Bottom Line.. who would you take?

[jacobarch]

Walterfootball is saying that if Clowney is off the board and it comes down to Mack and Watkins (or OT?), the Rams are taking Mack. So it sounds like the Rams are looking at a pass rusher at 2 if they can't trade down

Isn't mack a 3-4 OLB/DE?

 

[Clayton]

Isn't mack a 3-4 OLB/DE?

CBS

STRENGTHS: Strongly put together frame with good body thickness throughout. Very good take-on strength with powerful wrists and hands, using his arm to jolt and lock out.

Plays fast in pursuit with very good closing burst. Smooth lateral movements with good range, surging with his hips. Uses his length well to engage, swim and swat and uses a wide array of moves to keep blockers guessing.

Active and powerful upper body to rip through blocks and won't stay tied up long. Physical striker and hits through his target. Keeps his eyes elevated to quickly locate and track to chase and finish.

Versatile skill-set and has experience lining up all over the front seven. Relentless motor and feeds off the energy of the game. Four-year starter (48 career starts) and didn't miss a game due to injury in college. FBS career records for forced fumbles (16) and tackles for loss (75, tied with Jason Babin).

WEAKNESSES: Lacks ideal range in coverage and needs to play with more consistent leverage and fluidity in his drops. Room to improve his instincts in space to do a better job anticipating the action.

Not the most consistent tackler in space. Doesn't always explode off the ball and needs to improve his snap anticipation. Needs to do a better job keeping himself clean through traffic.

Missed the 2012 season opener due to a one-game suspension for violating team rules. Needs to stay focused and prove he has the mental aptitude to make the jump to the next level.

COMPARES TO: Robert Quinn, Rams - Mack is a little more versatile, but both have an excellent blend of quickness and power to be effective sacking the quarterback or stopping the run.

--Dane Brugler (2/11/14)

I've also seen Clay Matthews and Von Miller comparisons

 

[jacobarch]

hmmmm sounds like a stud

 

[ksudodger]

I've also seen Clay Matthews and Von Miller comparisons


And again, Clay Matthews and Von Miller play in a 3-4 defense... Mack is not a fit here, as good as he is.

 

[27mtrcougar]

I've also seen Clay Matthews and Von Miller comparisons


And again, Clay Matthews and Von Miller play in a 3-4 defense... Mack is not a fit here, as good as he is.

I don't believe this at all. Mack can play anywhere. Even with his hand in the dirt if needed. Greg Williams probably can't stop drooling with the possibility of Lineing this guy up all over the place he is very good in coverage too. He will never leave the field. Again everybody was amazed at Ogletree's combine and his athletic skills last year. Mack pretty much destroyed them. YouTube Mack's game against Ohio State last year he almost won the game single-handedly for them

 

[27mtrcougar]

Walterfootball is saying that if Clowney is off the board and it comes down to Mack and Watkins (or OT?), the Rams are taking Mack. So it sounds like the Rams are looking at a pass rusher at 2 if they can't trade down

A lot of people are saying Mack might go before Clowney. Mayock Has been saying Mack should be the number one pick in the draft for the last couple months.

 

[shopson67]

Either way, he doesn't sound like a fit at 4-3 SAM LB. He could fit in the DL rotation like Clowney could, but Clowney is a bigger man and better fit IMO. Clowney is nearly 270, while Mack is 250, which would seem to push him towards 3-4 OLB.

 

[27mtrcougar]

Either way, he doesn't sound like a fit at 4-3 SAM LB. He could fit in the DL rotation like Clowney could, but Clowney is a bigger man and better fit IMO. Clowney is nearly 270, while Mack is 250, which would seem to push him towards 3-4 OLB.

Clowney is a DE of course he is bigger then Mack. Dunbar is listed as 6' 230 pounds.. so not sure why Mack at 6'3 250 wouldn't be a fit at SAM

 

[Clayton]

Clowney is a DE of course he is bigger then Mack. Dunbar is listed as 6' 230 pounds.. so not sure why Mack at 6'3 250 wouldn't be a fit at SAM

Because no one picks the #2 overall to play SAM especially when it isnt a weakness. Mack would be a hybrid player that would be expected to get at least 10 sacks a year Im sure

 

[jacobarch]

I've also seen Clay Matthews and Von Miller comparisons


And again, Clay Matthews and Von Miller play in a 3-4 defense... Mack is not a fit here, as good as he is.

I'm not really on board with mack either. But Ogeltree came from a 3-4 defense as well. I'd say he's working out pretty well. He beat JL55 in tackles in his rookie season. Had a 99 yard TD return and a couple of forced. fumbles.

