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

Clowney, then what?

thunderkyss said:
Wow.... that was a long and good read.

The only thing I don't like a Brooks Reed, is because he adds no value to the pass rush. It's a smaller part of his job on the strong side, but it's an important part of it. I don't expect him to get double digit sacks, but he should be the kind of guy TEs don't want to see a lot of... & he's not.

I think he's fine in coverage, I think he's good down hill, I think he's a pretty good tackler, so I would like to see more of him inside.... backing more into zone coverages than playing TEs one on one... or attacking the LOS from inside.

I honestly don't know what Merci would look like covering TEs one on one.
Click to expand...

Guess who holds the all-time Texan rookie sack record? JJ Watt? Super Mario? Brooks or Mercilus?
 
Say Watt said:
It's funny how pro days and interviews don't convince anyone of anything in regards to Manziel. But somehow with Clowney, it addresses all of the concerns. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Man, JF'KFB has got to have the worst case of JOCK BURN in history just because of your personal slobber. Slobber on for BUST BOY.
 
bah007 said:
Totally disagree with just about all of this. These are terrible reasons to make a selection and you come off as if you are just reaching for anything that justifies taking Manziel.

Who cares about making a statement? We should care about winning. We can debate about who or what will help this team win, but making a statement isn't it.

Swinging for the fences? Sounds good but you better do your homework because you're just as likely to strike out.

Exciting brand of football? Are we trying to win games or drive up ratings?

I do somewhat agree with your point about a high-powered offense, but the #1 defense in the league just won the Super Bowl. And they flat out embarrassed the greatest offense of all time to do it. Plus, if you look at the top ten teams in points scored, I don't think that Manziel has a skill set similar to the majority of their QBs.

1. Denver - Peyton
2. Chicago - Cutler/McCown
3. New England - Brady
4. Philadelphia - Foles
5. Dallas - Romo
6. Cincinnati - Dalton
7. Kansas City - Smith
8. Green Bay - Rodgers
9. Seattle - Wilson
10. New Orleans - Brees

Outside of Wilson, those guys are all pretty close to the prototype. That doesn't mean that you necessarily have to search for the prototype, but it shows me that the rule changes favor the guys who sit in the pocket and pick you apart.

I'm not saying that Manziel isn't capable of that, but that's not his game. And that's why I don't like how his skills translate to the NFL. The only way you get that kind of player is if you tame him, and if you tame him I worry that you're taking away some of the things that make him special. If you let him play his way, I fear you're looking at a guy who isn't going to last very long.



I don't believe the same as you do on the bolded. But for the rest of the statement, I couldn't agree more. I just don't think Manziel is that guy.
Click to expand...

MSR, again. :foottap:
 
Lambert said:
Guess who holds the all-time Texan rookie sack record? JJ Watt? Super Mario? Brooks or Mercilus?
Click to expand...

Oh... I did not know that. I change my mind, Brooks is the man & I hope we make him the highest paid defensive player in the history of the world. I mean he holds the Texans rookie sack record & all.
 
Double Barrel said:
Lots of folks say it's a "QB driven league". In reality, it is a win-driven league.

Who is the better QB: Peyton Manning or Russell Wilson? Obvious answer is HoF Manning. Dude had one of the greatest statistical seasons in NFL history last year. However, what did those stats ultimately mean in the Super Bowl, the one game that everyone in the league plays for? Absolutely nothing. He faced a monster defense and looked like any other generic QB out there. There is certainly a strong case to be made for building dominant defenses, which is where picking Clowney would come into play.

As far as the vanilla thing; I don't feel that 2011 and 2012 seasons were a waste of my time as a fan. I get what you're saying, but past regimes are not necessarily indicative of future performance under a new head coach and staff.

My loyalty to the franchise is not negotiable or dependent on arbitrary decisions. My loyalty is hardcore and unwavering. I might not always like the product on the field and certain feel I have the right to critically analyze anything / everything, but in the end, I will always be a Houston Texans fan. Nothing will change that, even vanilla (which is one of my favorite flavors, so not sure why it gets a bad rap).



I agree completely. The gamble of a first round QB pick is all chips on the table. The entire regime ultimately lives or dies based on the pick. And the pressure to start a 1.1 pick QB is immense.

