First Round Lb - Why?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Ramifications

Guest
I realize there are some good ones, but lets say they got Mack or Mosley? Who sits in nickel situations? Not former safety Ogletree. Laurinaitis? They pay him $10 million a year and he is the QB of the defense. I get that Mack or Mosley would probably be more athletic, but this would make more sense if they are viewed as replacements for Laurinaitis (and he is only 27?), and I don't think he is going anywhere. Would that marginalize him, and lead them to want to restructure his contract? Mack is an awesome pass rusher (tied or beat Derrick Johnson's FF record as well as the NCAA TFL record?) and Mosely would be great in pass coverage. But if they sit on third, what would be the point?

I've asked this question elsewhere, and some have said they will just play all three LBs in nickel situations, but I'm highly sceptical of this and not sure it is realistic. How man 4-3 teams actually deploy ALL THREE LBs in nickel situations? None or close to? And if that is the case, maybe we should rethink the LB in the first idea... UNLESS we intend to phase out Laurinaitis.

Not sure the OLB opposite Ogletree is a dire need anyways. JoLonn Dunbar was himself a free agent, and his replacement could be also (if in fact he doesn't just re-sign, Fisher did cut him, but also re-signed him, and the defense played better since he returned). It is a position, like RB, that is increasingly fungible and viewed as commoditized around the league (except for the transcendent talents, like Luke Kuechly and Adrian Peterson, respectively).
 
Last edited:

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
Who says any of them sits? If he's good enough at pass coverage he stays in and provides additional help defending against running QBs like Kapernoodle and Wilson.

I do agree that it's not a dire need and I would doubt very much that's on their radar.

I hope.
 

rdlkgliders

"AKA" Hugo Bezdek
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
7,806
Name
Don
We are certainly short at LB depth, the only LB close to top 5 talent is Barr. Mack and Mosley could come into play at 13 or lower if we trade down from 2. Like you said the Defense played better once JLD came back so we know that we need him or someone to step in and start. The depth behind the 3 starters if, Dunbar even stays is full of hope and optimism (Ray squared Etc...) so addressing the LB position is a need to me. At what price? I don't know. I love Barr and Mack, not sure I would take Mosley over those 2 and we could get something in the 2nd or 3rd.
 

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Who says any of them sits? If he's good enough at pass coverage he stays in and provides additional help defending against running QBs like Kapernoodle and Wilson.

I do agree that it's not a dire need and I would doubt very much that's on their radar.

I hope.

I just can't think of any 4-3 teams that do that (or ever have?), which doesn't mean it is impossible, but is suggestive. Than again, not too many 4-3 teams have LBs that would be as good as our two augmented by Mack or Mosley (than again AGAIN, maybe there is a reason for THAT, if everybody else came to the same conclusion that a 4-3 defense doesn't need a stud third one if he will sit in nickel situations). Still, though, as good as they might be, I'm not sure Fisher wouldn't rather have a third CB out there (some teams go with a three safety big nickel, which may have been popularized by Belichick/Crennell?) in obvious passing situations. Lets say we get Dennard as our nickel, would Mosley be that good in coverage? It seems unlikely.

Anyways, it looks like we agree in the end, though perhaps for different reasons.
 
Last edited:

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,636
I think it's possible that Ogletree and a guy like Mosley are both good enough in pass coverage that they would both be able to stay in on 3rd downs alongside Laurinaitis.
 

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
We are certainly short at LB depth, the only LB close to top 5 talent is Barr. Mack and Mosley could come into play at 13 or lower if we trade down from 2. Like you said the Defense played better once JLD came back so we know that we need him or someone to step in and start. The depth behind the 3 starters if, Dunbar even stays is full of hope and optimism (Ray squared Etc...) so addressing the LB position is a need to me. At what price? I don't know. I love Barr and Mack, not sure I would take Mosley over those 2 and we could get something in the 2nd or 3rd.

You kind of hit the nail on the head (and I alluded to it), if you can get somebody like Dunbar as a cheap free agent to do the job (I think Wagoner or Thomas noted that Dunbar or Witherspoon played about half the time), why allocate a precious resource like a 1.13 pick, which might turn into a LT, WR, CB or safety (the latter which we really need a lot more, and a guy like Pryor, especially with a surgical trade down, could represent a pretty good intersection of BPA/team need)? Especially if they aren't going to be a full time player. You are right, it is all relative to cost, I could certainly see drafting one, just not in the first (and not sure in the second?).
 

rdlkgliders

"AKA" Hugo Bezdek
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
7,806
Name
Don
Mosley has shown he plays smart and can cover. He certainly would get a chance to play on 3rd down. Mack is bigger and more physical, Barr is a freak that would see the field his fair share on 3rd downs. With 4.48 speed the ability to be a good cover guy and pass rushing ability beyond the others he would be given a chance to be on the field as much as possible.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
mr.stlouis with ears to the ground:
I just don't even know anymore. Snead's smoke screens are clouding my mind.
That's because you're listening. :wink:
 

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
I think it's possible that Ogletree and a guy like Mosley are both good enough in pass coverage that they would both be able to stay in on 3rd downs alongside Laurinaitis.

That is what I'm tying to figure out. Would Mosley be as good as a CB? Though if he was close, clearly the advantage would be that he'd represent an exponentially better run defender against teams that try and cross up defenses by running against nickel.

