I get what you are trying to say, but you are simply wrong. Reading defenses or looking off safeties in high school means nothing.
Running a pro set compared to running an Art Briles offense is like apples to oranges. Teddy's more ready (when coming out of college) , but goodness RGIII is a freak. If they offered you RGIII for the first pick of course it's a no brainer.
3 sacks on the season. Clowney will be a huge work in progress and is not worthy of 1.1 based on his '13 production alone. Your excuses and explanations for him are tired. Lets not discuss the number of red flags on him either.
Have you played qb in high school and in college???? Those skills translate across boundaries as long as you have a sound understanding of the playbook, the defense across from you and you possess pocket presence Those skills translate no matter where you go
why doesnt it mean he can do so in the NFL.. dont understand your point.. Because of level of competition? How can you base that he might not be able to translate his game to the next level based on that. Hes damn coach just got a job at the top College in the country.. I dont think Texas University judge Charlie Strong potential based on the conference and competition he faced... They still hired him.
No what's tired is listening to your shallow understanding and analysis of football. You don't judge a defensive player based solely on sack count....Let me guess, you are one of those people who still only look at RBI total and batting average when talking about baseball players aren't you?
Haha Big12 plays NO defense. Know who also did "that stuff" in the big12... Weeden, vy, bradford, etc... lol, dicing up the sorry big12 defenses is NOTHING to brag about
You have no clue. You're already making excuses for clowney... Hmmm, what does that tell you? Also, do you think you are bringing anything new or fresh to the table regarding clowney? We've already heard/read everything you are parroting 50x over.
I see you always resort to ad hominem when you realize you have no clue what you're talking about... Now good look up that big, fancy word i used.
Making excuses? No I'm trying to explain concepts to you that are apparently over your head. I now know how Anne Sullivan must have felt.
Now it seems I have to explain to you what an ad hominem is. What I did was attack your position THEN attack your reading comprehension skills, that's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be attacking a person instead of attacking an argument. For example had I said "Of course you'd say that, you're an idiot" that would have been an ad hominem. If you want to use fancy Latin terms, find out what they actually mean.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html So that I don't have to further explain, here's a link to give you further understanding.
I'd hate to end the current discussion about ad hominems, but... First of all, Clowney's a great player who should probably dominate at the next level. He'd be great to have, as he would certainly elevate the defense and give it a chance of having an elite front 7. However, updating our defense through Clowney doesn't mean anything if we can't find a quarterback who can lead us to the Super Bowl. And trying to find a franchise quarterback in the later rounds is much, much more unlikely, even if there is a specific quarterback that seems appealing. And I don't want Bridgewater just to draft a quarterback. The guy can straight up ball. He's very Tom Brady-like in his ability to change plays at the line of scrimmage, go through all of his progressions and quickly get the ball to the correct target. He dominates in terms of his accuracy in the 1-15 yard range, and this is the number one indicator of a quarterbacks success at the next level: being able to methodically move the offense and continuously pick up first downs. Bridgewater can make the Texans offense relevant again. While Clowney would greatly improve the defense, impact players on defense can be more easily found in the later rounds, unlike the quarterback position.