But building a dominant defense can give the regime a chance to sift through the available QBs. Picking up a guy in later rounds or even a journeyman QB does not carry the inherent risks of a first round QB. You can go through multiple QBs until you find one that fits what you need. This luxury is not there with a first round pick.

I'm a fan of defense. Always have been. So any pick that ultimately builds a D that can dominate and control games is going to be something I'm all on board. Give me a top ranked defense and a minimal mistake "game managing" offense and I believe it's a formula for championship success. Seattle just proved it once again.
Click to expand...

msr
 
thunderkyss said:
Oh... I did not know that. I change my mind, Brooks is the man & I hope we make him the highest paid defensive player in the history of the world. I mean he holds the Texans rookie sack record & all.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the fickle fan.

So you let Demeco Ryans, Earl Mitchell, Winston, Conner Barwin, Antonio Smith, Daniels, Tate, Mays, Braman, Manning, Sharpton, get away for cap concerns, while paying big bucks for players who don't/can't play---Schaub, Cushing and Foster. And now you losers would like to let Brooks and Whitney leave and pick up this wonder-man on D who had 3 sacks in his Senior year. You really deserve the team you will get.
 
Last edited:
Lambert said:
Ahh, the fickle fan.

So you let Demeco Ryans, Earl Mitchell, Winston, Conner Barwin, Antonio Smith, Daniels, Tate, Mays, Braman, Manning, Sharpton, get away for cap concerns, while paying big bucks for players who don't/can't play---Schaub, Cushing and Foster. And now you losers would like to let Brooks and Whitney leave and pick up this wonder-man on D who had 3 sacks in his Senior year. You really deserve the team you will get.
Click to expand...

Alright.... I see you like to poke your head in here from time to time & start crap, so I'll try to explain. I'm one of those few guys who doesn't want to take one of the QBs in the first & not take JaDaveon Clowney. I want Robinson/Watkins.

I'm also responding to another poster who would like to move Whitney to the strong side... my response was that I take issue with that, because I know Brooks can at least turn & run with RBs & TEs, have no clue what Whitney will do.

If such a move were to happen however, I suggested we move Brooks inside... at no time did I ever suggest, or support getting rid of Brooks/Mercilus.

But since you mentioned all the people we let go without finding decent replacements....

Demeco Ryans:
I've never been a fan of letting Demeco go. People were judging him based on his performance directly after repair of his Achilles tendon & I guess they felt Cushing's position as MIKE was threatened (I don't know). But all the issues we've had the last two years where the "obvious" cause was Brian Cushing being out of the line up would not have happened had we kept Demeco Ryans.​

Earl Mitchell:
I liked Mitchell. He's not a two gap player, but I think he'd work very well in a 3-4 as a poor man's Raji or Ngata. If our OLBs would show up in the pass rush, a poor man's Raji/Ngata would be a heck of a player. But since they didn't & we're changing regimes.... it is what it is​
Winston:
I never liked Winston. I always thought he was an overrated fan favorite. What we saw Newton doing in 2011, was pretty much what I saw Winston doing before. I thought Newton might could get better. I gave up thinking Winston would.... & he's looking for a job, so I think I was more right than not.​
Conner Barwin:
Again, overrated fan favorite. 4-3 defensive pass rushing specialist..... not a 3-4 OLB. He played the premier pass rushing position in Wade Phillip's defense (Demarcus Ware) & he was "eh..." Big guy though... work out warrior maybe?? I notice you don't mention letting Mario go. That's who these guys have failed to replace... Conner, Reed, Mercilus, none of them giving us that outside pass rush Mario did when he was halfass'n it out there.​
Antonio Smith:
Loved Antonio, I think the Texans could have/should have played this card differently, but they screwed it up way back when... 2009 we picked him up as our book end to Mario. Paid a pretty penny for him too. He did not live up to his billing.

Still a good player, 100% hustle on the field, great in the locker room. After the 2010 season they should have offered him an extension that lowered his cap hit to what his level of play showed thus far (2 years into his deal) before his salary jumped up & we were burdened with a $8M+ cap hit.

I think he earned that cap hit ever since Wade got here & he became more of an interior pass rusher... if we're drafting JaDaveon Clowney & using him "right" & using Jj "right" then Antonio is perfect... a damn good 3-tech that Oakland signed for about $4.5M/yr, which we shouldn't have had a problem paying.

