That comparison crossed my mind too....but Bridgewater reminds me of Marino in the pocket.

The point could be made that Moon and Marino were pieces of wood cut from the same tree. I see Bridgewater as a branch of that tree.

---

Signature goes here.

His name is Teddy Bridgewater... 'nuff said

---

Let's just go ahead and put him in the Hall of Fame while we're getting ahead of ourselves. Really, why stop there?

I mean why not? Looking at all the posts from the Clowney posse he's the GOAT DE who's mentioned in the same breath as Bruce Smith and Reggie White.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

what the hell are you talking about?? ---- what was SAID by me was "consensus" = majority. 

 

I never said that I didn't think "unanimous" didn't = "all". 

 

Liars are funny. 

 

 

That comparison crossed my mind too....but Bridgewater reminds me of Marino in the pocket. 

 

Oops, that is right.

 

But you are still wrong. Consensus does not mean majority. Consensus means all. "an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group" (per meriam-webster).

---

Once again, I don't think you are qualified to judge "tools". You thought Geno Smith had the "tools" to be taken #2 overall. You are not a good judge of "tools".

As many of us have pointed out to you before, you're being awfully obtuse to close the book on Geno (who has actually been pretty impressive all things considered) 3 games into his career. 

---

Oops, that is right.

 

But you are still wrong. Consensus does not mean majority. Consensus means all. "an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group" (per meriam-webster).

Holy crap you love to argue and nit pick. If you look at the full definition just below the quotation that you cherry picked it says this 'the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.' Here are all of the mocks updated in the last week or so on the first three pages of google. If you wish to do more homework and try to prove us wrong feel free to show us all of the deeply hidden mocks that have Clowney going #1 because they sure are extremely hard to find. 

 

http://nfl.si.com/2013/09/24/2014-nfl-mo...n-clowney/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/17856...every-team

http://www.chicagonow.com/daily-chicago-...n/#image/1

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/mock-draft     Brugler and Rang both have Teddy #1 to Jags

http://q.usatoday.com/2013/09/24/johnny-...rst-round/

http://walterfootball.com/draft2014.php   Yes I hate Walter but add him and Campbell in the Teddy #1 to Jags

http://walterfootball.com/draftdata.php   Walters (actually kinda useful) database of mock drafts. In mocks updated since week 3 (Sept. 22) it's Teddy 29, Manziel 1, Hundley 1, Clowney a big goose egg.

 

I would say that Teddy being the consensus #1 pick in mock drafts (NOT big boards) is a fair statement. Virtually every mock coming out right now has the Jags picking #1 and taking Bridgewater. That is close enough to consensus for me and everyone who isn't on here purely to argue for the sake of arguing like you.

---

that worked out so well when we picked gab over watt

 

Right, and also when we picked Harvey over Flacco.  It turns out, if you pick a bad player instead of a good player, it doesn't much matter which positions they played, you're going to regret it. 

 

The only way to discuss it reasonably is to assume you aren't going to pick a bad player.  Instead, you can compare two successful players and then ask which you'd prefer. 

 

For me, If you think the person on the board is going to be a top level QB, you take them.  Do you think Dallas would still take DeMarcus Ware instead of Aaron Rodgers in a re-draft?

---

Right, and also when we picked Harvey over Flacco.  It turns out, if you pick a bad player instead of a good player, it doesn't much matter which positions they played, you're going to regret it. 

 

The only way to discuss it reasonably is to assume you aren't going to pick a bad player.  Instead, you can compare two successful players and then ask which you'd prefer. 

 

For me, If you think the person on the board is going to be a top level QB, you take them.  Do you think Dallas would still take DeMarcus Ware instead of Aaron Rodgers in a re-draft?

lol yeah because we needed a qb early in the 08 draft.... almost all QBs taken in the first round are overdrafted and especially the #1 overall pick. i just want the best player in the draft and that right now is clowney.

---

lol yeah because we needed a qb early in the 08 draft....

 

*looks at us*


Yep.  I'd say we did.  The reason this team's situation is so bad is because the team has ignored the position for so long.  Even with Garrard's good 07' year, you can't stop looking for a new QB.  Especially since Garrard was nearing 30 at that point.  If we get Bridgewater, or whoever, we can't just ignore the position for ten years like we did last time.  This team did nothing at the position for too long.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

*looks at us*


Yep.  I'd say we did.  The reason this team's situation is so bad is because the team has ignored the position for so long.  Even with Garrard's good 07' year, you can't stop looking for a new QB.  Especially since Garrard was nearing 30 at that point.  If we get Bridgewater, or whoever, we can't just ignore the position for ten years like we did last time.  This team did nothing at the position for too long.  

we just had a succesful run in the playoffs and we needed to improve our dline in hope to make a deeper run. garrard was a young 30 years old. drafting a qb early wouldve been a stupid. it was a terrible draft in hindsight but we drafted based on what happened in 07.

