Like I said before, I was involved in a somewhat contentious string of posts last week wherein, with my typical acerbic wit and panache for making great points, I seem to have come under fire for saying that Clowney wasn't the answer. When he put up a goose egg last night I figured that I would point out that, again, this guy is a scrub and the effusive praise for him was completely unwarranted. I make no apologies for calling out the very same people that were spitting venom at me for suggesting Clowney was actually a clown last week.
Using the stat line to conclude he was "blanketed" by the Giants DB's is ridiculous. He's not a starting caliber WR because the ball wasn't thrown to him in his first appearance w/the ones? While that may prove to be true over time, I think it's pretty ridiculous to jump to that conclusion given his success prior to this game. If it were Clowney rather than Stuckey who was lined up and caught that TD you'd be making excuses as to why it didn't prove anything. Obviously a 0 stat line does not indicate that he played well. Thanks for the logic lesson. Allison did it 1 time. Clowney has done it over and over. I love how you paint everything as an extreme. As I've said numerous times I think he's proven to be a better WR than Brad Smith. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble digesting that. Now you're suggesting that my arguments are invalid because I don't want to make a prediction? :drunk:
Saying the opposite, if a receiver wasn't thrown to, he probably wasn't open, DOESN'T make sense to you?
Follow my logic: Player doesn't make any catches (why?) player not thrown to (why was he not thrown to? probably *only assumption made* because...) player not open (why would he not be open?) player well covered. In my "crazy, whacky world" it's fair to assume that if someone is not thrown to, they most likely were not open. It's a logical leap that you may not be comfortable with, but I am. Maybe that's the difference between our two standpoints.
I bet against 3rd string players, Allison can do it over and over, just like Clowney. He too can be the big fish in a little pond.
QB's don't find every open receiver. This shouldn't need to be explained. Things to consider: 1) How many plays did Clowney get w/the ones? 2) How many of those plays were pass plays? 3) How much time did Sanchez have to throw the ball on those plays? 4) Which read in the QB's progression was Clowney's route? 5) Did Clowney get separation in his routes? 6) Was Clowney used as a decoy to occupy the safety? Just looking at 0 catches and making the conclusion that he's not a viable NFL receiver is stupid.
And as I've said before, there's no evidence to support that, other than your gut feeling. That's my only point there.
My gut feeling? How about killing it in preseason for 2 years straight? What has B. Smith been doing other than dropping TD's and getting called for offensive pass interference?
These are all good questions. What I've been saying all along is that he's not a viable starting receiver. Then he goes out and does nothing, so I point out that this is indicative that I'm right, he's not a viable starting WR for the team. I think we all agree with that. Can he be useful? Yes. Is he a starting WR on this team? No. You guys got your wish, he got some time with the 1's. Not much came of it. Go Jets. Let's see what happens in Houston, hope we dominate them and Clowney scores 3 TDs. Hope Revis has 2 picks and a touchdown, hope Gholston has 5 sacks...
How about preseason doesn't mean jack and is not indicative of ANYTHING that will happen in the regular season? Do you not agree with that?
Obviously we don't agree with that. You declare yourself right after a handful of plays in one game. By the end of the season we'll see if you're right, not after a handful of plays where we don't even know if he was open or not. The sample size is far to small at this point.
mmm... it's not always like that... maybe Sanchez didn't see him. I'm not saying you're wrong or right about CLowney... just that you ave little evidence to prove your point.
So you can look at the stat line from a preseason game and determine that a player is not a viable starting WR but I can't watch a preseason game and think he has the potential to be a starting WR? Gotcha. Thanks Dev. You rock.
I just hope his regular season play far exceeds the quality of his tweets. God help us if it doesn't..
Preaseason doesn't mean anything, but for maybe the first half of the third game -- guess what? He didn't do anything during the first half of the third game. Clowney's not a starting caliber WR. Is this an opinion? Yes, it is. Is it right? Time will tell. You can watch all the games you want, it's not going to change the fact that they guy is not a #1 or #2 receiver, and he's not a slot receiver either. So, he's a #4 receiver. Got it? Good. You rule WhiteShoes!
Right it's not always not like that, sometimes, maybe. Ok. Now that we've got that straight, Clowney is not a starting WR, write it down.
By the way, I can prove that Clowney is not a starting WR. He's actually listed 3rd or 4th on the depth chart. So that much is fact. So, the future might be different but right now, we can definitively say he's not a starting WR.
Fair enough, I predict he's not going to amount to much. I need to get back to living my life now. Have fun.
