Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Blake Bortles

Texecutioner said:
You don't think they will say that about Clowney if he is a bust? I can guarantee you that a lot of people will. A lot of people are already predicting that.

And who cares what people say any way? You draft the guy that you feel has the highest % chance at being an impact player on your team. QB is the most important position right now though.
Click to expand...

4.53 at 270 lbs is not a reach because his ceiling is so high . Clowney ranked 2nd among LBs in his cimbine performance . He was easily the highest DL so no he's not a reach because he has elite talent .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
If you draft Clowney and he's a bust at least you went big . If you draft Bortles on the other hand , people are gonna say " who didn't see that coming " .
Click to expand...
Meh, I can see it with most of the top picks.

Clowney - Who didn't see his motor wasn't running anymore?

Bortles - Who didn't see he had so little experience?

Manziel - Who didn't see he ran a gimmicky offense?

Bridgewater - Who didn't see he rarely faced great competition?
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
4.53 at 270 lbs is not a reach because his ceiling is so high .
Click to expand...

Clowney ranked 2nd among LBs in his cimbine performance .
Click to expand...

He was easily the highest DL so no he's not a reach because he has elite talent .
Click to expand...

I broke each of these sentences up so we can read them independently.

Statements like this bother me. Not one mention of on field performance.

I like Clowney (he's #1 on my draft board as a 43 DE, not so much as a 34 OLB), but projecting based entirely on athleticism is a recipe for failure.
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
4.53 at 270 lbs is not a reach because his ceiling is so high . Clowney ranked 2nd among LBs in his cimbine performance . He was easily the highest DL so no he's not a reach because he has elite talent .
Click to expand...
he kinda reminds me of super prospect and superfreak athlete, Aundray Bruce. Since you are an old timer...I don't have to tell you what a disaster that was.
 
bah007 said:
I broke each of these sentences up so we can read them independently.

Statements like this bother me. Not one mention of on field performance.

I like Clowney (he's #1 on my draft board as a 43 DE, not so much as a 34 OLB), but projecting based entirely on athleticism is a recipe for failure.
Click to expand...

Would you draft a guy with 19 sacks this year who ran a 5.0 forty #1 overall ?
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
Would you draft a guy with 19 sacks this year who ran a 5.0 forty #1 overall ?
Click to expand...

I can't make a decision on such a small sample of information. I don't really care what his 40 is as long as it confirms his speed in pads, and sacks aren't the only measure of football ability. I'd have to see his tape.
 
bah007 said:
I can't make a decision on such a small sample of information. I don't really care what his 40 is as long as it confirms his speed in pads, and sacks aren't the only measure of football ability. I'd have to see his tape.
Click to expand...

He has a 30 inch vertical , 21 reps and a 9.5 Broad jump to go along with that 19 sacks and 5 flat forty .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
He has a 30 inch vertical , 21 reps and a 9.5 Broad jump to go along with that 19 sacks and 5 flat forty .
Click to expand...

Hard to make a decision just based on numbers.

For instance, Mercilus had the measurables and production, but when I put on that college film I didn't see a player that I'd have drafted.
 
_King_ said:
Hard to make a decision just based on numbers.

For instance, Mercilus had the measurables and production, but when I put on that college film I didn't see a player that I'd have drafted.
Click to expand...

He had one good year , his last . He's not as big or as fast as Clowney .
 
infantrycak said:
Which translated to not much on the field. And the explanation for that is?
Click to expand...

That's not the point . The point is are you going to settle for a lesser prospect or are you betting on the best prospect . There is no guarantee with any of them so go big or go home at #1 .

The safest pick , IMO , is Matthews because he can play somewhere on the OL .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
Is Bortles David Carr ?
Click to expand...

I knew before you answered you wouldn't answer the question and would go silly answer instead.

No Bortles is not Carr. BUYER BEWARE of any QB with more than 600 attempts per season. Carr has shown abilities to to deliever Game Winning Drives.
 