Not trying to sound like a broken record, but hoping if it is asked enough, it might get answered at some point (possibly by somebody else in the thread seeing it and being prompted to respond). Does any 4-3 team currently do this, and historically speaking, has it happened before? We probably don't need to go back too far, as that could get into different eras (if you go back far enough in baseball, starting pictures put up ridiculous innings pitched numbers which will never be approached, as they preceded the relief pitcher specialist era).
 

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
I do think it is very unlikely Mack makes it to 1.13. Barr, also. Isn't he a better fit in 3-4 defenses as a rush backer? He supposedly doesn't play in reverse well, and would probably need to be a DE in our scheme, and since we already have Quinn and Long, I wouldn't be as excited about that pick for the same reason I'm not about Clowney.

Mosley might be more likely to drop. I understand he is by all accounts an outstanding cover LB, just seems unlikely he would be as good as a CB in nickel situations. Mosley would make a lot more sense to me if we only had Ogletree or Laurinaitis was 30. I can see not everybody agrees, but I see whoever they get at the position likely being a part time player, so I think Fisher fills it with a free agent, a pick after round one, possibly Dunbar returns, they try Ray Ray or some combination of the above.

My take would be different if there were literally no other positions worthy of the 1.13, but I don't think that will be the case in such a deep draft (and if there isn't an OT like Lewan if we don't get Robinson or Matthews or a WR like Evans if we don't get Watkins, we really, really, really need a DB or two, especially at FS, but potentially a nickel or even starting CB upgrade, too).
 
Last edited:

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Absolutely on 3rd and shorter distances as well as blitz packages.

I'm not sure what the technical definition of nickel or obvious passing situations is (third and five or longer?), but that would be good to define. But I'm not referring to third and short, where of course they would have three LBs if the expected call is a run. I think Thomas or Wagoner recently noted (hopefully the thread corrects me if this is inaccurate) that Dunbar/Witherspoon in aggregate played something like half the time. This accounts for the fact that there were times it was third and short this season.

Part of the problem is (and I'm not certain this was the case in 2013), against a team like the Saints, the nickel might be base defense the entire game (except for the occasional third and short, like you said, but that wouldn't likely be a high percentage of the overall plays, even less than half).
 

HE WITH HORNS

Hall of Fame
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
3,828
I agree, we don't need a first round LB. Most of the time we will be in nickel, we need corners, not starting LBs.
 

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Addendum to post #13 in the thread (tried to edit it in, not sure why it didn't work?).

Counterbalancing times there are third and short, are times it is second and long, where a third LB might leave the field. To make matters worse, if our defense improves, especially the secondary, these situations could increase in the future, which might make a stud third LB that sits a diminishing return situation.
 

Zaphod

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,217
I just can't think of any 4-3 teams that do that (or ever have?), which doesn't mean it is impossible, but is suggestive. Than again, not too many 4-3 teams have LBs that would be as good as our two augmented by Mack or Mosley (than again AGAIN, maybe there is a reason for THAT, if everybody else came to the same conclusion that a 4-3 defense doesn't need a stud third one if he will sit in nickel situations). Still, though, as good as they might be, I'm not sure Fisher wouldn't rather have a third CB out there (some teams go with a three safety big nickel, which may have been popularized by Belichick/Crennell?) in obvious passing situations. Lets say we get Dennard as our nickel, would Mosley be that good in coverage? It seems unlikely.

Anyways, it looks like we agree in the end, though perhaps for different reasons.
Oh, this is an awesome topic!

The answer to me, is that is has much more to do with player match ups. So obviously it just means that you have the option of playing the nickel a LOT less.

Obviously, no matter what it just makes sense to have versatile linebackers. If you think about it, you're caught in a situation defending a no huddle offense, that versatility can help to negate it's effectiveness. Mobile quarterbacks? Well, who doesn't like seeing them hit at the line of scrimmage by a linebacker. Having trouble defending tight ends ... well is there really a better option?

If we drafted another linebacker in the first round, I wouldn't be surprised and I certainly wouldn't be disappointed either. I know that they definitely want versatility with all three linebackers, and I've wondered since the start of the season if that wasn't why they were so quick to turn their backs on Dunbar.

In the end, I think Fisher will have a chance to put a stamp on where his defense is going this year, and I don't think based on the last two years drafting that he'll let the best player available dictate how he shapes his defense/offense but rather trade down or up to accommodate the value of his choices.
 

F. Mulder

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
773
If one of the stud LBers were there and they saw them as best fit I'd be for it. A lot of people talk about how the 3rd Lber often plays fewer snaps than the others but I can tell you that if you have 3 Lbers who can run, play the run, play the pass, and contain guys like Krap or Wilson then you are going to see immediate impacts in your overall Defense as well as forcing more 3rd and longs BECAUSE you aren't always asking the DBs to support the run AND you can cover a TE or RB. You look at SFs 3 LBers and they really make the Defense IMO and cover for an average at best secondary due to their versatility and effectiveness. With that said, maybe they resign Dunbar (doubtful) or give Ray Ray or Bates a chance. I'm just saying I wouldn't be opposed to it.
 

Selassie I

H. I. M.
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
17,620
Name
Haole
I'd like to see Ray Ray get a chance. He's got the wheels needed to keep up in coverage and I really like his physicality and energy. Not sure he's efficient at shaking off blocks, but I haven't seen enough to get a feel.

Despite his penalties on special teams, Dude is an assassin. I would thoroughly enjoy watching Ray Ray crush one of those running QBs... with EVIL intent.