Originally Posted by xztop123:
Jones May have done the right thing mentally on the play but his athleticism made him unable to close in on Henry. Allowing them to leave him unblocked.
You can fail on a play due to lack of speed or strength - it’s not always a mental error
Jones is very athletic. I dont think anyone makes that play [Reply]
Originally Posted by xztop123:
Jones May have done the right thing mentally on the play but his athleticism made him unable to close in on Henry. Allowing them to leave him unblocked.
You can fail on a play due to lack of speed or strength - it’s not always a mental error
I thought he was a super stud at DE and KC was stupid for not playing him there.
Now he's not athletic enough for it?
This site is confusing. 1 week and everyone just completely flip flops.
Few guys are making that play. There was like a 9 yard wide cutback lane. Trent Richardson could have found that hole. [Reply]
I'm sure none of y'all noticed, but Clowney was the best player on the field for either team yesterday. Russell Wilson included.
Dude was a monster. And he's been damn good all year. His pass rush win rate was among the tops in the league BEFORE yesterday's game.
Everybody wanting to carp about his sack total needs to watch him, and then watch the sack that Clark got. Clark was largely an afterthought on his sack Sunday - Jones did all the work. Well Clowney's been doing that sort of heavy lifting a lot for the Seahawks this season. He's been winning his matchups regularly and just not quite getting there.
As opposed to Clark, who loses his matchups and then we get excuses for him.
Clowney's game yesterday was the bill of goods we were sold on Frank Clark. None of this "well he set the edge" or "he almost made a tackle on that screen pass" bullshit. We were supposed to get a guy who can win games.
And he's just worthless. He actively hurt the team Sunday by being on it instead of Mike Pennel. We win that game if Clark simply doesn't play and Pennel does. When considering cost, he's very likely the single worst transaction in franchise history. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I'm sure none of y'all noticed, but Clowney was the best player on the field for either team yesterday. Russell Wilson included.
Dude was a monster. And he's been damn good all year. His pass rush win rate was among the tops in the league BEFORE yesterday's game.
Everybody wanting to carp about his sack total needs to watch him, and then watch the sack that Clark got. Clark was largely an afterthought on his sack Sunday - Jones did all the work. Well Clowney's been doing that sort of heavy lifting a lot for the Seahawks this season. He's been winning his matchups regularly and just not quite getting there.
As opposed to Clark, who loses his matchups and then we get excuses for him.
Clowney's game yesterday was the bill of goods we were sold on Frank Clark. None of this "well he set the edge" or "he almost made a tackle on that screen pass" bullshit. We were supposed to get a guy who can win games.
And he's just worthless. He actively hurt the team Sunday by being on it instead of Mike Pennel. We win that game if Clark simply doesn't play and Pennel does. When considering cost, he's very likely the single worst transaction in franchise history.
Yep, and by contrast, the Seattle trade for Clowney was by far the best get by any team all off season, especially when one considers what the chump change they got him for. Of course it took the Texans to be real stupid, but that's beside the point. He is VERY disruptive, as you said, just like he was in Houston. Everyone puts so much emphasis on sacks because that's were the BIG $$$ is, and Clowney has never had a 10-sack season, but his play made others around him get to the QB more. Yep, Seattle got one hell of a deal, and even if it's just a one-year rental, they'll get a comp pick - maybe even as high as a 3rd, which is what they gave up for him. My bet is he signs a long term deal with them though, but if not, someone will pay him. It's a win for Seattle and Clowney either way. [Reply]
Eric Berry is the worst contract this franchise has ever had. We got 3 quarters of good play from him and that’s it.
Which leads me to what I’ve been saying...stop spending big money on defensive players. It just has not worked out and we never get the ROI.
Quit risking everything on one or two guys and use it on a bunch of quality lower cost players like Husain Abdullah, Sean smith, Mike DeVito, Alex Okafor, Damien Wilson, Emmanuel Ogbah (he should be cheap), etc along with draft picks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Yep, and by contrast, the Seattle trade for Clowney was by far the best get by any team all off season, especially when one considers what the chump change they got him for. Of course it took the Texans to be real stupid, but that's beside the point. He is VERY disruptive, as you said, just like he was in Houston. Everyone puts so much emphasis on sacks because that's were the BIG $$$ is, and Clowney has never had a 10-sack season, but his play made others around him get to the QB more. Yep, Seattle got one hell of a deal, and even if it's just a one-year rental, they'll get a comp pick - maybe even as high as a 3rd, which is what they gave up for him. My bet is he signs a long term deal with them though, but if not, someone will pay him. It's a win for Seattle and Clowney either way.
Clowney is disruptive, sometimes. Consistent effort is just not there. That's the real reason he has no 10+ sack seasons. You don't pay big money to these guys as you are assured that after the big contract, they will relax. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Clowney is disruptive, sometimes. Consistent effort is just not there. That's the real reason he has no 10+ sack seasons. You don't pay big money to these guys as you are assured that after the big contract, they will relax.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
And don't forget he is injury prone.
We really gonna keep fucking that chicken, are we?
Guy missed 3 games in the 3 seasons prior to this one.
Meanwhile we traded for a guy with 2 bum elbows.
Yeah - Clowney's injury history was really the big distinction between him and Clark...
Oh, and Clowney's been a stellar run defender (not Frank Clark's mythical run-stopping prowess but rather actually excellent at it) his entire career. Run defense is almost exclusively an effort thing.
But people still bang on his motor for some strange reason.
I said it back when my position was that you don't acquire any of these guys, but Clowney was always the best fit for this system and it's precisely because how he was used in Houston. He was oftentimes used as the decoy designed to make space for Watt and Mercilus. People used their success as an indictment on Clowney by saying "Why can't he get sacks when these guys are drawing so much attention" but never acknowledged that oftentimes those guys were getting sacks because Clowney was drawing attention.
Clowney has ALWAYS been a better player than Frank Clark. Always. And if Veach didn't have stupid !@#$ing tunnel vision for this idiot try hard who impressed him by kicking our ass in a single game and barked a lot in practice, he'd have seen that.
I don't blame Staylor for his confirmation bias - that's how he rolls. But I have no earthly idea how Brett Veach ever convinced himself that he'd rather have Frank Clark than Jadaveon Clowney. It simply isn't a close question. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Clowney is disruptive, sometimes. Consistent effort is just not there. That's the real reason he has no 10+ sack seasons. You don't pay big money to these guys as you are assured that after the big contract, they will relax.
No. Clowney, is disruptive a lot of the time. He gets out of position and free lances a lot which causes him problems. He also plays the run well. [Reply]
