Donald as good a 3-tech as a rookie as NFL has seen in long time

[Blue and Gold]

1995 Sapp, 16 games 8 starts 27 tackles (none for stuffs) 3.0 sacks 1INT


1 FF





1988 Michael Dean Perry 16 games 2 starts 25 tackles 6 sacks 2 FF, 2 FR, 1 for TD
1994 D'Marco Farr 10 games 1 startt 11 tackes 1 sack
2010 Geno Atkins 16 games 1 start 16 tackels 3 sacks a for loss.

Aaron Donald beats all those 3-techs as a rookie by pretty good margin

 

[-X-]

And he's only gonna get better. He should be stronger and smarter next year.

Yikes.

 

[DaveFan'51]

And he's only gonna get better. He should be stronger and smarter next year.

Yikes.

That's SCARY!! I hope our D gets off to a fast start next year!!

 

[junkman]

Donald is arguably the best DT/NT in the NFL THIS YEAR. At least good folks at PFF think so. The question for Donald now is - can he keep up this level of performance year after year? And if so, the question then comes to looking at the best DT/NTs years of all time, and can Donald reach those lofty heights. Yeah, he's that good. Very tricky to compare DT/NTs from one team to the next, 'cuz their value comes from much more than their stats. They are the most likely defensive position to face a double team. Even a fat / slow DT/NT will face a double if they are lined up on an A gap.

 

[RamWoodie]

I said early in the preseason Donald would make Langford expendable...and there's nothing against Langford, hes a good DT. However, I'm sure the Rams had cap space in mind as well when they drafted Donald.

 

[DaveFan'51]

I said early in the preseason Donald would make Langford expendable...and there's nothing against Langford, hes a good DT. However, I'm sure the Rams had cap space in mind as well when they drafted Donald.

I would hate to see Langford go, he's a good player, gives us a lot of needed depth, but your probably right, he'll be a cap casualty!

 

[junkman]

I would hate to see Langford go, he's a good player, gives us a lot of needed depth, but your probably right, he'll be a cap casualty!

Langford has gone from 59% of the snaps in games 1-4 to 41% of the snaps since. But that's still a of snaps where we need a talented player. That's still 435 snaps that need to be replaced, and it's not like we have another promising DT who's pushing for playing time, not unless you could Hayes or Westbrooks, both who are more naturally DEs.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Langford has gone from 59% of the snaps in games 1-4 to 41% of the snaps since. But that's still a of snaps where we need a talented player. That's still 435 snaps that need to be replaced, and it's not like we have another promising DT who's pushing for playing time, not unless you could Hayes or Westbrooks, both who are more naturally DEs.

I was figuring Hayes into the equation. He shifts into DT once in a while.

 

[RamWoodie]

Langford has gone from 59% of the snaps in games 1-4 to 41% of the snaps since. But that's still a of snaps where we need a talented player. That's still 435 snaps that need to be replaced, and it's not like we have another promising DT who's pushing for playing time, not unless you could Hayes or Westbrooks, both who are more naturally DEs.

On this, I would think the draft has to be in view. Langford is set to draw $6 mil next year and will be a free agent in 2016.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4862/kendall-langford

Undoubtedly he will be a target to free up cap space. As the link says, teams had been contacting the Rams about Langford since Oct. I don't know that to be the case anymore, but with that interest I think he goes because he can still play well.

 

[Mackeyser]

With the number of DT busts and average guys out there... the very idea that we would diminish out depth by letting Langford go just flummoxes me.

I don't get it. If Donald were coming up for a new contract, then yeah, maybe I could see it, but both are already getting paid.

But Hayes isn't getting younger and he's a tweener whose value lies in bouncing inside and outside, not in taking 41% of the snaps at DT. He'd wear down fast taking that many interior snaps.

Plus, we know Langford also spells Brockers plenty in the rotation and we really don't have other big bodies like Brockers and Langford.

Jmho... we're strong at DL and we need to improve the C/OG positions and solidify the QB position. Thinning the depth of the DL seems to me the last thing we should do right now.

 

[junkman]

Jmho... we're strong at DL and we need to improve the C/OG positions and solidify the QB position. Thinning the depth of the DL seems to me the last thing we should do right now.

+1.

