Pirkster's attempting civil discourse now that his opinion has become a laughing stock. Everyone can see you pivoting, dude.

 

And no, Clowney was never a "lock" for the No. 1 pick. Stop this. No one believes it. As long as you were properly rating Teddy Bridgewater, you knew that Clowney didn't have a shot at being picked first overall by a quarterback-desperate franchise when a franchise quarterback was on the board.

 

Casuals thought Clowney was going first overall because ESPN replayed the Vincent Smith hit roughly 40,000 times over the offseason.

---

Pirkster's attempting civil discourse now that his opinion has become a laughing stock. Everyone can see you pivoting, dude.

 

And no, Clowney was never a "lock" for the No. 1 pick. Stop this. No one believes it. As long as you were properly rating Teddy Bridgewater, you knew that Clowney didn't have a shot at being picked first overall by a quarterback-desperate franchise when a franchise quarterback was on the board.

 

Casuals thought Clowney was going first overall because ESPN replayed the Vincent Smith hit roughly 40,000 times over the offseason.

 

A child born from the Jim Rome school of intelligent discussion.

 

Congrats to you.  You've become one of the biggest jackasses of the board in very short time.

 

This had everything to do with Clowney taking the season off, and absolutley nothing to to with Bridgewater.  Had things remained constant, he'd have more than likely still been the BAP.  Would a QB starved team have passed over him for Bridgewater?  Absolutely.  I alluded to that as well.  You'd have remembered, if you cared to have a civil discussion, but then... I don't expect anything resembling an objective discussion from you.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

 

 

As I said from the very beginning... if nothing had changed between the two, Clowney would have been the logical #1 pick if he would have been rated significantly higher (which was expected at the time.)

 

 


 

Why is it when I try my best to be civil with your kind, I always end up regretting doing so... as if I've wandered over to the children's table and expected intelligent conversation instead of a spitball fight?

 

 

 

Regarding comment 1, totally disagree and can't believe you are sticking to this. How many times do you have to see it: 

 

franchise QB > top flight DE

 

 

Regarding comment 2.....seriously? How you can type that with a straight face is beyond me.....then again, I can't see if you're laughing while typing....

 

 

Pirkster's attempting civil discourse now that his opinion has become a laughing stock. Everyone can see you pivoting, dude.

 

And no, Clowney was never a "lock" for the No. 1 pick. Stop this. No one believes it. As long as you were properly rating Teddy Bridgewater, you knew that Clowney didn't have a shot at being picked first overall by a quarterback-desperate franchise when a franchise quarterback was on the board.

 

Casuals thought Clowney was going first overall because ESPN replayed the Vincent Smith hit roughly 40,000 times over the offseason.

 

Yep. pretty much, all of the above. All of it. 

 

 

A child born from the Jim Rome school of intelligent discussion.

 

Congrats to you.  You've become one of the biggest jackasses of the board in very short time.

 

This had everything to do with Clowney taking the season off, and absolutley nothing to to with Bridgewater.  Had things remained constant, he'd have more than likely still been the BAP.  Would a QB starved team have passed over him for Bridgewater?  Absolutely.  I alluded to that as well.  You'd have remembered, if you cared to have a civil discussion, but then... I don't expect anything resembling an objective discussion from you.

 

So, we're still refusing to give Bridgewater credit for what he has done to this point? smh

---

 

Congrats to you.  You've become one of the biggest jackasses of the board in very short time.

 

This had everything to do with Clowney taking the season off, and absolutley nothing to to with Bridgewater.  Had things remained constant, he'd have more than likely still been the BAP.  

 

Had things remained constant, Matt Barkley would have been the number one pick in the 2013 NFL draft.

 

I also had no idea a mod could call a fellow member a jackass.

---

Had things remained constant, Matt Barkley would have been the number one pick in the 2013 NFL draft.

 

I also had no idea a mod could call a fellow member a jackass.

 

thats ok....he called me a "neanderdog" the other day.... I chuckled at his insult.  