Texian said:
I knew before you answered you wouldn't answer the question and would go silly answer instead.

No Bortles is not Carr. BUYER BEWARE of any QB with more than 600 attempts per season. Carr has shown abilities to to deliever Game Winning Drives.
Click to expand...

Not silly because you don't know what any of these guys are going to do . You can't say Clowney is Aundrey Bruce and then say Bortles can't be Carr . Bortles season last year is nowhere near Carr's last year at Fresno . Bortles is not a better prospect than Carr coming out .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
Not silly because you don't know what any of these guys are going to do . You can't say Clowney is Aundrey Bruce and then say Bortles can't be Carr . Bortles season last year is nowhere near Carr's last year at Fresno . Bortles is not a better prospect than Carr coming out .
Click to expand...

Bortles is a 2 year starter and Carr a 3 yr starter. Bortles played a higher level and was able to do more. Over 70% of Carr's passes were of the dink and dunk variety with a preset predetermined read and WR that took under 3 sec to execute. When the chips were on the line and Fresno had to deviate from the game plan Carr had a high degree of difficulty of delivering a win. Bortles is able to do what Carr couldn't and Bortles was able to deliver in every situation making Blake a much better prospect than Carr.

So your answer to Aundray Bruce is you don't know. I'm OK with that.
 
bah007 said:
I can't make a decision on such a small sample of information. I don't really care what his 40 is as long as it confirms his speed in pads, and sacks aren't the only measure of football ability. I'd have to see his tape.
Click to expand...

Honoring Earl 34 said:
He has a 30 inch vertical , 21 reps and a 9.5 Broad jump to go along with that 19 sacks and 5 flat forty .
Click to expand...

And? These are just numbers. Refer to bolded above.

Honoring Earl 34 said:
That's not the point . The point is are you going to settle for a lesser prospect or are you betting on the best prospect . There is no guarantee with any of them so go big or go home at #1 .

The safest pick , IMO , is Matthews because he can play somewhere on the OL .
Click to expand...

Lesser prospect is determined by what exactly? Ability to play football? Or workout numbers in a controlled environment with no pads on?

infantrycak said:
How the flying squirrel is actual play not part of how good a prospect someone is?
Click to expand...

You got me. This kind of logic goes straight over my head.
 
Texian said:
Bortles is a 2 year starter and Carr a 3 yr starter. Bortles played a higher level and was able to do more. Over 70% of Carr's passes were of the dink and dunk variety with a preset predetermined read and WR that took under 3 sec to execute. When the chips were on the line and Fresno had to deviate from the game plan Carr had a high degree of difficulty of delivering a win. Bortles is able to do what Carr couldn't and Bortles was able to deliver in every situation making Blake a much better prospect than Carr.

So your answer to Aundray Bruce is you don't know. I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...

Bruce is nowhere near the prospect Clowney is so maybe Clowney ends up like Neil Smith .

Bortles hasn't played the teams JF has and the only thing Bortles has on him is size . Carr was only a two year starter as a fifth year senior . Kinda out of the blue like Bortles .
 
bah007 said:
And? These are just numbers. Refer to bolded above.



Lesser prospect is determined by what exactly? Ability to play football? Or workout numbers in a controlled environment with no pads on?



You got me. This kind of logic goes straight over my head.
Click to expand...

This is all a bet on information gathered and with that , I think the two best prospects , that have the most ability , are Clowney and Robinson . If you don't like them bet on somebody else .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
This is all a bet on information gathered and with that , I think the two best prospects , that have the most ability , are Clowney and Robinson . If you don't like them bet on somebody else .
Click to expand...

That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the hypothetical situation you were throwing at me on the last page.
 
bah007 said:
That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the hypothetical situation you were throwing at me on the last page.
Click to expand...