Really, monkeying with the defense AT ALL is the last thing we should be doing right now, unless someone is seriously underperforming. Langford is ranked 32nd among DT/NTs out of 78 in PFF. Simply put, we're getting solid positive production out of him right now, overpayed as though he might be. If another team wants him, they'd need to make us a good offer AND we'd need to have an up & coming successor in mind. Rams get 2 more games where we can evaluate the D, check for chinks in the armor that need to be addressed for 2015. If the D holds up the last 2 games, esp that last game of the year in Seattle, leave it alone.

Focus on other stuff - QB and OL.

 

[FRO]

I love the draft and during this time last year I saw something on Donald and looked him up on YouTube. It was beyond impressive what I saw. This time last year CBS had him projected as a second round pick. Then he dominates the senior bowl. Then he runs like a 4.56 at the combine while acing all the other tests. For me the tape spoke for itself, but the combine showed the guy was an athletic freak. When you would watch a game video of Donald you would think it were a highlight video. The guy dominated college football and he is dominating pro ball. He doesn't get the national buzz that he should either. He Quinn and Brockers are all very young and could/should be starters for us for a long time. Then add guys like Ogletree, McDonald, Jenkins, Johnson, Gaines....a lot of our core defensive guys are still very young. Our defense has staying power. We just have to fix the stinken offense.

 

[Merlin]

+1.

Really, monkeying with the defense AT ALL is the last thing we should be doing right now, unless someone is seriously underperforming. Langford is ranked 32nd among DT/NTs out of 78 in PFF. Simply put, we're getting solid positive production out of him right now, overpayed as though he might be. If another team wants him, they'd need to make us a good offer AND we'd need to have an up & coming successor in mind. Rams get 2 more games where we can evaluate the D, check for chinks in the armor that need to be addressed for 2015. If the D holds up the last 2 games, esp that last game of the year in Seattle, leave it alone.

Focus on other stuff - QB and OL.

I agree, however don't be surprised if the Rams add more pieces on defense in the draft.

I would hope we'll see QB and OL almost exclusively, but Fish and Snead do a pretty good job of taking BPA and covet defense. They'll probably be on the lookout for FS and LB depth too.

By the time FA is done, I think the OL will look a LOT better. They will add an OG, maybe an OT too and then draft an OG/OT type.

This is why I would not be angry if they trade up to 1 overall and take Mariota, btw. At least that way I know they are gonna take an effin QB that has some real upside. If they wait I suspect they'll get outmaneuvered for their guy because they're definitely a team you circle to trade up ahead of to get that guy you want in a given round.

Just very, very worried about having young QB talent added to this team. It has to happen so they can start that development window.

 

[Thordaddy]

Been driving this bandwagon since I saw his college high lites

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I thought he was too short to repeat what he I'd in college at this level. I thought the same thing about Tavon. Sometimes your wrong and sometimes your right.

 

[Mackeyser]

Hey, if the Rams just HAVE to have a Vet C...then fine. If they get a good one. If that means Saffold back to ROG and Jones to LG, then that's an OL that can work.

Robinson, Jones, Vet, Saffold, Barksdale

Yeah, I can see that working... again, presuming the Vet is good...

At this rate, I'd take Jones or Barnes ahead of Wells at C. Any day and twice on Sunday...

 

[blue4]

Hey, if the Rams just HAVE to have a Vet C...then fine. If they get a good one. If that means Saffold back to ROG and Jones to LG, then that's an OL that can work.

Robinson, Jones, Vet, Saffold, Barksdale

Yeah, I can see that working... again, presuming the Vet is good...

At this rate, I'd take Jones or Barnes ahead of Wells at C. Any day and twice on Sunday...

Jones is a complete unknown with 2 years of injuries. I wouldn't put many eggs in his basket. They need a better plan for guard or center. That way Jones is either a pleasant surprise or not to bad of a letdown.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, I expect the Rams to try to improve every unit which of course includes the OL.

I just think the focus of the OL improvements will be the interior, C/OG rather than the OTs. I believe Jones will be part of that mix, but who knows? He may blow up or he may wash out.

I LIKED what I saw when he played and the Rams had better C play with him in, at least by what I saw and certainly PFF graded him that way (yeah, I know...)

I'm only using Jones as my primary example not because he's my ONLY choice, but because I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who the Rams are going to draft or bring in via FA... So the only other choices to Wells are Jones and Barnes and of those, I really like Jones. That's it.

I certainly don't want to grip on any one guy and exchange one problem for the same problem with another guy. So, if Jones isn't the guy, GET the guy.