Not going to lie, you brought it on with the presentation of your post. Rather than address the issues in the posts where your disagreement was had, you had to go and open a new thread clearly calling out specific posters / posts. How can you not expect to get dumped on by doing that? You could have even made a new David Clowney post without bringing others into it... had you stated your four sentiments above, and expanded on them, this probably would be a great discussion right now, rather than have turned into the pseudo-trash talking forum slugfest it is right now. Now to try to get some football talk out of this thread... 1) Outside of Cotchery, the Jets have 3 receivers to fill the #2 hole... Stuckey, Smith, and Clowney... none of them are true #1s or even #2s, but all three have different abilities. Each will be played when their talents suit the situation best... Clowney stretches the field in a way the other two count, so no he shouldn't be the #4, just part of the rotation as he rightly is. 2) What moves would you have made differently from the ones the Jets FO has made since Tannenbaum took over? From my perspective, Tannenbaum has done an excellent job to build the Jets team, and I believe we are a playoff contender this year. 3) If someone compared Clowney to Lee Evans, it was a silly notion that didn't need an entire new post to address it. 4) What exactly does this have to do with the price of apples and oranges? Clowney made a play against the first string unit in the first preseason game, so his body of work is not just up against scrubs.
what a retarded post I guess all those balls he dropped last night qualify for him to be the 4th starter. Jeez, talk about stupid posts this has to be at the top of them.
Sorry, I didn't see this before, my internet keeps going out. Let's make some points and see if we can find some common ground: 1) This guy isn't the answer to our WR troubles 2) I could watch 20 preseason games with Clowney and I'm about 95% certain that the result will be just as it has been over the last 3 games this preseason. He'll burn 3rd string DBs, but he'll get blanketed by starters, no problem. 3) The FO has dropped the ball, again, on addressing critical depth areas on this team. This time it's at the WR position. Most of this is attributable to trading away drafts each year. 4) I don't care about Brad Smith. I never said Brad Smith was better than Clowney. If I did, I was wrong. He is better on special teams though. Have to throw that in there. 5) Comparing Clowney to Lee Evans is ludicrous on many different levels. 6) Clowney is of slight frame, and I question his durability. 7) So the guy made a couple of blocks. So did Jack Simmons. He tied his shoes also, apparently, I'm not impressed about either of those things. To me, saying that he threw some blocks is digging for something positive in a mostly negative performance. I only ever "insult" people after they insult me. I generally stay away from name calling, if you read through my posts, that should become obvious.
Tough to drop balls when you can't get open and have the ball thrown to you. Talk about stupid posts, read your own post.
Why don't we wait until the regular season and see how he does. There's no point in arguing about how he played in a game when he wasn't even thrown to, or even looked at for that matter. We all know Sanchez stared down his first option on every throw, so I don't even think he looked at Clowney at all. Maybe Clowney was double teamed because of his speed. These are all things we don't know yet. And stop saying Clowney only caught passes against scrubs, because that is just a false statement. He has caught passes against the first team defense in this preseason.
1) People should be called out when they make crass statements. When the evidence proves that their points weren't well thought out, maybe they'll think twice about getting overexcited about a scrub player... this will save us all time in the future. In a sense, I'm taking one for the team here. 2) Someone did compare Clowney to Lee Evans, and they intoned that Clowney was superior to Evans in a couple of key areas. Whether or not it deserved a new post is at my discretion. You're commenting on this post, so that kind of refutes your point. 3) Your point #4 is sort of true. However, we're talking about the Rams here, and I'm uncertain who that corner was. 4) Point #1, I don't believe we'll be seeing much of Clowney this year. Just a prediction.
Exactly, there is no way of knowing. Sanchez stared down his first option on every play. Clowney had very limited playing time as well (maybe 10 plays, and maybe 5 of those plays were passing plays). This is like saying "Chris Pizzotti is horrible, he didn't even get a first down yesterday."
I don't. But I feel it's a fair assumption to make considering: a) I don't have the game film and b) HE WASN'T THROWN TO Come on.
Chris Pizzotti is horrible, but not because of anything other than the fact that he's training camp fodder, and most likely won't ever take a snap in an NFL game.