---

Pirkster, just stop. Seriously. No one is buying your deflections. People have been trying to talk sense into you since the first post I made on this forum, and now you're just trying to save face. It's a message board, man. Just own up to it. Clowney was never going to be the No. 1 pick in the 2014 NFL Draft when Teddy Bridgewater was on the board.

---

It just seems too good to be true...


The Jags are probably going to screw this up somehow....



probably win a few meaningless games during the 2nd half to put us out of the #1 overall pick


why?


#becausejaguars


thats why.



After all our suffering as fans, I think we're owed Bridgewater to the Jags!!! Don't ruin this for us!!!!

Sad thing is, I'm actually afraid of this happening

---

Pirkster's attempting civil discourse now that his opinion has become a laughing stock. Everyone can see you pivoting, dude.

 

And no, Clowney was never a "lock" for the No. 1 pick. Stop this. No one believes it. As long as you were properly rating Teddy Bridgewater, you knew that Clowney didn't have a shot at being picked first overall by a quarterback-desperate franchise when a franchise quarterback was on the board.

 

Casuals thought Clowney was going first overall because ESPN replayed the Vincent Smith hit roughly 40,000 times over the offseason.

 

Draft experts had Clowney #1 overall long before the Sugar Bowl, or even Clowney's sophomore season, was ever played. Where they right? Maybe not. But going into last year's NCAAF season, Clowney was the consensus #1 pick of the 2014 draft class.

---

Draft experts had Clowney #1 overall long before the Sugar Bowl, or even Clowney's sophomore season, was ever played. Where they right? Maybe not. But going into last year's NCAAF season, Clowney was the consensus #1 pick of the 2014 draft class.

 

I don't care about what "draft experts" think and neither do NFL front offices. What Kiper and McShay say almost a year in advance means next to nothing.

 

Besides, there is a world of difference between "consensus No. 1 pick" and "No. 1 lock". The latter is obviously untrue if we're talking about Clowney. Matt Barkley was the consensus No. 1 pick of the 2013 draft in the summer of 2012, but no one would have said he was a lock with a straight face.

 

Andrew Luck was a lock a year in advance. Peyton Manning was a lock a year in advance. I really can't think of any other stone-cold locks in my lifetime.

---

I don't care about what "draft experts" think and neither do NFL front offices. What Kiper and McShay say almost a year in advance means next to nothing.

 

Besides, there is a world of difference between "consensus No. 1 pick" and "No. 1 lock". The latter is obviously untrue if we're talking about Clowney. Matt Barkley was the consensus No. 1 pick of the 2013 draft in the summer of 2012, but no one would have said he was a lock with a straight face.

 

Andrew Luck was a lock a year in advance. Peyton Manning was a lock a year in advance. I really can't think of any other stone-cold locks in my lifetime.

 

Scouts had Clowney #1 overall, too. Were they right? It doesn't appear so. That doesn't negate that going into last years season, Clowney was on top just about everybody's big board.

 

Your statement of "Clowney didn't have a shot at going #1" is a fallacy. Clowney probably doesn't have a shot at going 1st anymore, I'll agree with that. This wasn't the case 12 months ago, though.

---

Your statement of "Clowney didn't have a shot at going #1" is a fallacy. Clowney probably doesn't have a shot at going 1st anymore, I'll agree with that. This wasn't the case 12 months ago, though.

 

It didn't take a psychic to predict that Bridgewater would continue to be really good and that Clowney wouldn't live up to the Paul Bunyan tales that sprouted up during the offseason. As long as Bridgewater didn't regress -- and it was extremely unlikely that he would -- Clowney's media-created No. 1 stock would disappear. This was very easy to see coming. A quarterback-desperate team was almost certainly going to get the No. 1 pick, and a quarterback-desperate team wasn't going to take Jadeveon Clowney first overall. Simple.

 

It's hilarious to see Pirkster pretending that Clowney being lazy is some unforeseen speedbump. That's been the knock on him for years. Who is honestly shocked that Clowney's taking plays (and games!) off as his payday nears?

