Jump to content
Reed83HOF

Clowney considering options including a "prove it" short term deal

Recommended Posts

On 3/19/2020 at 11:44 AM, thebandit27 said:

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

 

It certainly is.    Bruce was a complete player...Mario, not so much.

 

      Tackles   Fumbles Def Interceptions
Rk Player From To AV G Solo Ast QBHits TFL Sk FF FR Yds TD Int Yds TD
1 Bruce Smith* 1991 1994 48 51 272 24     39.5 11 3 0 0 2 0 0
2 Mario Williams 2012 2015 45 63 116 29 60 53 43.0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 8:46 AM, 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.


I agree. Sort of similar to Sammy Watkins— talent doesn’t match production. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:


I agree. Sort of similar to Sammy Watkins— talent doesn’t match production. 

So does that mean he doesn't use his talent or the numbers you're looking at are not the right ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:


I agree. Sort of similar to Sammy Watkins— talent doesn’t match production. 

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? 😂

Edited by ScottLaw
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 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?


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).

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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? 😂

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. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, BuffAlone said:

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. 

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. 

Edited by ScottLaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 11:54 AM, 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. 

And Bruce’s best season was 1996, two years after this time comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt mind a 2 year deal at 15M... you should spend big money at 3 positions (qb, OT, and pass rushers) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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? 😂


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. 

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 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).


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 by NewEra
  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 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.

Sacks are good. Pressuring a QB into an errant throw resulting in a turnover is much better. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 11:44 AM, 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

Enough facts! Stick with the inaccurate narrative that Mario was an overpaid bum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:

Sacks are good. Pressuring a QB into an errant throw resulting in a turnover is much better. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 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.


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. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 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. 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, 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.

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 by LSHMEAB
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...