Jump to content

NFC executive: Jadeveon Clowney is 'spoiled' and 'lazy'


Jetfan13

Recommended Posts

How often is there a player who is "worthy of #1" in the draft by this metric? Anyone this year? Besides Luck, anyone in recent history? I ask because at some point, you have to take a player first. It seems very likely that despite last year, Clowney could be the best in this draft and he plays a position worth taking high. At some point someone has to be 1st.

 

the guy has 3 years of college ball to judge from... throwing away a whole year always feels troublesome to me. the last time the draft was going to start off with a guy who missed a year that guy was Sam Bradford.  And at least he had an excuse. Clowney's excuse is he didn't want it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

the guy has 3 years of college ball to judge from... throwing away a whole year always feels troublesome to me. the last time the draft was going to start off with a guy who missed a year that guy was Sam Bradford. And at least he had an excuse. Clowney's excuse is he didn't want it?

This doesn't even attempt to answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't even attempt to answer the question.

 

what's the question, who is better than Clowney? 

 

How about Mack? How about Manziel? at least those guys try all the time. 

 

this whole thread is a testiment how group think can settle in. Everyones said Clowney's the best, he ran a 4.6 and jumped over 17 tackle bags so he must be the best. I don't buy it. He had 3 sacks last year cause he's a dog. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's the question, who is better than Clowney?

How about Mack? How about Manziel? at least those guys try all the time.

this whole thread is a testiment how group think can settle in. Everyones said Clowney's the best, he ran a 4.6 and jumped over 17 tackle bags so he must be the best. I don't buy it. He had 3 sacks last year cause he's a dog.

I am way higher on Manziel than most people and still all I can see here is you arguing for a quarterback who likes to jump when he throws the ball over the best player in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am way higher on Manziel than most people and still all I can see here is you arguing for a quarterback who likes to jump when he throws the ball over the best player in the draft.

 

ugh stop calling him that. The NFL is a job which requires effort.  He's a real interesting player. He's not the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's the question, who is better than Clowney?

How about Mack? How about Manziel? at least those guys try all the time.

this whole thread is a testiment how group think can settle in. Everyones said Clowney's the best, he ran a 4.6 and jumped over 17 tackle bags so he must be the best. I don't buy it. He had 3 sacks last year cause he's a dog.

The question is everything in my first post which preceeds this symbol: ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what times are research presentations set for?

 

Totally off-topic, but how important is it for you to publish? Are you at one of those publish or perish universities? I've been told an increasing amount that a lot of residency spots won't even look at you if you're not doing research and publishing sh*t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh stop calling him that. The NFL is a job which requires effort.  He's a real interesting player. He's not the best. 

 

I've been around enough to know that you like playing devils advocate and stirring the pot by going against conventional thought, which is completely fine. However, in the last handful of months, I've only seen you give reasons why he shouldn't go number one and besides ticket and jersey sales, haven't seen you give any specific reasons why anyone should be drafted over him.  You say draft the best player, give me players and reasons why they are better...none of which mention merchandising. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally off-topic, but how important is it for you to publish? Are you at one of those publish or perish universities? I've been told an increasing amount that a lot of residency spots won't even look at you if you're not doing research and publishing sh*t. 

 

I'm fortunate enough to be at an institution that would rather teach you to do good work before publishing, rather than forcing you to publish bad work before you're ready. The problem with the latter is that once something with your name on it is out there, it's out there forever. In my experience the best work from graduate students comes from candidates who don't publish until they begin their dissertation, and what makes it easy in that instance is that you can just rewrite chapters for submission. Win/win. It's not universal of course, but we're just too busy otherwise to really write something well enough for the better journals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fortunate enough to be at an institution that would rather teach you to do good work before publishing, rather than forcing you to publish bad work before you're ready. The problem with the latter is that once something with your name on it is out there, it's out there forever. In my experience the best work from graduate students comes from candidates who don't publish until they begin their dissertation, and what makes it easy in that instance is that you can just rewrite chapters for submission. Win/win. It's not universal of course, but we're just too busy otherwise to really write something well enough for the better journals.

 

That's awesome. You're lucky and certainly seem in the minority. All the PhDs who give us lectures about their niche in whatever subject we're studying seem like they're ass is constantly on the hot-seat unless they're tenured.  

 

Again, irrelevant, but have you ever thought about going to work for a hedge-fund?  One of my buddy's works at a fairly prestigious one and says they routinely employ people who have their PhD's in stats or some sort of analytics to write algorithms for them. Crazy stressful job, but they are part of the profit sharing scheme and pull down 7 figures. Lots of them work for a year or two then leave to do something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awesome. You're lucky and certainly seem in the minority. All the PhDs who give us lectures about their niche in whatever subject we're studying seem like they're ass is constantly on the hot-seat unless they're tenured.  

 

Again, irrelevant, but have you ever thought about going to work for a hedge-fund?  One of my buddy's works at a fairly prestigious one and says they routinely employ people who have their PhD's in stats or some sort of analytics to write algorithms for them. Crazy stressful job, but they are part of the profit sharing scheme and pull down 7 figures. Lots of them work for a year or two then leave to do something else.

 

Tenure in political science is far more reliant on books than journal articles. Not that the latter isn't important.

 

Never. Under no circumstances would I work in finance or investment, ditto for any partisan think tank. Nothing against those who do, but I'm of the personal belief that it's actually my job to not do those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tenure in political science is far more reliant on books than journal articles. Not that the latter isn't important.

 

Never. Under no circumstances would I work in finance or investment, ditto for any partisan think tank. Nothing against those who do, but I'm of the personal belief that it's actually my job to not do those things.

 

Totally understandable and commendable, it's rather rare to hear people say that. I joke a lot about how I wish I did finance every time I look at my loans and then see those guys on the cover of Forbes racing their yachts, but I couldn't work in finance. Not just because I wouldn't like it, but also because I have no marketable skills that they'd use lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awesome. You're lucky and certainly seem in the minority. All the PhDs who give us lectures about their niche in whatever subject we're studying seem like they're ass is constantly on the hot-seat unless they're tenured.  

 

Again, irrelevant, but have you ever thought about going to work for a hedge-fund?  One of my buddy's works at a fairly prestigious one and says they routinely employ people who have their PhD's in stats or some sort of analytics to write algorithms for them. Crazy stressful job, but they are part of the profit sharing scheme and pull down 7 figures. Lots of them work for a year or two then leave to do something else.

This is the kind of thing Revis would do, you know, if he had the appropriate PhD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of thing Revis would do, you know, if he had the appropriate PhD.

 

 

Those hedge-fund guys just make stupid money. There was a post on reddit from someone who followed one of the big hedge-fund managers at the ATM and he forgot his receipt: his bank account had $130 million in it. I can't even wrap my head around that. You could do two chicks at once like, a 130 times with that type of cash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally understandable and commendable, it's rather rare to hear people say that. I joke a lot about how I wish I did finance every time I look at my loans and then see those guys on the cover of Forbes racing their yachts, but I couldn't work in finance. Not just because I wouldn't like it, but also because I have no marketable skills that they'd use lol.

 

There's also the fact that I like enjoying what I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...