A case for Mack as a Fulltime player

[Elmgrovegnome]

I have been hearing the argument against taking Mack in round 1 because he would not be a Fulltime player. I disagree and think he would see more playing time than Clowney because he can be used two ways.

First he is a better version of Dunbar with more potential and the physical specimen that Fisher and Snead love. Second he can play DE. So if he eventually is the starting SLB then the Rams don't have to take him out on passing downs. They can put him on the line to rush the passer. He would be a Fulltime player.

The only thing I am not certain of is that his technique is not polished. I am guessing that is a small school coaching issue though.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I have been hearing the argument against taking Mack in round 1 because he would not be a Fulltime player. I disagree and think he would see more playing time than Clowney because he can be used two ways.

First he is a better version of Dunbar with more potential and the physical specimen that Fisher and Snead love. Second he can play DE. So if he eventually is the starting SLB then the Rams don't have to take him out on passing downs. They can put him on the line to rush the passer. He would be a Fulltime player.

The only thing I am not certain of is that his technique is not polished. I am guessing that is a small school coaching issue though.

I agree with you, but you knew that

 

[brokeu91]

I like Mack as a prospect a lot. But we really don't need a LB. I understand that if we were to draft him we would likely see more 4-3 even on passing downs since Mack is so good at getting to the QB, but I also wonder how Ogletree will do in that department in a year or two. Ogletree is just starting to scratch the surface of his talent and looks like he's going to be a playmaker out there. Furthermore, I think Dunbar is a pretty good player, and is getting downgraded on these forums for some reason. Everyone saw how much better our D was once he came back last year. He's an energizer that we need for this defense.

Meanwhile, there is still a glaring hole on the O-line with the chance to draft our future LT, which will seal that position for the next 10-15 years. On D there's huge holes in the secondary. If you really want to ignore those and only improve the front 7, I would suggest getting another DT to put in rotation. After Brockers and Langford, the talent level drops off significantly.

 

[Alan]

Cake is nice but it's a dessert and not a main course.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Broke Dunbar is not good in coverage. He is one dimensional and doesn't fit the versatility mold that Fisher seems to like. Plus he is not a long term answer and linebacker depth is thin.


Alan I heard Fisher loves him some cake. Williams too. And you can have a so so supper but if the desert is great everyone walks away happy.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome liking dessert:
Broke Dunbar is not good in coverage. He is one dimensional and doesn't fit the versatility mold that Fisher seems to like. Plus he is not a long term answer and linebacker depth is thin.


Alan I heard Fisher loves him some cake. Williams too. And you can have a so so supper but if the desert is great everyone walks away happy.

I walk away from supper with a smile on my face if I still have money in my wallet.

I agree with your comments about Dunbar and that we need to replace him. Where we disagree is in our priorities. LB is fifth on my list.

On the other hand, getting a real stud there would improve our D without a doubt. But so would getting a stud at OT, FS or CB or et cetera. You probably don't think the options at the other positions are as freakishly good as Mack is but no matter how you slice the cake (see what I did there?), even if Mack is much better in pass coverage than Dunbar is, he'll never be a consistent 3 down player because a merely very good CB or S will always be better in pass D than a stud LB. That's why they have different positions.

 

[V3]

Broke Dunbar is not good in coverage. He is one dimensional and doesn't fit the versatility mold that Fisher seems to like. Plus he is not a long term answer and linebacker depth is thin.


Alan I heard Fisher loves him some cake. Williams too. And you can have a so so supper but if the desert is great everyone walks away happy.

I've read that Mack isn't that great in coverage either.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I walk away from supper with a smile on my face if I still have money in my wallet.

I agree with your comments about Dunbar and that we need to replace him. Where we disagree is in our priorities. LB is fifth on my list.

On the other hand, getting a real stud there would improve our D without a doubt. But so would getting a stud at OT, FS or CB or et cetera. You probably don't think the options at the other positions are as freakishly good as Mack is but no matter how you slice the cake (see what I did there?), even if Mack is much better in pass coverage than Dunbar is, he'll never be a consistent 3 down player because a merely very good CB or S will always be better in pass D than a stud LB. That's why they have different positions.

Actuall my preference is or Matthews to be the pick. But I am open to other options like Mack. I am just trying to figure out the interest In Mack.