But if RAC goes with a traditional 2 gap 3-4, he doesn't really fit.​

Daniels
It hasn't been for lack of trying to replace him. We drafted OD in the 4th, Anthony Hill in the 4th, James Casey in the 5th, & Garrett Graham in the 4th (Ryan Griffin in the 6th) I also wasn't on board with cutting OD, but he's over 30, has injury concerns, & failed his physical... what are you going to do?​
Tate:
Good riddance​
Mays:
He was only here a year & didn't do much​
Braman:
I'm sure we can replace him with some other UDFA from nowhere​
Manning:
Again, I didn't agree with letting him go, but it's not worth crying about​
Sharpton:
Seriously? You do know they found out he isn't related to Al Sharpton right?​
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Well, then, I can see that if Clowney comes in as a Texan and makes any less than 10, there will be those that still predict bust.
Click to expand...
Sacks are nice and all but I'm hoping - if we draft Clowney - that J.J. teaches him that block-interception trick and he returns a couple of Luck passes for TDs.
:d:
 
thunderkyss said:
...I'm also responding to another poster who would like to move Whitney to the strong side... my response was that I take issue with that, because I know Brooks can at least turn & run with RBs & TEs, have no clue what Whitney will do.

If such a move were to happen however, I suggested we move Brooks inside...
Click to expand...
This thread is titled "Clowney, then what?". So, if Clowney was to be our first round pick, "then what" as regards to our 2012 first round pick, Whitney Mercilus, if Clowney projects to the weakside OLB position.

The BRB analysis points out that the most improvement at that position comes in the second year of starting. So, 2014 would be Whitney's second starting season. The analysis also points out that Whitney's pass rush is one dimensional with a rip to the outside and points out he needs to develop a bull-rush and a swim.

Are we to give up on Whitney before he has this second starting season to develop additional moves? If the answer is "no" and if we draft Clowney to play the weakside, then the only option for Whitney is to move to the strongside.

This of course means Reed would move to the inside, where many on this forum would like to see him.

My question back at post #2123 was to see if anyone had any insight on how well Mercilus might be expected to perform in coverage against the RB and TE.

To be clear, I'm still advocating a defensive draft with Mack as my pick, in which case Mercilus would remain on the weakside; although last night I was considering the possibility of playing Mack on the weakside. This is one advantage that Mack has and that is his versatility at playing multiple positions.

There is very little new substance or discussion at this time and we still have a month to go before the draft. I was simply posing a new area of discussion that would be relevant if Clowney were to be our pick.
 
Last edited:
Number19 said:
This thread is titled "Clowney, then what?". So, if Clowney was to be our first round pick, "then what" as regards to our 2012 first round pick, Whitney Mercilus, if Clowney projects to the weakside OLB position.
Click to expand...

I've got no beef with you, or your post. Just explaining that no one was talking about getting rid of Reed or Mercilus.
 
thunderkyss said:
I've got no beef with you, or your post. Just explaining that no one was talking about getting rid of Reed or Mercilus.
Click to expand...
I realize that. I was just taking the opportunity to see if more discussion could be generated, especially from those who may have broken down Mercilus' play in areas other than his pass rush.
 
I don't think Mercilus can play the strong side adequately. Reed would be a better fit.

If Clowney ends up at WOLB then I think Mercilus ends up as his backup.

I like Mack a lot, and I really think he would be a great fit at SOLB. Mercilus could stay on the weak side and Reed could move inside.
 
Double Barrel said:
I agree completely. The gamble of a first round QB pick is all chips on the table. The entire regime ultimately lives or dies based on the pick. And the pressure to start a 1.1 pick QB is immense.
Click to expand...
And on the other hand while many may not agree that picking Clowney is a comparitivly riskless choice, chances are negligible that he turns out a bust unless you say failing to be an all-pro on a regular basis would make him a bust. Chances are very good that Clowney is atleast a competent, contributing player to his defensive unit in the NFL.
 
IDEXAN said:
And on the other hand while many may not agree that picking Clowney is a comparitivly riskless choice, chances are negligible that he turns out a bust unless you say failing to be an all-pro on a regular basis would make him a bust. Chances are very good that Clowney is atleast a competent, contributing player to his defensive unit in the NFL.
Click to expand...

I don't believe those assertions are anywhere near accurate.