 

[shopson67]

Clowney is a DE of course he is bigger then Mack. Dunbar is listed as 6' 230 pounds.. so not sure why Mack at 6'3 250 wouldn't be a fit at SAM

His size doesn't dictate that, but the comparison to Quinn would.

 

[shopson67]

Because no one picks the #2 overall to play SAM especially when it isnt a weakness. Mack would be a hybrid player that would be expected to get at least 10 sacks a year Im sure

Yeah, we really have no idea what the defense will look like this year with Walton gone. Is SAM not a weakness though? Both Ogletree and Dunbar seem best fit for WILL.

 

[Clayton]

Both Ogletree and Dunbar seem best fit for WILL.

I suspect that is a product of how Jeff Fisher likes linebackers in his defense. And like you said, Mack as a linebacker is basically a better Ogletree. On the line, he'd be like a weaker Robert Quinn. I suspect if the Rams drafted him, he would moonlight in both spots. Gregg Williams traditionally runs a lot of hybrid players but the Saints looked totally different and had pro bowl safeties. And the Titans ran a Cover 2 last year. Honestly, we have no idea what to expect.

 

[27mtrcougar]

For what seems like the 100th time Mack shouldn’t be pigeon holed as a 3-4 Linebacker just because he was used in that fashion frequently at Buffalo. If you watch his game tape (which considering your assumptive comment id say you haven’t) they use him as a 3-4 LEO a 4-3 WLB and SLB. Buffalo ran a hybrid front and Mack was asked to rush the passer, defend the run as a SLB and drop in coverage. Mack has underrated coverage skills. Add to that fact Williams in his past has liked to use the 3-3-5 Nickel and rush a Linebacker alongside two Ends and one Tackle. If Williams would like to do this i cant picture Dunbar being an effective rusher and for as good as Ogletree is in many areas, pass rush isn’t one of them. If you throw Mack in there you have a very scary line out of the 3-3-5 Nickel and you have a major upgrade at SLB in a base 4-3. Williams as a coordinator is as creative as any coordinator on either side of the ball in this league. To give him a tool like Mack would allow him to create some incredible blitz packages. If we were to get Mack and put him in a Williams led defense, Mack would be my odds on favorite for DROY. Considering the potential versatility he would have in our defense im very close to saying even if Clowney is there at #2 Mack may be the better pick and make a bigger impact then Clowney could.

This is someone else post i seen but sums up my point.

 

[Clayton]

For what seems like the 100th time Mack shouldn’t be pigeon holed as a 3-4 Linebacker just because he was used in that fashion frequently at Buffalo. If you watch his game tape (which considering your assumptive comment id say you haven’t) they use him as a 3-4 LEO a 4-3 WLB and SLB. Buffalo ran a hybrid front and Mack was asked to rush the passer, defend the run as a SLB and drop in coverage. Mack has underrated coverage skills. Add to that fact Williams in his past has liked to use the 3-3-5 Nickel and rush a Linebacker alongside two Ends and one Tackle. If Williams would like to do this i cant picture Dunbar being an effective rusher and for as good as Ogletree is in many areas, pass rush isn’t one of them. If you throw Mack in there you have a very scary line out of the 3-3-5 Nickel and you have a major upgrade at SLB in a base 4-3. Williams as a coordinator is as creative as any coordinator on either side of the ball in this league. To give him a tool like Mack would allow him to create some incredible blitz packages. If we were to get Mack and put him in a Williams led defense, Mack would be my odds on favorite for DROY. Considering the potential versatility he would have in our defense im very close to saying even if Clowney is there at #2 Mack may be the better pick and make a bigger impact then Clowney could.

This is someone else post i seen but sums up my point.

Yeah, I had someone on TST claim that I haven't watched any Rams games just because I am slightly skeptical about the 3-3-5 formation with Brockers being the only player large enough to stop the run and Mack being drafted to be part of it. I do think the Rams need to have 2 larger players on it (Brockers and Langford) except in obvious passing downs (which still happen frequently but you get the point). The Rams also need to upgrade their safety play a lot to play the 3-3-5 well as a primary defense.

What drafting a guy like Mack would do is open up the Rams in the versatility department much like how the Rams are (theoretically) very versatile on offense with their variety of Wide Receiver types, TE sets, and running formations. Mack would allow the Rams to match up better in the passing game and thats really what matters until you get into the playoffs.