Mack is a good pass rusher and on passing downs Fisher often has four DEs on th line. Mack could move up on the line in passing downs, so he would never leave the field. !Many posters don't want a SLB early because they leave the field in the Nickle defense. Mack will just switch positions. This creates roster flexibility by having a player that can play multiple positions. Fisher loves versatility.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Mack isolated vs the Seawolves of Stony Brook


Short clip vs Ohio State


Highlights(BTW, who are these universal fucktards that put universally bad music with all these videos?)

 

[Zaphod]

This guy right here is my favorite player of the draft.

He's just a perfect fit for the defense. Strong vs. the run, good at shedding blocks, good at rushing the passer, strong in pass coverage and would probably our best weapon against mobile QBs.

As was said, the reason Fisher let Dunbar walk was that he was one dimensional. But we suffered against the run with Witherspoon.

Mack, Laurunitis, Ogletree

We would have a ridiculous front seven.

Oh well ... I can dream

 

[BigRamFan]

I know he's supposed to be a freak athlete, and I didn't watch all of the highlights, but I sure expected to see more big hits, especially on a highlight tape. He seems to be a drag down tackler. If we were to select a LB top 5 I would expect a bigger hitter.

 

[Tron]

Would not mind grabbing mack, but prefer grabbing Van Noy in the 2nd if he makes it to us.

 

[fearsomefour]

I have been hearing the argument against taking Mack in round 1 because he would not be a Fulltime player. I disagree and think he would see more playing time than Clowney because he can be used two ways.

First he is a better version of Dunbar with more potential and the physical specimen that Fisher and Snead love. Second he can play DE. So if he eventually is the starting SLB then the Rams don't have to take him out on passing downs. They can put him on the line to rush the passer. He would be a Fulltime player.

The only thing I am not certain of is that his technique is not polished. I am guessing that is a small school coaching issue though.

I agree but I think Clowney offers all of these things as well. Clowney could play either DE spot, slide inside on passing down if wanted or stand up and blitz or cover the TE.
A QB facing a 3rd and 10 with Quinn and Long coming off the corners and Clowney blitzing is going to be dump off city.
Either guy has the potential to be used in a creative way. While I don't think Greg Williams is some sort of genius he is creative enough to use either guy well.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome looking for options:
Actually my preference is for Matthews to be the pick. But I am open to other options like Mack. I am just trying to figure out the interest In Mack.

Mack is a good pass rusher and on passing downs Fisher often has four DEs on th line. Mack could move up on the line in passing downs, so he would never leave the field. !Many posters don't want a SLB early because they leave the field in the Nickle defense. Mack will just switch positions. This creates roster flexibility by having a player that can play multiple positions. Fisher loves versatility.

I agree with all of that. There is definitely more than one way to skin this cat. My only concern is that we don't go into the season without at least an average solution for every hole plus some depth. Lots of ways to get there.

 

[ChrisW]

Would not mind grabbing mack, but prefer grabbing Van Noy in the 2nd if he makes it to us.

You could make an argument that there is a player of every position that we could potentially get in the second that would satisfy our needs. At some point though, you have to bite the bullet and take a guy in the first.

Now what position would you take high and be happy with? Me, personally, I don't care what position it is, as long as whoever is taken makes an impact. If he's only on the field 40% of the time, but makes an impact when he's there is it worth it?

 

[Tron]

You could make an argument that there is a player of every position that we could potentially get in the second that would satisfy our needs. At some point though, you have to bite the bullet and take a guy in the first.

Now what position would you take high and be happy with? Me, personally, I don't care what position it is, as long as whoever is taken makes an impact. If he's only on the field 40% of the time, but makes an impact when he's there is it worth it?

Yes, he is worth it, but maybe not as much as a full time player. The reason why I prefer Van Noy is not because of talent or anything, but prefer a full time player that early. But like I said, Wouldn't mind having Mack.

 

[DR RAM]

I walk away from supper with a smile on my face if I still have money in my wallet.

I agree with your comments about Dunbar and that we need to replace him. Where we disagree is in our priorities. LB is fifth on my list.

On the other hand, getting a real stud there would improve our D without a doubt. But so would getting a stud at OT, FS or CB or et cetera. You probably don't think the options at the other positions are as freakishly good as Mack is but no matter how you slice the cake (see what I did there?), even if Mack is much better in pass coverage than Dunbar is, he'll never be a consistent 3 down player because a merely very good CB or S will always be better in pass D than a stud LB. That's why they have different positions.

I'd bet a million doll...

I've read that Mack isn't that great in coverage either.

Not from what I've seen, but watch the videos and form your own opinion.