I think there's a very real possibility that Clowney could be a complete and total bust. And by that, I mean someone who never gets double-digit sacks and is out of the league in 4 years like an Aaron Curry or a Vernon Gholston.

He is an athletic freak. He has the ability to be a dominant player. But if his mind is not right, he could easily wash out.

I'm not against Clowney (like I used to be) but that doesn't mean he's not without risk. Every player, no matter how talented or how motivated, is a risk.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I don't believe those assertions are anywhere near accurate.

I think there's a very real possibility that Clowney could be a complete and total bust. And by that, I mean someone who never gets double-digit sacks and is out of the league in 4 years like an Aaron Curry or a Vernon Gholston.

He is an athletic freak. He has the ability to be a dominant player. But if his mind is not right, he could easily wash out.

I'm not against Clowney (like I used to be) but that doesn't mean he's not without risk. Every player, no matter how talented or how motivated, is a risk.
Click to expand...
I very much base my argument on Clowney not being a one-trick pony, but instead he's a versatile defender who's not just a talented pass-rusher but also very solid vs rushing plays. And he was a dominant player in the SEC, which is the best competition there is this side of the NFL.
 
IDEXAN said:
I very much base my argument on Clowney not being a one-trick pony, but instead he's a versatile defender who's not just a talented pass-rusher but also very solid vs rushing plays. And he was a dominant player in the SEC, which is the best competition there is this side of the NFL.
Click to expand...

The Texans don't need these type of guys.

Especially when they can reach for a QB.
 
IDEXAN said:
I very much base my argument on Clowney not being a one-trick pony, but instead he's a versatile defender who's not just a talented pass-rusher but also very solid vs rushing plays. And he was a dominant player in the SEC, which is the best competition there is this side of the NFL.
Click to expand...

Which has very little to do with whether he's going to be a bust or not.
 
IDEXAN said:
I very much base my argument on Clowney not being a one-trick pony, but instead he's a versatile defender who's not just a talented pass-rusher but also very solid vs rushing plays. And he was a dominant player in the SEC, which is the best competition there is this side of the NFL.
Click to expand...

And you always leave off two gigantic bust factors - will/dedication and injury.
 
infantrycak said:
And you always leave off two gigantic bust factors - will/dedication and injury.
Click to expand...
I don't think injury is a legitimate reason to write a player off as a bust, even someone someone like our own former Texans Bennie Joppru whos career was basically ruined because he did have multiple season-ending injuries. I just don't understand the logic of saying that his career was a bust in the sense that understand the meaning of the word ?
Now I did leave myself the slightest wiggle room by saying the chance of Clowney busting was "negligible". It's hard to find an NFL bust coming out of the SEC when you're talking defensive players, except for one guy, but you've got to go way back, 25 years back. Aundray Bruce of Georgia was the #1 overall pick in the 1988 NFL Draft and he turned out being a colossal bust. And he was an edge rusher himself. So you never know, because anything is possible, and I didn't say Clowney busting was impossible.
 
infantrycak said:
And you always leave off two gigantic bust factors - will/dedication and injury.
Click to expand...

Several teammates/BOB have vouched for Clowney's work ethic. CND said he wouldn't not take Clowney 1-1 because of the bone spurs. That's good enough for me.
 
IDEXAN said:
I don't think injury is a legitimate reason to write a player off as a bust, even someone someone like our own former Texans Bennie Joppru whos career was basically ruined because he did have multiple season-ending injuries. I just don't understand the logic of saying that his career was a bust in the sense that understand the meaning of the word ?
Click to expand...

Fine, being a significant risk of failed pick for the team.

steelbtexan said:
Several teammates/BOB have vouched for Clowney's work ethic. CND said he wouldn't not take Clowney 1-1 because of the bone spurs. That's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Spare me the OB quotes. He isn't going to trash a potential trade target. Zero chance of anything but praise.

As for teammates we will just disagree. DJ saying the coaches were able to keep Clowney motivated IMO is far from a glowing endorsement and is actually an acknowledgement of the problem.