I have seen 2 of Macks games on draftbreakdown, btw, but Im assuming that its talking about a different poster from somewhere else. I generally stand by the claim that if the Rams pick a pass rusher then I'm 100% behind it because they've seen the best and can cut through the hype

 

[27mtrcougar]

Yeah, I had someone on TST claim that I haven't watched any Rams games just because I am slightly skeptical about the 3-3-5 formation with Brockers being the only player large enough to stop the run and Mack being drafted to be part of it. I do think the Rams need to have 2 larger players on it (Brockers and Langford) except in obvious passing downs (which still happen frequently but you get the point). The Rams also need to upgrade their safety play a lot to play the 3-3-5 well as a primary defense.

What drafting a guy like Mack would do is open up the Rams in the versatility department much like how the Rams are (theoretically) very versatile on offense with their variety of Wide Receiver types, TE sets, and running formations. Mack would allow the Rams to match up better in the passing game and thats really what matters until you get into the playoffs.

I have seen 2 of Macks games on draftbreakdown, btw, but Im assuming that its talking about a different poster from somewhere else. I generally stand by the claim that if the Rams pick a pass rusher then I'm 100% behind it because they've seen the best and can cut through the hype

yeah Clayton thats a post from TST and wasn't directed at u. the 3-3-5 is interesting and would allow williams to be creative. We diffidently need a safety i was hoping we would land one in FA but with the 13th pick it might be smarter getting one there with HaHa or Pryor almost guaranteed to be there. a much cheaper option.

 

[Clayton]

yeah Clayton thats a post from TST and wasn't directed at u. the 3-3-5 is interesting and would allow williams to be creative. We diffidently need a safety i was hoping we would land one in FA but with the 13th pick it might be smarter getting one there with HaHa or Pryor almost guaranteed to be there. a much cheaper option.

Not sure how accurate it is but there is a thread on Walterfootball message boards with a couple of interesting posts like:


"Rams position numbers on defense for easy reference:
DT: 1.77 per play
DE: 2.26 per play
LB: 2.50 per play
CB: 2.22 per play
S: 2.25 per play

Even though the move towards more DB's has been happening, consider how the Rams used their personnel last year. Long and Quinn were on the field 78.8% and 78.0% respectively. Obviously they come out for rotations to keep them from gassing, but when you combine the snaps of the rest of the DE's it turns out that the Rams used 2.26 DE's per play. So 25% of the time on defense they had a 3rd DE on the field. Their DT's combined for 1.77 per play on average. So it seems like on most of the times where the Rams had 3 DE's on the field they were attempting to sacrifice a DT for a DE to get a better pass rush. Almost 50% of the time the Rams were losing a LB to add a DB with slightly more often than not they were using a safety as that DB.

Now, as you said the Rams need a safety. So even though they were bad at the safety position they were bringing in a safety to be the 5th DB. That means they wanted to get better coverage than the 3rd LB would provide, but not sacrifice as much in the run defense as they would by bringing in a CB. Adding Mack would allow the Rams a few things. The Rams could be better at every facet with 3 LB's on the field. If they want extra pressure then Mack could blitz off the edge. They could take that 2nd DT out and use a 3-3-5 look where teams don't know if Mack is blitzing or staying in coverage. Mack could even play on the line as a DE when Long or Quinn need a break and the Rams want to use a 5th DB.

So based on last year the Rams would have Mack in at LB for 50% of the snaps to begin with. The Rams aren't going to have both Quinn and Long off the field at the same time very often so Mack could easily be filling in for a DE on 15% of their snaps with a 5th DB coming in as his replacement. So without lowering any of the base starters' snaps (except the LB Mack replaces obviously) the Rams could have Mack playing 65% of the time on defense. With Mack's ability to cover the Rams could afford to have a S coming in as a 5th DB less often and it could allow them to spell Laurinaitis and Ogletree for a couple snaps a game so they don't get worn out since they both played at least 97% of the snaps. The Rams used a safety as an extra DB 25% of the time so if they dropped that number by 40% and used Mack instead that would mean having a safety extra 15% of the time and Mack getting another 10% of the snaps.

TLDR - That means he could play the 50% of the total snaps at LB the Rams already use, 15% as the backup DE, and another 10% instead of a safety playing nickle bring his playing time to 75%. It also gives the Rams flexibility with a good blitzing option that they could use at any time at LB or drop him into coverage when at DE. Basically, the Rams could add Mack and have him play as many snaps as their current starting DE's with minimal effect on their pass defense and no change to the snap counts of Quinn, Long, Laurinaitis, and Ogletree. That's the beauty of Mack. He can do multiple things well which means he can play multiple roles and be on the field without having to replace the other good players."



