Demetrius Williams And Mark Clayton Vs. Housh And Stalls

[display name]

Previous to Week 1, somebody started a topic in which they compared Housh and Clayton (which would you rather have). WR TJ. Houshmandzadeh had just been clamed off waivers by the Ravens and Clayton was traded to the St. Louis Rams. Housh was an arrogant vet who was more trouble than he was worth. Clayton was a younger, mostly reliable, selfless, and hard-working player who had been with the team since 2005. Demetrius Williams had great potential and good hands, but was always injured and barely ever got on the field. Stallworth missed all of 2009 due to a DIU/manslaughter contviction. Personally I know regret that the team signed Housh and Stallworth. Here's how I think things may have panned out if they had never come to the Ravens:
Kelley Washington, Mark Clayton, and potentially Demetrius Williams would probably have been kept.
Tandon Doss and/or Torrey Smith may not have been drafted by us.
Hardy likely wouldn't have been signed.
Enough with the blues, Clayton is a Rams starter and Williams is with the Browns. I wish them both luck and maybe we can resign one of them as a backup when Mason finally retires and Torrey Smith is a starter opposite Boldin. Thoughts?

[Romo Ravens]

Stallworth is better than Williams and Housh is better than Clayton, it was the play calling that really made them suffer, with both of them hardly ever on the field. But I'll take none of them this season.

[Guest ArmyRaven52]

[quote name='display name' timestamp='1310427091' post='706185']
Previous to Week 1, somebody started a topic in which they compared Housh and Clayton (which would you rather have). WR TJ. Houshmandzadeh had just been clamed off waivers by the Ravens and Clayton was traded to the St. Louis Rams. Housh was an arrogant vet who was more trouble than he was worth. Clayton was a younger, mostly reliable, selfless, and hard-working player who had been with the team since 2005. Demetrius Williams had great potential and good hands, but was always injured and barely ever got on the field. Stallworth missed all of 2009 due to a DIU/manslaughter contviction. Personally I know regret that the team signed Housh and Staallworth. Here's how I think things may have panned out if they had never come to the Ravens:
Kelley Washington, Mark Clayton, and potentially Demetrius Williams would probably have been kept.
[b]Tandon Doss and/or Torrey Smith may not have been drafted by us. [/b]
Enough with the blues, Clayton is a Rams starter and Williams is with the Browns. I wish them both luck and maybe we can resign one of them as a backup when Mason finally retires. Thoughts?
[/quote]

In my honest opinion, absolutely not. D-will had all the potential in the world and not a dang thing else to back that up. He was always injured and for all those who like to say that you cant blame someone for injuries, yeah sure it isn't there fault but when you get no use out of them they sort of become irrelevant to the team therefore their roster spot could be given to somebody who would at least contribute to the team. D-will is actually one of the biggest disappointment's in my stint as a Raven's fan(1996-present) he is right up there with Dan Cody in my opinion.

Mark Clayton is a little more interesting because he was supposed to be "the guy" and he definitely did not live up to that billing for us, although I cant give him all the blame because he had awfully inconsistent QB play and bad OC's, and then did not get to build chemistry with McNair, then after that Flacco comes in he makes some plays, but at that point not enough to save him form the wrath and disappointment of the FO. He had talent but was more of a slot receiver which he was utilized with great success at OU. He never materialized into that big play guy and ultimately was traded for it. Although it looks as though when he is surrounded by lesser player's he shine's so who knows with that guy.

I would rather have housh who really only showed us once that his hands could not be counted on. Although it was a big juncture it was just one time. He actually played extremely well for us given the amount of snaps that he was afforded.

Stalls could have really made some noise with a QB that has a beautiful deep ball if he would have been utilized on something other than end arounds so there was not really alot that he could do when you factor in again the reps that he was afforded to make plays with. The first few times he changed schemes but after that it was a pretty solid bet on what play was going to end up taking place when he set foot in the huddle.

