Rams Draft Haul of 2014, Mack and Roby?

[Elmgrovegnome]

In the short term Clowney would see the field less than Mack.

Playing in the MAC isn't a discredit for me. I am willing to bet that Buffalo doesn't pay coaches like Alabama does, so it stands to reason that they don't have their pick of HC or assistants. Top coaches don't work for less. So, being from the MAC conference means that Kahlil Mack excelled despite the benefit of high quality coaching, sort of like Quick. If the Rams think he will get even better with NFL coaching, from their interviews with him then I will be inclined to think he will.....despite Quick not panning out. There were rumblings of Quick not being very smart but I have read the opposite of that with Mack.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 with this:
Yea, that had more to do with scheme than anything. The Panthers secondary wasn't talented and they were the #2 defense in the NFL because of their front 7. Our DC utilized an awful, ineffective pass defense.

I'm pretty sure you're partially correct in what you're saying here but your view is a subjective analysis and mine isn't . In addition, You are subjectifying the Rams stats and and not doing the same thing for the rest of the teams. I'm pretty sure they all had some mitigaing things that applied to their stats too. The only fair thing to do is use the objective figures. Which I did.

 

[jjab360]

Those numbers aren't correct and if you look at my last post you can see how much the sack ability really affects their O.

I don't disagree with your contention that a pass rusher does all the things you say he does. I just believe that you're greatly exaggerating the effects and ignoring the other things the OT does like blocking for the run and keeping the QB alive.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...eleases-2014-franchise-transition-tag-numbers
Franchise tags

Quarterback: $16.192 million
Running back: $9.54 million
Wide receiver: $12.312 million
Tight end: $7.035 million
Offensive lineman: $11.654 million
Defensive end: $13.116 million
Defensive tackle: $9.654 million
Linebacker: $11.455 million
Cornerback: $11.834 million
Safety: $8.433 million
Kicker/punter: $3.556 million

Those are the tag numbers for the different positions. At first glance it appears that the NFL agrees with you but then you come to the realization that the Offensive Lineman tag number includes Centers, Guards and Right Tackles. Of course, just like in a prior thread, just because the NFL and the NFLPA disagrees with your view point, it doesn't mean you're wrong. However, I'll continue to agree with those who think the LT position is more important.

That O-line franchise tag number comes from the average salary of the top 5 linemen which in this case all happen to be LTs. So yes, the reality is the same as the impression you get at first glance. NFL teams do pay the top pass rushers more than the top LTs.

 

[jrry32]

I'm pretty sure you're partially correct in what you're saying here but your view is a subjective analysis and mine isn't . In addition, You are subjectifying the Rams stats and and not doing the same thing for the rest of the teams. I'm pretty sure they all had some mitigaing things that applied to their stats too. The only fair thing to do is use the objective figures. Which I did.

I don't agree, Alan. You're discussing the effect. I am theorizing about the cause. When it comes to the draft, we're trying to figure out what will change the effect. Which means isolating the cause(s). Just looking at the effect, itself, doesn't tell us anything.

And football decisions are made based on subjective analysis for a reason.

It's more than fair to discuss why our defense performed poorly when you're criticizing a single variable using the performance of the defense as a whole. It's flawed analysis imo.

I didn't compare the stats of the rest of the teams. I chose one team. And I explained subjectively why I believe their defense was the #2 defense in the NFL despite having a secondary that was majorly lacking in talent on paper.

 

[Hawk]

1. A 4-3 doesn't mean that linebackers aren't attacking. Williams' scheme is complex. To dub it as a 4-3 and have that be the basis of any argument is just lazy. He mixes fronts, coverages, and personnel regularly. Stating that Mack wouldn't offer value in a "4-3" neglects any sort of forethought.

2. Gregg Williams' covets versatility and Mack would offer just that.

For one thing, he was a creative and versatile coordinator who was great at tailoring his defense around players' individual strengths. - Mike Triplett, ESPN

Williams would also mix and match between a 4-3 and 3-4. - Mike Triplett, ESPN

3. Gregg Williams' defense are pressure based. Read Matt Bowen's post concerning his scheme: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1794097-the-insiders-guide-to-a-gregg-williams-defense

Williams dialed up pressure in every situation. Attack the edge, the inside A gap, use overload pressure, etc. Whatever it took, we sent the house that day.

