up. Edited April 5, 2020 by LSHMEAB 1
John from Riverside Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 2:57 PM, ScottLaw said: Watkins just won a super bowl and was the leading receiver in the playoffs and key contributor to why the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..... agreed, who needs talent like that? ? Expand Just to point out There are no name players that have done this same thing......Sammy getting paid a lot of coin. I mean....good for him....but I would not want to pay it and ask him to be "the guy" when he wasnt
Mat68 Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/4/2020 at 4:45 PM, JR in Pittsburgh said: No doubt he did well in the super bowl, but that’s the point. He’s talented— like no. 1 receiver talented. Yet he can’t even match the Consistent level of production of cole Beasley. And the market reflects that— he had to take a paycut and is on a 1-year deal (and he would have probably been cut outright but the chiefs wanted to avoid a $7M cap hit). i don’t want to hijack the thread talking about watkins, but my point is you can be the most talented guy in the world, but teams should and usually do pay for players based on some degree of consistent production. Expand They paid Watkins to have that little extra late in the year, or in the playoffs. They got out of him what they wanted. I would bring in Clowney to add that little extra something to the defense. They have the money. Clowney is an upgrade. He would vault the defense into championship quality. Against the Cheifs, against the Ravens having someone who routinley gets penetration off the edge is huge. 1
cle23 Posted April 5, 2020 Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/5/2020 at 4:08 AM, njbuff said: I wonder if the Browns swoop in knowing they don't have Garrett to start the season and they still have 43 million in cap space? Expand Why wouldn't they have Garrett?
Recommended Posts