All of this was not meant to attack anybody so the thread does not get hi jacked I was just stating why which players I would have kept and which I would have left.

Oh and another reason I am glad we did what we did, is because if you were right and we would not have drafted those two players we would not have the youth and depth at WR we currently have now, also I think the 2 we drafted are way more talented then any of those Wr's that are mentioned in the post, and if they have a good work ethic then they are going to be part of the new explosive and high power revolution that is going on in Baltimore's offensive labs right now.

All in all though I would have changed nothing those teams can have the people whose star's have already faded when our's are about to burn their brightest.

[Ed_Reed20]

While separation(seemingly) and consistency were issues for Clayton before last season, I think he would have performed better and benefited the team more had he been in the same position as Houshmandzadeh was last season. T.J. made some big plays but he was horrendous against the Bengals in Week 2(three drops), struggled to beat DBs often, and essentially ended the team's season with another drop in the divisional play-off game. At the very least, Clayton would have likely provided more play-making potential.

The second question is really irrelevant to me considering how little Stallworth was used last year. I doubt Demetrius would have stayed healthy the entire season had he made the team. And he wouldn't have seen enough snaps to make an impact regardless.

[Free Agent]

I would take Stallworth and Williams. Stallworth and Torrey Smith can stretch the field and Stallworth can continue to mentor Torrey. I was a big Demetrius Williams fan because I thought he had a lot of potential. He was pretty fast and he had great hands, but he was always hurt. They would be the WRs I would sign.

[PuRock]

I'd have to go with Housh and Stalls based on talent. But if I could interchange, I'd take Clayton over Housh. Clayton would have done the job just as efficient as Housh while keeping his mouth mum.

D-Will is glass. Not even worth investing in for an entire season.

[Blex64]

I said Housh and Clayton. D-Will is injury prone and I don't regret losing him at all. Stalls was underused, maybe Clayton would have been utilized better.

[Alexir]

One can say it was the playcalling that never turned Clayton into a great WR. We saw flashes of his success when Billick was coach and McNair was QB.

[PeRK82]

Why would you even put Williams on the vote, i literally remember only 1 catch that he made his whole career. It was for a touchdown though.

I think he should owe the RAVENS money for doing jack, getting paid and your doctors bills paid for you. Man he had the life. Is he even still playing???

[flynismo]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1310436719' post='706239']<br />One can say it was the playcalling that never turned Clayton into a great WR. We saw flashes of his success when Billick was coach and McNair was QB.<br />[/quote]


not really. He sucked in St Louis too.

Not only that, other guys excelled in the same system that Clayton failed in, and we used Clayton in every role imagineable, even on trick plays.

[Greatness]

I chose Clayton and Stalls. Clayton should have been in the slot here in Baltimore. Stallworth could have been the change of pace guy and 4-set guy, too. But above anything, play-calling crippled everything. Houshmehzedah is a fraud! He cost us in week 2 and cost us in the playoffs.

[Guest ArmyRaven52]

[quote name='Greatness' timestamp='1310439418' post='706252']
I chose Clayton and Stalls. Clayton should have been in the slot here in Baltimore. Stallworth could have been the change of pace guy and 4-set guy, too. But above anything, play-calling crippled everything. Houshmehzedah is a fraud! He cost us in week 2 and cost us in the playoffs.
[/quote]

Yes because Houshmanzadeh was the only we lost that playoff game. I think Boldin would have to take a little of the blame on that, as well as cam, as well as Rice... I hope you got the point.

Oh and in week two between him and Flacco not sure who deserves more of the blame, but to say it was primarily housh's fault or more so than others is also inaccurate.

[1/28/01]

Wow....half of the entire first page is polls. Please END the lockout, I can't take anymore polls!!

[EdReedFTW]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1310438717' post='706249']
not really. He sucked in St Louis too.

