- Joined
- Jan 23, 2014
- Messages
- 281
- Name
- sdakotaram
Not sure how much is real but I found it interesting
http://www.ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?5,472497,472497#msg-472497
Hey everyone,
As I think I mentioned previously, the top two players on their board, regardless of position, are Clowney and Mack. Clowney is rated higher, but there is an interesting debate going on, and that is based upon their 4-3 scheme and the personnel we have, who would see the field more? Take special teams out of the equation for now.
- The case for Clowney is that they rotate their DE's a fair amount already, and on clear passing downs they would put Quinn and Clowney at DE (although both currently play RDE) and have Hayes and Long inside (Long does this on certain sets now, he is a team guy, and he and Hayes are good against the run in case the opponent checks to a run). And although Hayes and Sims are good players, they are both at the end of their deals after this year (or cutt-able with minimal cap ramifications). So at the end of Clowney's first year, they would likely be gone, and Long will be 30/31 yrs old.
- The case for Mack is that on running downs he would play the SAM. Although they re-signed Dunbar for this role, its was not a huge dollar deal, and they have minimal depth at LB anyway, so the Rams don't look at this as an issue. On passing downs they could do the above and have Mack rushing from the DE instead of Clowney. In the future, there are those in the organization than think that Mack could be moved inside to the middle backer spot, particularly on passing downs, as he and Ogletree have the most speed/upside in coverage as opposed to Laurinaitis.
As always, I'm just passing along information as I get it, and I thought this debate was interesting. You could make the "playing time" case for either player, but it arguably slants towards Mack. As I've said, their first inclination is to trade down. But this is more complicated as it will be an "on the clock" decision based upon who goes number 1. So knowing that, you have to plan for the contingency of if you don't get an offer you like, or you don't want to trade down that far, etc. So the first thing they need to decide on is who they would take at #2 if they stood pat. If they stayed true to their board, its Clowney or Mack, hence the debate above. Or Fisher could overrule and go with the guy he wants to get one way or another, which is Matthews.
http://www.ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?5,472497,472497#msg-472497
Hey everyone,
As I think I mentioned previously, the top two players on their board, regardless of position, are Clowney and Mack. Clowney is rated higher, but there is an interesting debate going on, and that is based upon their 4-3 scheme and the personnel we have, who would see the field more? Take special teams out of the equation for now.
- The case for Clowney is that they rotate their DE's a fair amount already, and on clear passing downs they would put Quinn and Clowney at DE (although both currently play RDE) and have Hayes and Long inside (Long does this on certain sets now, he is a team guy, and he and Hayes are good against the run in case the opponent checks to a run). And although Hayes and Sims are good players, they are both at the end of their deals after this year (or cutt-able with minimal cap ramifications). So at the end of Clowney's first year, they would likely be gone, and Long will be 30/31 yrs old.
- The case for Mack is that on running downs he would play the SAM. Although they re-signed Dunbar for this role, its was not a huge dollar deal, and they have minimal depth at LB anyway, so the Rams don't look at this as an issue. On passing downs they could do the above and have Mack rushing from the DE instead of Clowney. In the future, there are those in the organization than think that Mack could be moved inside to the middle backer spot, particularly on passing downs, as he and Ogletree have the most speed/upside in coverage as opposed to Laurinaitis.
As always, I'm just passing along information as I get it, and I thought this debate was interesting. You could make the "playing time" case for either player, but it arguably slants towards Mack. As I've said, their first inclination is to trade down. But this is more complicated as it will be an "on the clock" decision based upon who goes number 1. So knowing that, you have to plan for the contingency of if you don't get an offer you like, or you don't want to trade down that far, etc. So the first thing they need to decide on is who they would take at #2 if they stood pat. If they stayed true to their board, its Clowney or Mack, hence the debate above. Or Fisher could overrule and go with the guy he wants to get one way or another, which is Matthews.