1) If you're going to call someone out for making a statement you disagree with, do it where the statement was made. You didn't exactly present irrefutable proof that your point is correct, you just gave your opinion and expected it to be +1 because it seems obvious to you, when really what you truly accomplished was getting all the cannons redirected squarely at you. 2) My point is not refuted because I didn't go and start a new thread to deal with your thread. You said earlier it was people like me who keep you from posting very often anymore, however you're the one who started a whole new thread just to attack people. Maybe a look in the mirror would do you some good? 3) If you're going to discredit the Rams defense, then give credit to the Giants defense, don't just spin the argument based on what is most convenient for your argument. This is illogical. 4) Clowney will likely get as much play as Smith and Stuckey. None will be featured, none will ride the bench. They all have talents and all will make contributions. Clowney's ability to stretch the field makes him a threat and that will only help the offense in a positive way.
I never said he wasn't horrible, but you cannot make that assumption off of how he played yesterday. He had limited playing time and didn't get an opportunity to show his talents, or lack thereof. I used him as an example, because you don't need game film to see how he played. You are ignoring the fact that Clowney may have been in on 5-7 pass plays all night. Maybe he was double teamed, maybe he was the number 3 option on the play. Who knows? The fact is that you don't, and you can't make any definitive conclusions about his play last night.
Maybe not, but he's still clearly outperformed Smith as a WR. How do you even know he was blanketed last night? Just because he didn't have a ball to him doesn't mean he was blanketed. I shouldn't have to explain this. As well as d-line, o-line, TE, the list goes on. I agree. Well you seemed to imply he was here: Smith is a special teams beast. I wouldn't compare the two, but if you look at there 40 times Clowney is faster. That's what TJB was arguing. uh, ok *shrug* Do you have the coaches film showing Clowney last night? How can say he had a negative performance when you have no clue if he was getting open or not? Right.
The fact is that Keller had a productive season last year. Clowney did not. He had 2 catches for 15 yards yesterday. That's two more than Clowney. You've been refuted.
Whether the assumption is fair is arguable. What can't be argued it that it is an assumption and you know what happens when one assumes. It just seems your arguments and support for them are just as extreme as those who think Clowney is better than Lee Evans. Should Clowney not be given a chance to play with the ones? Has he not earned the opportunity? Did he prove your point that he is nothing more than a 4th wideout because he did not have a reception in a game when he had limited snaps? Should he not block if he is not getting the ball? I don't get it. I actually agree that Clowney is a 4th WR but the game last night neither proved or disproved that.
So, arguably our biggest receiving threat caught 2 passes for 15 yards when he played 10x as many plays as Clowney. You are missing the point, again. Like I said, your argument holds no weight. You cannot make a single assumption from Clowney's performance last night without seeing the game film. There is nothing else to talk about. You have ignored every positive play he has made all preseason, and you are only looking at a handful of plays in which you did not even see what was going on. Let's wait until week 8, and come back to this argument. This way we will both have a much better idea on what kind of WR he is.
Dont put words in my mouth little boy. Please post where I called you any names. Post it right now. As far as your original post..what the hell do you want me to say? That you might be right saying the Jets are weak at receiver? What the hell kind of breaking news is that?
You can't compare Clowney to a 1000 + yard receiver in Lee Evans, not now, most likely not ever. He also implied he had better hands... again, ludicrous. I don't have film showing Clowney's performance last night, this is a rhetorical question that you're posing, obviously. But when you're a receiver and you don't make any catches, that's not a good thing -- again, I'm making the blanket assumption that the primary responsibility of a receiver, when you boil it all down, is to catch the ball. If your primary responsibility is to catch the ball and you make no catches, I'm suggesting that's a negative rather than a positive. You're using the lack of evidence that he played poorly to try and skirt around the fact that his stat line is in fact, a flat line. All I said was smith had 53 catches, Clowney had 1. I never said he was better. I said he has more catches. Suggesting that you guys are sponsoring a BJ parade for Clowney is not name calling. What it is is pointing out the general overzealous praise that I detected for a player who's done squat. If I said, "If you guys think Clowney is a starting caliber receiver, you can blow me" -- that would be name calling.