I think talent based vs performance based has more to do with the #1 overall pick . That may be a mistake but most folks are looking for a physical stud who has the ability to dominate . The Texans tried it with Mario at #1 and found it with Watt at #11 . :swatter:
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
I think talent based vs performance based has more to do with the #1 overall pick . That may be a mistake but most folks are looking for a physical stud who has the ability to dominate . The Texans tried it with Mario at #1 and found it with Watt at #11 . :swatter:
Click to expand...

Mario produced on the field. No way he gets taken #1 with 3 sacks his last season and he was every bit the physical freak as Clowney.
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
I think talent based vs performance based has more to do with the #1 overall pick . That may be a mistake but most folks are looking for a physical stud who has the ability to dominate . The Texans tried it with Mario at #1 and found it with Watt at #11 . :swatter:
Click to expand...

When you apply a different standard to one pick but not others you get yourself into trouble. This isn't even really a discussion about Clowney for me.

If you draft based on football ability for all other picks why would you ignore that and base your criteria for the most important pick solely on athleticism?

Workout numbers don't tell me squat. I'm not drafting guys to compete in the crossfit games. I'm drafting football players. So the tape of them playing football is what I will use to make my selection.

If that means that every once in a while a stud athlete sneaks past me then fine. The teams that covet athleticism over all else are usually the teams that are consistently picking at the top.
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
Bruce is nowhere near the prospect Clowney is so maybe Clowney ends up like Neil Smith .

Bortles hasn't played the teams JF has and the only thing Bortles has on him is size . Carr was only a two year starter as a fifth year senior . Kinda out of the blue like Bortles .
Click to expand...

Aundray Bruce was close to being identical in size to Clowney but Bruce had more sacks than Clowney the year he was drafted. The #1 pick in the draft and was the heir apparent and the next Lawrence Taylor.

You got some bad info on Derek Carr Chief, he was in fact a 3 year starter.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/484080/derek-carr
 
bah007 said:
When you apply a different standard to one pick but not others you get yourself into trouble. This isn't even really a discussion about Clowney for me.

If you draft based on football ability for all other picks why would you ignore that and base your criteria for the most important pick solely on athleticism?

Workout numbers don't tell me squat. I'm not drafting guys to compete in the crossfit games. I'm drafting football players. So the tape of them playing football is what I will use to make my selection.

If that means that every once in a while a stud athlete sneaks past me then fine. The teams that covet athleticism over all else are usually the teams that are consistently picking at the top.
Click to expand...

I don't watch film , maybe a youtube video , but for the most part I just guess based on the information I read and watching games . Having said that , I don't get paid to scout but I do ok when I do the TT mocks . Luck plays a huge factor in the NFL or any draft .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
I don't watch film , maybe a youtube video , but for the most part I just guess based on the information I read and watching games . Having said that , I don't get paid to scout but I do ok when I do the TT mocks . Luck plays a huge factor in the NFL or any draft .
Click to expand...

Then why is it always the same franchises that are getting "lucky"? Because they know what to look for.

Luck is largely an excuse. There are times when something unforeseen happens. A player who's never been injured suffers an injury that alters their career, or a tragic accident happens off the field. But for the most part, whether a prospect pans out or not has very little to do with luck.
 
bah007 said:
Then why is it always the same franchises that are getting "lucky"? Because they know what to look for.

Luck is largely an excuse. There are times when something unforeseen happens. A player who's never been injured suffers an injury that alters their career, or a tragic accident happens off the field. But for the most part, whether a prospect pans out or not has very little to do with luck.
Click to expand...

Teams are much luckier when they get their cornerstone player ... a QB . Teams that reach on a QB are unlucky .
 
bah007 said:
Yes. And now tell me why it is always the same teams that reach for a QB and fail. Perhaps they aren't looking for the right things?
Click to expand...

Which teams haven't reached for a quarterback and failed?

Green Bay is the only one I can think of that hasn't had some lean years in the last 2 decades.
 
noxiousdog said:
Which teams haven't reached for a quarterback and failed?