---

we just had a succesful run in the playoffs and we needed to improve our dline in hope to make a deeper run. garrard was a young 30 years old. drafting a qb early wouldve been a stupid. it was a terrible draft in hindsight but we drafted based on what happened in 07.

 

We gambled on Garrard being good -- and we lost.  We put all of our chips on Garrard.  Drafting a QB early would not have been stupid at all.  Especially if you thought they could be the future of your franchise.  Trading up to get Flacco would have been stupid -- just as trading up for Derrick Harvey was dumb.  We shouldn't have traded up at all (in which case we'd never have been in position for Flacco anyway). but taking a QB early when you have other needs isn't stupid. 

 

You can't stop looking for the future franchise QB even when you have one.  It leaves you in situations like we have now where we're stuck between a guy who's like a rock when it comes to evading the sack, and a guy who finds that it's a hard place to throw the ball.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

We gambled on Garrard being good -- and we lost.  We put all of our chips on Garrard.  Drafting a QB early would not have been stupid at all.  Especially if you thought they could be the future of your franchise.  Trading up to get Flacco would have been stupid -- just as trading up for Derrick Harvey was dumb.  We shouldn't have traded up at all (in which case we'd never have been in position for Flacco anyway). but taking a QB early when you have other needs isn't stupid. 

 

You can't stop looking for the future franchise QB even when you have one.  It leaves you in situations like we have now where we're stuck between a guy who's like a rock when it comes to evading the sack, and a guy who finds that it's a hard place to throw the ball.  

we were gearing for a deep playoff run, drafting a qb early wouldve stunted that plan. yes we gambled on garrard but it was a logical gamble. like i said garrard was a young 30 years old. plus didnt we just give garrard a new contract in that time span? no sure. you dont draft a qb in the first round and expect him to sit 3-5 years. 

---

Clowney's stock will probably drop a bit when we get to the combine and more people actually get to see Za'Darius Smith.

---

TEST

lol yeah because we needed a qb early in the 08 draft.... almost all QBs taken in the first round are overdrafted and especially the #1 overall pick. i just want the best player in the draft and that right now is clowney.

I don't get your point at all. We needed a good player, we got a complete bust. You compared a bad QB to a good DE, I just did the opposite to point out why that comparison makes no sense. The only fair way to do it is to compare two good players at different positions, otherwise you aren't comparing positions at all, you're just comparing a bad player to a good one and position becomes irrelevant then.


When you do compare two similar level players, the QB clearly wins.

---

His name is Teddy Bridgewater... 'nuff said

 

Remember when TMD went 10+ pages on how names have relevance to how a player performs?

---

Remember when TMD went 10+ pages on how names have relevance to how a player performs?

 

Obviously if he went be Theodore he'd be the backup at a D2 college. 

---

I don't get your point at all. We needed a good player, we got a complete bust. You compared a bad QB to a good DE, I just did the opposite to point out why that comparison makes no sense. The only fair way to do it is to compare two good players at different positions, otherwise you aren't comparing positions at all, you're just comparing a bad player to a good one and position becomes irrelevant then.


When you do compare two similar level players, the QB clearly wins.

i compared a draft where we needed a qb and a de. the 2008 draft we didnt need a qb early.

---

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on evaluating players, but for some reason Clowney isn't impressing me so far. I haven't seen every play of every game he's been on TV, but from what I've seen he looks a little sluggish. His stats are ok, not eye popping, which is what I expect from a player many seem to think is a slam dunk #1 draft pick prospect. Maybe it's how teams are scheming for him, maybe it's my own ignorance, but I'm not buying the hype yet.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on evaluating players, but for some reason Clowney isn't impressing me so far. I haven't seen every play of every game he's been on TV, but from what I've seen he looks a little sluggish. His stats are ok, not eye popping, which is what I expect from a player many seem to think is a slam dunk #1 draft pick prospect. Maybe it's how teams are scheming for him, maybe it's my own ignorance, but I'm not buying the hype yet.

his opponents are staying away from his side, he gets double teamed a few times and hes playing with a foot injury.

---

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on evaluating players, but for some reason Clowney isn't impressing me so far. I haven't seen every play of every game he's been on TV, but from what I've seen he looks a little sluggish. His stats are ok, not eye popping, which is what I expect from a player many seem to think is a slam dunk #1 draft pick prospect. Maybe it's how teams are scheming for him, maybe it's my own ignorance, but I'm not buying the hype yet.

 

Every team has a "keep away from Clowney" gameplan. There aren't many defensive players in NFL (or college) football history that offensives had to manipulate their offenses around.

---