And I have full faith in his description of the medical issues. From there comes risk assessment and while I respect his opinion on that, I differ with it. I am sure he will concede that while he would make the pick, it is a risk.
 
steelbtexan said:
Several teammates/BOB have vouched for Clowney's work ethic. CND said he wouldn't not take Clowney 1-1 because of the bone spurs. That's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

I didn't quite say that. I like Clowney. I said that if he wasn't willing to address the bone spurs surgically (the sooner the better), I thought the Texans should take pause, because it would definitely adversely affect his performance.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
I didn't quite say that. I like Clowney. I said that if he wasn't willing to address the bone spurs surgically (the sooner the better), I thought the Texans should take pause, because it would definitely adversely affect his performance.
Click to expand...

I apologize,

I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Are the bone spurs a deal breaker for you and Clowney at 1-1?
 
steelbtexan said:
I apologize,

I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Are the bone spurs a deal breaker for you and Clowney at 1-1?
Click to expand...

The deal breaker should be his pathetic production. I mean, aaron donald was doubled and schemed against,yet he dominated. Von sacks went down,yet his tfls and tackles went up. This is jake locker to me all over. I don't care about a guy jumping bags grabbing tennis balls. How does that help him get off a block and sack/harrass the qb?
 
leebigeztx said:
The deal breaker should be his pathetic production. I mean, aaron donald was doubled and schemed against,yet he dominated. Von sacks went down,yet his tfls and tackles went up. This is jake locker to me all over. I don't care about a guy jumping bags grabbing tennis balls. How does that help him get off a block and sack/harrass the qb?
Click to expand...

I was on that bandwagon for a while.

But.

Several pass rushers who've been drafted to rush the passer and who've been great at it have had a non-productive college season their last year.

So I'm not seeing that as a deal-breaker with Clowney, anymore.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I was on that bandwagon for a while.

But.

Several pass rushers who've been drafted to rush the passer and who've been great at it have had a non-productive college season their last year.

So I'm not seeing that as a deal-breaker with Clowney, anymore.
Click to expand...

Clowney=Mercilus (sit on the bench for year #1) except he will play at Antonio's position.
 
leebigeztx said:
The deal breaker should be his pathetic production. I mean, aaron donald was doubled and schemed against,yet he dominated. Von sacks went down,yet his tfls and tackles went up. This is jake locker to me all over. I don't care about a guy jumping bags grabbing tennis balls. How does that help him get off a block and sack/harrass the qb?
Click to expand...

Not doing the research but I believe Bruce Smith had 5 sacks as a Sr. at Va. Tech.

He had a pretty good career.
 
Lambert said:
Clowney=Mercilus (sit on the bench for year #1) except he will play at Antonio's position.
Click to expand...

confused.jpg
 
steelbtexan said:
Not doing the research but I believe Bruce Smith had 5 sacks as a Sr. at Va. Tech.

He had a pretty good career.
Click to expand...

Bruce Smith has 22 sacks in one season at Va Tech which is 2 less than Clowneys career total. Bruce also had 71 tfl for over 500yds, but let's not bring that up. Btw, smith had 46 sacks in college. Its not even close. If you watch the tape of clowney from his freshman yr until now,he looks the exact same. His areas of weakness as a freshman still looks the same as a jr. Even his sophmore yr wen he had better production sack wise,his technique is still a huge question mark. Von Miller got better every yr even his last despite a small dip in his sack production. As stated before, I'm still puzzled on how so called analyst raise or drop guys based on pro days. Clowney is the type of guy who will always win getting off the bus with his shirt off. He will always look good doing drills in an open environment. His struggles are just effort on the field. I don't by into the notion guys can play redline all game and run down every play down the field. Richard Dent was known for not chasing every play. I just wanna know why clowney couldn't get off blocks? I wanna know why clowney couldn't transition his rush. I wanna know why even in a wide 9 he couldn't bend. That agle to the qb? When I didn't get the answers, I went back to his 2 previous seasons and guess what? He couldn't do those things either. These defencient areas were not 1 yr deals,they're consistent with his play.
 
Last edited:
steelbtexan said:
Not doing the research but I believe Bruce Smith had 5 sacks as a Sr. at Va. Tech.

He had a pretty good career.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well being flippant about research doesn't pay off.

As a senior Bruce Smith gained 25 lbs and had an "off" season with 16 sacks.

You were saying?
 
If the Texans take Clowney and get production similar the MW per injury I'm ok. I just have major concerns that some people are saying Peppers lite and I'm seeing Vernon Ghoulston 2.0. I'm not seeing the safest pick or who will probably have the best career. To me that's Robinson and Watkins. If they're not going QB at one, I'd prefer one of those two.