Not only that, other guys excelled in the same system that Clayton failed in, and we used Clayton in every role imagineable, even on trick plays.
[/quote]

To say that mark clayton was a failure for the rams is not true. He was doing very well before he got injured. Clayton had 300 yards in only 4 games with a rookie throwing him the ball. Sounds like he would have had a good year if he's stayed healthy.

[1/28/01]

[quote name='EdReedFTW' timestamp='1310478218' post='706347']
To say that mark clayton was a failure for the rams is not true. He was doing very well before he got injured. Clayton had 300 yards in only 4 games with a rookie throwing him the ball. Sounds like he would have had a good year if he's stayed healthy.
[/quote]
Yeah, I am normally on the same page with fly (not sure I should be saying that.....kidding), but Clayton was having a very good first quarter of last season before the knee injury. We'll see what he can do this year, healthy, with a second year QB.

[Moderator 3]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1310478042' post='706346']
Wow....half of the entire first page is polls. Please END the lockout, I can't take anymore polls!!
[/quote]

Agreed. It's especially annoying when people start a poll about an already existing thread.

[berad]

I chose Housh and Neither. Housh dropped some key passes but his presence and veteran ability helped the team a lot more than it hurt. I don't think we win the Jet game without Houshmandzadeh torching Kyle Wilson for some big DPI calls.

And neither... neither Williams or Stallworth would've provided any solid production to the team - ST or receiving-wise. I would've much rather seen what a Marcus Smith, David Reed, or maybe Justin Harper could've done with some snaps.

[flynismo]

[quote name='EdReedFTW' timestamp='1310478218' post='706347']<br />To say that mark clayton was a failure for the rams is not true. He was doing very well before he got injured. Clayton had 300 yards in only 4 games with a rookie throwing him the ball. Sounds like he would have had a good year if he's stayed healthy.<br />[/quote]


yeah, it is true. He caught 22 of 41 passes thrown to him, which is a horrible 50%. Thats exactly what he did with us. The only difference is that he was thrown to more often in St Louis.

[display name]

If we kept Clayton we'd have had our end-oround guy and we wouldn't have needed Stalls.

[1/28/01]

[quote name='display name' timestamp='1310494151' post='706480']
If we kept Clayton we'd have had our end-oround guy and we wouldn't have needed Stalls.
[/quote]
Mr Poll Guy,

Clayton does not have the speed of Stallworth....that is all that I am adding to this thread

Yours truly,

1/28/01

[-Truth-]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1310485610' post='706387']
yeah, it is true. He caught 22 of 41 passes thrown to him, which is a horrible 50%. Thats exactly what he did with us. The only difference is that he was thrown to more often in St Louis.
[/quote]
According to ESPN, he caught 23 passes out of 42 attempts, which brings him to 54.8%. I don't see how that justifies labeling Clayton horrible. The number of targets isn't as clear of a statistic as the number drops. A target could be a pass that sails over top of the WR, flies out of bounds, or is caught by the WR who is unable to keep both feet in bounds. There are several factors that play into this statistic, and I personally haven't seen any St. Louis games to call it one way or the other. Consider this. Larry Fitzgerald finished his 2010 campaign with 51.7%. Calvin Johnson? 56.2%. Brandon Lloyd came in at 50.3%. Dwayne Bowe amounted to 54.5%, while DeSean Jackson did to 48.4%. All of these are Pro-Bowl caliber WRs. Now, I'm not at all attempting to place Clayton into the higher echelon of his position. But calling what he did in St. Louis horrible simply based off of that percentage, in my opinion, just seems unreasonable, especially considering the numbers of his peers.