The gist I'm getting is that the Rams big board is: 1) Clowney 2) Good trade down offer 3) Mack

 

[27mtrcougar]

Not sure how accurate it is but there is a thread on Walterfootball message boards with a couple of interesting posts like:


"Rams position numbers on defense for easy reference:
DT: 1.77 per play
DE: 2.26 per play
LB: 2.50 per play
CB: 2.22 per play
S: 2.25 per play

Even though the move towards more DB's has been happening, consider how the Rams used their personnel last year. Long and Quinn were on the field 78.8% and 78.0% respectively. Obviously they come out for rotations to keep them from gassing, but when you combine the snaps of the rest of the DE's it turns out that the Rams used 2.26 DE's per play. So 25% of the time on defense they had a 3rd DE on the field. Their DT's combined for 1.77 per play on average. So it seems like on most of the times where the Rams had 3 DE's on the field they were attempting to sacrifice a DT for a DE to get a better pass rush. Almost 50% of the time the Rams were losing a LB to add a DB with slightly more often than not they were using a safety as that DB.

Now, as you said the Rams need a safety. So even though they were bad at the safety position they were bringing in a safety to be the 5th DB. That means they wanted to get better coverage than the 3rd LB would provide, but not sacrifice as much in the run defense as they would by bringing in a CB. Adding Mack would allow the Rams a few things. The Rams could be better at every facet with 3 LB's on the field. If they want extra pressure then Mack could blitz off the edge. They could take that 2nd DT out and use a 3-3-5 look where teams don't know if Mack is blitzing or staying in coverage. Mack could even play on the line as a DE when Long or Quinn need a break and the Rams want to use a 5th DB.

So based on last year the Rams would have Mack in at LB for 50% of the snaps to begin with. The Rams aren't going to have both Quinn and Long off the field at the same time very often so Mack could easily be filling in for a DE on 15% of their snaps with a 5th DB coming in as his replacement. So without lowering any of the base starters' snaps (except the LB Mack replaces obviously) the Rams could have Mack playing 65% of the time on defense. With Mack's ability to cover the Rams could afford to have a S coming in as a 5th DB less often and it could allow them to spell Laurinaitis and Ogletree for a couple snaps a game so they don't get worn out since they both played at least 97% of the snaps. The Rams used a safety as an extra DB 25% of the time so if they dropped that number by 40% and used Mack instead that would mean having a safety extra 15% of the time and Mack getting another 10% of the snaps.

TLDR - That means he could play the 50% of the total snaps at LB the Rams already use, 15% as the backup DE, and another 10% instead of a safety playing nickle bring his playing time to 75%. It also gives the Rams flexibility with a good blitzing option that they could use at any time at LB or drop him into coverage when at DE. Basically, the Rams could add Mack and have him play as many snaps as their current starting DE's with minimal effect on their pass defense and no change to the snap counts of Quinn, Long, Laurinaitis, and Ogletree. That's the beauty of Mack. He can do multiple things well which means he can play multiple roles and be on the field without having to replace the other good players."



The gist I'm getting is that the Rams big board is: 1) Clowney 2) Good trade down offer 3) Mack

Nice post man. I would have to agree with that big board. How great would it be to trade back a couple spots and luck out and still get Mack.

 

[Vitamike]

You know guys, this is never about what we think so I'll chose to answer a slightly different question...

Bottom line who do I think Fisher/Snead take...

As I've said before I really don't think we can f this up too much. There are so many good choices only a top pic bust or bad trade down would do the trick.

Even so, the more I think about it, the more I keep going back to Sammy Watkins with the No. 2 pick if we don't trade down.

It makes sense because it provides a legit No. 1 WR, a legit TE, a legit slot and hell it Britt sticks we have the best WR corp in the Division hands down with 2 deep in Givens, Bailey, Pettis and Quick.

With such a deep draft and all those compensatory picks we could even trade up a few spots from 13 to get Matthews/Robinson or Lewan. I'm thinking if they did that it would be Matthews.

Heck, if two of the three are there at 8 or 9 we probably throw the dice and let them fall to us and let Fisher break his mold and choose an OL in the first round.

Anyway, I've just been thinking Watkins is our guy if we stay at two. Oh and for all the Clowney peeps, he's gone to Houston as the overall No. 1 and we all know it.

 

[shopson67]

It would seem to follow that #13 would be 1) FS (Dix/Pryor) 2) CB (Dennard/Verrett/Gilbert)