My bigger concern isn't just his athleticism translating to the NFL more so the domino effect is has on who gets selected as a QB in this draft. Value shopping at the spot does not appeal to me at all. Of the second tier guys Jimmy G might have what it takes and Murray could be a Russell Wilson type gem in the third or fourth. Outside of that the prospects seem meh, but the guy in this class that is going to break hearts is Mettenberger. I want no part of drafting him.
 
steelbtexan said:
I apologize,

I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Are the bone spurs a deal breaker for you and Clowney at 1-1?
Click to expand...

Not a deal breaker..........just would only do so with the understanding the bone spur surgery would not be put off anymore (as it has been for the past few years).
 
Goldensilence said:
If the Texans take Clowney and get production similar the MW per injury I'm ok. I just have major concerns that some people are saying Peppers lite and I'm seeing Vernon Ghoulston 2.0. I'm not seeing the safest pick or who will probably have the best career. To me that's Robinson and Watkins. If they're not going QB at one, I'd prefer one of those two.

My bigger concern isn't just his athleticism translating to the NFL more so the domino effect is has on who gets selected as a QB in this draft. Value shopping at the spot does not appeal to me at all. Of the second tier guys Jimmy G might have what it takes and Murray could be a Russell Wilson type gem in the third or fourth. Outside of that the prospects seem meh, but the guy in this class that is going to break hearts is Mettenberger. I want no part of drafting him.
Click to expand...
Not so fast there about Robinson, because even though he's off the planet when it comes to being a run-blocker, he's really got rather limited experience as a pass-blocker do to the kind of offense Auburn operates out of and so IMO there's some real uncertainty about him being a potential #1 overall value ? Re Watkins, he's a tremendous prospect, has everything except ideal size as a potential #1 WR, but receivers aren't at a position worthy of being rated of premium value.
 
I'm spending several hours today watching clips on draftbreakdown.com, and I just finished the South Carolina/UCF game. The Clowney gets doubled teamed every down is as mythological as the Mario Williams gets double-teamed every down.

They are scheming against him, but he's doubled about 30%, and gets a small chip another 30%. I'm assuming that will hold up with other games, but we'll see.
 
leebigeztx said:
Bruce Smith has 22 sacks in one season at Va Tech which is 2 less than Clowneys career total. Bruce also had 71 tfl for over 500yds, but let's not bring that up. Btw, smith had 46 sacks in college. Its not even close. If you watch the tape of clowney from his freshman yr until now,he looks the exact same. His areas of weakness as a freshman still looks the same as a jr. Even his sophmore yr wen he had better production sack wise,his technique is still a huge question mark. Von Miller got better every yr even his last despite a small dip in his sack production. As stated before, I'm still puzzled on how so called analyst raise or drop guys based on pro days. Clowney is the type of guy who will always win getting off the bus with his shirt off. He will always look good doing drills in an open environment. His struggles are just effort on the field. I don't by into the notion guys can play redline all game and run down every play down the field. Richard Dent was known for not chasing every play. I just wanna know why clowney couldn't get off blocks? I wanna know why clowney couldn't transition his rush. I wanna know why even in a wide 9 he couldn't bend. That agle to the qb? When I didn't get the answers, I went back to his 2 previous seasons and guess what? He couldn't do those things either. These defencient areas were not 1 yr deals,they're consistent with his play.
Click to expand...

Clowney's teammates/ex-teammates/coaches don't seem to share your concerns.
 
noxiousdog said:
I'm spending several hours today watching clips on draftbreakdown.com, and I just finished the South Carolina/UCF game. The Clowney gets doubled teamed every down is as mythological as the Mario Williams gets double-teamed every down.

They are scheming against him, but he's doubled about 30%, and gets a small chip another 30%. I'm assuming that will hold up with other games, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Getting extra attention 60% of the time and while watching how many time when they weren't giving extra attention to Clowney did they trap/run/screen away from him?

Using your numbers Clowney /Watt seems like a pretty formidable duo.
 
steelbtexan said:
Getting extra attention 60% of the time and while watching how many time when they weren't giving extra attention to Clowney did they trap/run/screen away from him?

Using your numbers Clowney /Watt seems like a pretty formidable duo.
Click to expand...

So devin taylor and sutton were scrubs? You're reaching like bruce smith 5 sacks as a senior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top