Green Bay is the only one I can think of that hasn't had some lean years in the last 2 decades.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the teams that consistently do this. Every team makes a bad decision every once in a while.

The difference between the teams that are consistently winning and the teams that are consistently losing is the ability to evaluate talent.
 
bah007 said:
Yes. And now tell me why it is always the same teams that reach for a QB and fail. Perhaps they aren't looking for the right things?
Click to expand...

The Jags drafted Gabbert in 2011 in the first missing out on JJ Watt and Robert Quinn.

The Titans pick Locker missing out on JJ Watt and Robert Quinn in 2011 .

The Vikings pick Christian Ponder missing out on Robert Quinn in 2011 .

The Browns pick Brandon Weeden and he's now a Cowboy .

They all need a QB .

The Raiders are still reeling from Jamarcus Russell .
 
bah007 said:
I'm talking about the teams that consistently do this. Every team makes a bad decision every once in a while.

The difference between the teams that are consistently winning and the teams that are consistently losing is the ability to evaluate talent.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but to a great extent it's survival bias. You keep drafting QBs until you get one. Once you get one, you don't have to do it again for 10 years.

The Steelers went through a billion bad QB's between Bradshaw and Rothlesberger.
The 49ers went 14 years (and 6 qbs) between Young and Kaepernick.

The Cowboys were awful at QB between Aikman and Romo, and while I like Romo, he has a lot of detractors.

I can't think of another respected organization to use. The Patriots are the Patriots because of Brady. Indy was sketchy until Manning and got lucky with Luck. The Ravens have never had a good QB. The Saints were legendarily bad until Brees.


edit: Though there are clearly organizations that can't even get an average QB.
 
bah007 said:
Then why is it always the same franchises that are getting "lucky"? Because they know what to look for.

Luck is largely an excuse. There are times when something unforeseen happens. A player who's never been injured suffers an injury that alters their career, or a tragic accident happens off the field. But for the most part, whether a prospect pans out or not has very little to do with luck.
Click to expand...

Disagree..its rare for teams to be able to sustain continued excellence at any position for more than 10-12years with 2 different players...especially at qb. GB and the Pats are the only teams in recent history who've been able to do it at qb with Favre/Rodgers and Bledsoe/Brady. And even in those situations, the regimes changed in the middle so it was extremely unlikely the personnel making the picks for each of those players was the same throughout.

Luck isn't the end all be all, but it has alot to do with it. Cant tell me Belichick really knew what he had when he drafted Brady....dude came into camp #7 on the depth chart as a rookie for christ sakes. The same for the Seahawks who drafted Wilson with no thought of him becoming a starter much less a SB winning qb.

Short of you picking #1 overall every tme you need a qb (colts), its highly likely the guy you get after is gonna be good too.
 
noxiousdog said:
I understand what you're saying, but to a great extent it's survival bias. You keep drafting QBs until you get one. Once you get one, you don't have to do it again for 10 years.

The Steelers went through a billion bad QB's between Bradshaw and Rothlesberger.
The 49ers went 14 years (and 6 qbs) between Young and Kaepernick.

The Cowboys were awful at QB between Aikman and Romo, and while I like Romo, he has a lot of detractors.

I can't think of another respected organization to use. The Patriots are the Patriots because of Brady. Indy was sketchy until Manning and got lucky with Luck. The Ravens have never had a good QB. The Saints were legendarily bad until Brees.


edit: Though there are clearly organizations that can't even get an average QB.
Click to expand...

NE was lucky to get a HOF QB in the 6th and the 9ers got one in the 3rd . I wonder how close the Colts were to going with Leaf ?
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
NE was lucky to get a HOF QB in the 6th and the 9ers got one in the 3rd . I wonder how close the Colts were to going with Leaf ?
Click to expand...

I never bought into Leaf being on par with Manning. I thought it was all an ESPN creation for the sake of drama.