---

I'm not talking about going into this season, I'm talking about going into the 2012 season (before Bridgewater blew up). Going into the 2012 season, Clowney was on top of just about everybody's big board.

---

Dude, who cares about projecting guys coming off their freshman seasons? A lot of future No. 1 overall picks haven't even played at that point. Tyler Bray and Danny O'Brien could have been future No. 1 overall picks in those hypothetical mocks. (Although I wouldn't feel too uncomfortable putting money down on Winston or Hackenberg being the first picks in whatever drafts they enter.)

 

Pirkster believes that Clowney was still a lock in the summer of 2013. That's amusing to a lot of people here.

---

Dude, who cares about projecting guys coming off their freshman seasons? A lot of future No. 1 overall picks haven't even played at that point. Tyler Bray and Danny O'Brien could have been future No. 1 overall picks in those hypothetical mocks. (Although I wouldn't feel too uncomfortable putting money down on Winston or Hackenberg being the first picks in whatever drafts they enter.)

 

Pirkster believes that Clowney was still a lock in the summer of 2013. That's amusing to a lot of people here.

 

I was just under the impression you were saying Clowney was never the most sought after play in college. He may not be anymore, he may not have been 10 months ago after Bridgewater's season, but 12 months ago he most definitely was.

---

I was just under the impression you were saying Clowney was never the most sought after play in college. He may not be anymore, he may not have been 10 months ago after Bridgewater's season, but 12 months ago he most definitely was.

 

I mean, Clowney could have been slotted as the No. 1 guy going back to high school if you want. He was a full-grown man while most 18/19-year-old quarterbacks are years away from developing physically and mentally into franchise prospects. That's not incorrect... I just don't know why anyone would care about that.

---

I mean, Clowney could have been slotted as the No. 1 guy going back to high school if you want. He was a full-grown man while most 18/19-year-old quarterbacks are years away from developing physically and mentally into franchise prospects. That's not incorrect... I just don't know why anyone would care about that.

 

Consistency is never a bad thing when it comes to scouting and prospects. It helps teams from getting burned by a flash-in-the-pan player. Scouts don't start keeping tabs on guys after their freshman season.

 

And the age thing, okay sure. But if Clowney could have entered the 2013 NFL Draft he likely would have gone #1 over older QBs. There is a reason he was widely considered such an elite prospect. Scouts weren't just pulling names out of a hat.

---

I hate myself for taking the bait because you've also admitted you've only watched highlights of Bridgewater, but this literally took me all of four seconds while eating some sour patch kids at work:

 

"As an athlete, Bridgewater is more similar to Andrew Luck rather than Robert Griffin III or Cam Newton. Bridgewater has good mobility and can pick up yards on the ground, but he looks more natural as a pocket passer. "

 

http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport...ewater.php

 

"Scouts are salivating about Bridgewater's potential as a franchise-caliber quarterback at the next level."

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000...e-football

as good as that assessment of teddy sounds, i wouldnt put too much stock on walterfootball, they did have geno and nassib (lol) going top 8 days before the 2013 draft.  and also they only compared his athleticism to luck, nothing about him being the prospect luck is. lol at tajh boyd going #2 in his mock. 

 

as for the other link, that quote seems more of a conjecture to me rather than actual scout takes, but i could be reading it wrong.  i still see no insinuation of him being the next great prospect comparable to luck/peyton. yes he is the best qb in the class, yes he is a potential franchise qb, but in this board he seem very overrated based on the links you guys are showing me.

 

another add on that nfl.com link that dude has manziel & mccaron at #2 and #3 "based on what I'm(hes) seeing and hearing from scouts along the way."

---

Eric Fisher went #1 over those same QBs, so that says a lot more about the draft class than Clowney.

 

A 20-year-old Teddy Bridgewater would have went first overall to KC if he, Clowney, and Fisher were all options.

---

Eric Fisher went #1 over those same QBs, so that says a lot more about the draft class than Clowney.

 

A 20-year-old Teddy Bridgewater would have went first overall to KC if he, Clowney, and Fisher were all options.

---

 

GIF didn't link, kid.

---