4. Not wanting Mack is one thing, but saying he doesn't fit is just wrong.

 

[Alan]

jjab360 with a correction:
That O-line franchise tag number comes from the average salary of the top 5 linemen which in this case all happen to be LTs. So yes, the reality is the same as the impression you get at first glance. NFL teams do pay the top pass rushers more than the top LTs.

That's incorrect jjab. This from Spotrac:
http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/cap-hit/left-tackle/limit-25/
http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/cap-hit/guard/limit-25/
Joe Thomas, LT, $12,300,000
D'Brickashaw Ferguson, LT, $11,698,666
Russell Okung, LT, $11,240,000
Jahri Evans, OG, $11,000,000
Trent Williams, LT, $10,980,393
But that doesn't change the fact that you're correct here. Good job.

I'm not changing my opinion but it is food for thought. I'll let it percolate in my brain for awhile and see what comes out after a little more cogitation.

 

[jrry32]

You are talking as if Mack is a bigger risk than Matthews or GRob which just isn't the case. Look at last years draft class for proof. And I disagree that LT is MUCH, MUCH more important. Pass rushers are just as important as tackles, and that's what Mack would be. Don't dismiss the notion that Gregg Williams' scheme would help a player like Mack thrive. Both LB's and OT's tend to have some of the better odds at not busting so saying Mack is more likely to bust than Matthews is nothing more than conjecture (http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...afest-positions-to-target-in-the-first-round/) another source (http://www.footballperspective.com/which-positions-are-the-safest-to-draft-in-the-first-round/)

I think Mack has a better chance of busting than Matthews...not because of odds but because individual talent evaluation. However, I'd say both are safer picks.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 not on a level playing field:
I don't agree, Alan. You're discussing the effect. I am theorizing about the cause. When it comes to the draft, we're trying to figure out what will change the effect. Which means isolating the cause(s). Just looking at the effect, itself, doesn't tell us anything.

I disagree with those sentences.

I am discussing the effect of sacks on your passing D as compared to the rest of the league. You're just discussing the cause for why we're ranked low by adding in other factors. While you may be correct about those other factors (I agree they played a big part in our ranking), you can't use those other factors to refute my comparison. That's apples and oranges. To refute my contention you'd also have to factor in all the causes for why the other teams were ranked where they are in comparison to the Rams. Those factor are too numerous to mention but in order to compare any team to another team on any subject you have to that factors have a way of evening out. Did you look at the possibility that the teams we played were so far ahead of us at haltime that they hit the ground game to run out the clock and thus made our passin D look even better. It doesn't matter if that's tru or not because it's just an example of why you can't start using anything but the subjective facts (the stats) unless you somehow factor in all of them and do it for every team in the comparison pool.

To illustrate my point, let's pretend that every other team also had an equally shitty DB corps and the crappy scheme to go with it. That's a level playing field and the stats would be truly representative of the effect that sacks have on your passing D. Maybe the other teams did have a the same factors that you ding the Rams for having and maybe they didn't. We have no way of knowing because while you made excuses for our D you failed to evaluate (if that were even possible) the factors for why the other teams were ranked where they were.

If I were to use your logic, a batter who has a .500 batting average in the Central Division of the National League couldn't be compared to a player in the Western Division who batted .300 because they didn't face the same pitchers the same amount of times.

There are many factors that are different for each team that skew the stats one way or the other but until you can come up with a system that can fairly adjust for every single factor, all we can do is use the objective stats for comparison purposes.

Unless you think all stats are meaningless. I don't.

 

[RobertWinn]

Good discussion, but I still am in the belief of thinking that Mack would be a good pick at 2. People that say he is only a 3-4 player or just completely wrong. He is versatile and would fit great at OLB. He will blitz so much next year that having another guy that can rotate in at DE and rush from OLB effectively will be huge.

The more I think about it, I would much rather pick Haha Clinton-Dix then any corner on the board at 13 (unless Gilbert was available).