To be fair to bah007, he's talking about reaching. NE, and Pittsburgh also weren't throwing away 1st round picks on bad QBs. SF did, though.
 
noxiousdog said:
I never bought into Leaf being on par with Manning. I thought it was all an ESPN creation for the sake of drama.

To be fair to bah007, he's talking about reaching. NE, and Pittsburgh also weren't throwing away 1st round picks on bad QBs. SF did, though.
Click to expand...

I think that's the biggest mistake teams make is reaching on a QB and throwing him into the fire .

Meanwhile at the ranch Kurt Warner and Tom Brady were backups until the starter got hurt and they never came out .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
6'4 246 vs 6'6 266 isn't close .

I'm not talking about Derek I'm talking David .
Click to expand...

Aundray Bruce 6'5" 270 lbs http://www.nfl.com/player/aundraybruce/2499878/profile

Jadevon Clowney 6'5" 266 lbs. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...zhPckREX3NQd0dQTGc&f=true&noheader=true&gid=4

What I said about Derek's performance can also be said about David's performance. BUYER BEWARE: David had over 500 passing attempts in his last season. what I said about Derek also applies to David, they're interchangeable, vice a versa, " Over 70% of Carr's passes were of the dink and dunk variety with a preset predetermined read and WR that took under 3 sec to execute. When the chips were on the line and Fresno had to deviate from the game plan Carr had a high degree of difficulty of delivering a win. Bortles is able to do what Carr couldn't and Bortles was able to deliver in every situation making Blake a much better prospect than Carr." Neither Carr was able to deliver Fresno State to a BCS Bowl game, unlike Bridgewater and Bortles.
 
Texian said:
Aundray Bruce 6'5" 270 lbs http://www.nfl.com/player/aundraybruce/2499878/profile

Jadevon Clowney 6'5" 266 lbs. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...zhPckREX3NQd0dQTGc&f=true&noheader=true&gid=4

What I said about Derek's performance can also be said about David's performance. BUYER BEWARE: David had over 500 passing attempts in his last season. what I said about Derek also applies to David, they're interchangeable, vice a versa, " Over 70% of Carr's passes were of the dink and dunk variety with a preset predetermined read and WR that took under 3 sec to execute. When the chips were on the line and Fresno had to deviate from the game plan Carr had a high degree of difficulty of delivering a win. Bortles is able to do what Carr couldn't and Bortles was able to deliver in every situation making Blake a much better prospect than Carr." Neither Carr was able to deliver Fresno State to a BCS Bowl game, unlike Bridgewater and Bortles.
Click to expand...


Your link also says he's 47 .

Bruce was drafted as an OLB from Auburn . He put on weight after he went to the Raiders and played DE . Out of college he was 246 and ran a 4.6 something .


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/22/s...all-from-grace-aundray-bruce-starts-over.html

In the 1990's, pro football schemes are too complicated and sophisticated and the responsibilites too great for a player lacking intelligence. And there Bruce was, the Falcons say, running right when he was supposed to run left, blitzing when he was supposed to drop back into pass coverage. Making tremendous plays, on occasion, in areas of the field where he was not assigned and hurting the defense too much in those instances when he was out of place and did not make the tackle or sack.

The Falcons overlooked a lot with Bruce, but they could not turn the other way when it came to what they viewed as Bruce's lack of understanding of football.

He is 6 feet 5 1/2 inches tall and weighs 255 pounds, and he runs the same 4.53 seconds for the 40-yard sprint that he did as a rookie. One look at Bruce and, no question, he looks like a football player, and a dominant one, too. But this may be all you need to know about how the Falcons viewed Bruce.

From the former Falcon linebacker coach, Chuck Clausen, last November: "He's like a perpetual 5-year-old. You tell him he's not going to be a football player all of his life. He's the kind of guy that nods his head yes and a few days later it's kind of vanished."
Click to expand...


David Carr beat some good teams his senior year . You're right , Bortles is more like Gabbert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top