[Ravensfan23]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1310500603' post='706556']
According to ESPN, he caught 23 passes out of 42 attempts, which brings him to 54.8%. I don't see how that justifies labeling Clayton horrible. The number of targets isn't as clear of a statistic as the number drops. A target could be a pass that sails over top of the WR, flies out of bounds, or is caught by the WR who is unable to keep both feet in bounds. There are several factors that play into this statistic, and I personally haven't seen any St. Louis games to call it one way or the other. Consider this. Larry Fitzgerald finished his 2010 campaign with 51.7%. Calvin Johnson? 56.2%. Brandon Lloyd came in at 50.3%. Dwayne Bowe amounted to 54.5%, while DeSean Jackson did to 48.4%. All of these are Pro-Bowl caliber WRs. Now, I'm not at all attempting to place Clayton into the higher echelon of his position. But calling what he did in St. Louis horrible simply based off of that percentage, in my opinion, just seems unreasonable, especially considering the numbers of his peers.
[/quote]

This post takes me back to when Clayton was a Raven. Reading that reminds me of a lot of things I've said in the past, but he's no longer on this team, so....

[Bullrush]

Clayton was awesome, made a lot of bigplays for us. Williams has talent, but doesn't show up during games. Would prefer Clayton over Stallworth & Housh. Although I like the competitiveness Housh brings and his constant taunting.

[Romo Ravens]

It's funny because when Clayton was here, everyone was frustrated with him, but now some of you guys would rather have him over Housh? I know that he didn't do much for us last season, but drawing penalties in crucial moments was huge. I'm bias though, I was never a fan of Clayton.

[1/28/01]

[quote name='Bullrush' timestamp='1310505362' post='706622']
Clayton was awesome, made a lot of bigplays for us. Williams has talent, but doesn't show up during games. Would prefer Clayton over Stallworth & Housh. Although I like the competitiveness Housh brings and his constant taunting.
[/quote]
I just had to quote this one and laugh. I know it is kind of against the COC since I really brought nothing to the conversation, but this is just hilarious!

[flynismo]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1310506494' post='706638']
I just had to quote this one and laugh. I know it is kind of against the COC since I really brought nothing to the conversation, but this is just hilarious!
[/quote]

I laughed my arse off too. Clayton was so awesome that we traded him and a 6th for a 5th!

[Bullrush]

[quote name='Romo Ravens' timestamp='1310506098' post='706633']
It's funny because when Clayton was here, everyone was frustrated with him, but now some of you guys would rather have him over Housh? I know that he didn't do much for us last season, but drawing penalties in crucial moments was huge. I'm bias though, I was never a fan of Clayton.
[/quote]
Housh is a decent backup, that's about it. His key drop against the Steelers that sealed the game doesn't make me feel great about him either. And of course people were frustrated with Clayton at times, nobody's saying he's a great receiver. But it's not like everybody was happy with what Housh did last season, people were complaining about him as well. Out of the two I'd definitely pick Clayton because of what he brings to the table, and that's to stretch the field and make bigplays. And for the record I'm not a fan of Clayton either.

[Bullrush]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1310507329' post='706647']
I laughed my arse off too. Clayton was so awesome that we traded him and a 6th for a 5th!
[/quote]
Are you laughing at Ozzie? Last time I checked Clayton was averaging close to 100 yards per game for the Rams before he got injured. Worked out tremendously for us did it not? Just like the Barnes trade.

[flynismo]

[quote name='Bullrush' timestamp='1310513867' post='706685']
Are you laughing at Ozzie? Last time I checked Clayton was averaging close to 100 yards per game for the Rams before he got injured. Worked out tremendously for us did it not? Just like the Barnes trade.
[/quote]

hmm, lets see. 306 yards in 5 games. A little math indicates that is nowhere near 100 yards a game. Try 61 yards a game.

And yeah, I think both those trades worked out well. We no longer have to pay dead weight.


Edit

Actually I was laughing at your comment that Clayton was awesome for us.

[1/28/01]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1310515922' post='706697']
hmm, lets see. 306 yards in 5 games. A little math indicates that is nowhere near 100 yards a game. Try 61 yards a game.

And yeah, I think both those trades worked out well. We no longer have to pay dead weight.


Edit

Actually I was laughing [b]AFTER SOMEONE ELSE WAS LAUGHING FIRST[/b] at your comment that Clayton was awesome for us.
[/quote]
Fixed