Originally Posted by Marcellus:
And don't forget he is injury prone.
That's really a false narrative tghat gets repeated more than it should. His first year that was an issue (4 games played), and a little bit his second season (13 games played) but he has been healthy ever since. He played 14, 16, 15 games respectively the past 3 seasons and he has been healthy this season as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
We really gonna keep ****ing 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.
This is straight bullshit. Clowney has never had 10 sacks in a season FFS. Clark has had 2.
Clark has 7 more career sacks in 2 fewer career games played. Get out of here with that nonsense.
Clark has missed 3 games in his career, Clowney has missed 18.
You can argue the price difference etc..but Clowney has not proven to be a better player. That's ridiculous. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
No. Clowney, is disruptive most of the time. He gets out of position and free lances a lot which is why the sacks aren't there. He also plays the run well.
Yup.
Originally Posted by TEX:
That's really a false narrative tghat gets repeated more than it should. His first year that was an issue (4 games played), and a little bit his second season (13 games played) but he has been healthy ever since. He played 14, 16, 15 games respectively the past 3 seasons and he has been healthy this season as well.
Yup.
But people wanted so badly to believe that sweet boy Brett Veach couldn't have made a mistake so they shit on a superior player to Frank Clark to convince themselves of it.
Clowney is a prototype LDE in this defense and Veach simply screwed it up. Any amount of mental gymnastics to convince yourself otherwise is folly. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
This is straight bullshit. Clowney has never had 10 sacks in a season FFS. Clark has had 2.
Clark has 7 more career sacks in 2 fewer career games played. Get out of here with that nonsense.
Clark has missed 3 games in his career, Clowney has missed 18.
You can argue the price difference etc..but Clowney has not proven to be a better player. That's ridiculous.
No it really isn't.
I've addressed this stupid "BUT THE SACKS" argument already. Shit, I did it 3 posts ago.
Clark might be a better pure pass rusher (maybe) but he is nowhere near the overall player and the fact that the dude has never made a single pro bowl while Clowney made 3 in a row should have probably tipped you off to this fact.
But yes, you clearly do intend to keep fucking the injury prone chicken while ignoring the fact that he's played 90% of his games the last 3+ years. Glad we cleared that up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
No it really isn't.
I've addressed this stupid "BUT THE SACKS" argument already. Shit, I did it 3 posts ago.
Clark might be a better pure pass rusher (maybe) but he is nowhere near the overall player and the fact that the dude has never made a single pro bowl while Clowney made 3 in a row should have probably tipped you off to this fact.
But yes, you clearly do intend to keep ****ing the injury prone chicken while ignoring the fact that he's played 90% of his games the last 3+ years. Glad we cleared that up.
Oh yes DJ the pro bowl is a fantastic indicator of player performance. :-) [Reply]
I'm going to say it again for you DJ, Clowney has not proven to be a better player than Clark, he is cheaper but he is NOT better (not before this season anyway) and never has been.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
We really gonna keep ****ing 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.
I thought a report came out the Texans cane to the Chiefs about Clowney and the Chiefs wanted no part of him. They were absolutely locked in on Clark to the point they overbid against themselves.
I would be really curious what evaluation factors the Chiefs use...old school eye talent/tape or full blown analytics. It certainly isnt moneyball I know that and nobody anymore can say Clark is cheap. This group has gotten ownership to constantly overpay for players more than I have ever seen. Most of them have backfired terribly. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Clowney couldn’t get double-digit sacks playing with Watt and Mercilus for 4 years. He’s on pace for like 5 sacks this year.
He’s been a bust if you compare the hype he got coming out of college.
I would argue he is probably the most overrated player I have ever seen. Last night might be the best game of his career but I have seen Dee Ford have that kind of night. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Clowney couldn’t get double-digit sacks playing with Watt and Mercilus for 4 years. He’s on pace for like 5 sacks this year.
He’s been a bust if you compare the hype he got coming out of college.
I get the hype argument...Guess how many games Clowney actually played with Watt & Whitney during those 4 years? Not nearly as many as you think. In fact, you'll be very surprised when you get the answer.
All things considered, I'd rather have Clowney over Clark and said so at the time. When you consider the price it took to get each player respectively, it's a no brainer. However, in all fairness, no way that the Chiefs could have gotten Clowney for what the Seahawks did because of the timing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I would argue he is probably the most overrated player I have ever seen. Last night might be the best game of his career but I have seen Dee Ford have that kind of night.
Tony Manadrich hands down.
Regarding last night, you know the Seahawks got a great deal of satisfaction seeing the guy they traded for come up BIG in a BIG game against a division rival!
Maybe we'll be saying the same thing about Frank Clark next Monday ngiht? [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
He was unblocked because if he bites down on that then Tannehill is going to keep it and then you ****ing retards will be bitching for him missing his assignment. He played that how he was supposed to. Its not his fault other players didn't do what they were supposed to do.
It's not an option, its inside zone down blocking and a double on the playside 3 tech. Tannehill is handing off regardless, its the play call. Later on they did come back and run bootleg and even waggle by pulling a lineman across. Jones is just too slow to scrape down and then still recover on a boot. He's great if teams are running more outside zone as he can hold point of attack vs TE's, but when teams run away you need to be able to read/scrape and recover. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I'm going to say it again for you DJ, Clowney has not proven to be a better player than Clark, he is cheaper but he is NOT better (not before this season anyway) and never has been.
You are talking straight out your ass.
Bullshit. Frank Clark has been an average run defender and system rusher his whole career.
The Texans built schemes around Clowneys versatility and his ability to dominate was on clear display last night against an undefeated football team. Clark was a situational rusher who the Seahawks ditched the moment it was time to pay him.
Again - find me a 3 time pro bowler who's worse than a direct contemporary with ZERO honors from the league. Clark's excellence is a myth manufactured on CP to justify a fucking terrible decision by Veach and had the Raiders made that decision you'd have laughed your ass off. [Reply]
