SierraRam
Recreational User
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,254
Rams 'Strongly Considering' Khalil Mack at No. 2
- Thread starter RocknRam29
- Start date
-
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.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
I'm not as high on Mack as a lot of guys. He's pretty raw if you ask me, but he is a freakish specimen, and I can see him becoming a very good player in the right position. Buffalo pretty much just let him walk around and rush from wherever he wanted. I like his heart, but he doesn't have good technique rushing the passer, bad arm placement a lot of the time.
I don't see the bend, or elite closing speed that, say, Barr has, and he struggles a little bit changing direction and finishing, because of him flailing his arms a lot, or not knowing how to use them when changing direction. Most of his pass rush that I have seen, features a stiff armed bull rush. I like the tilt, but he will have to get much stronger to bull rush NFL tackles every time.
I don't see the bend, or elite closing speed that, say, Barr has, and he struggles a little bit changing direction and finishing, because of him flailing his arms a lot, or not knowing how to use them when changing direction. Most of his pass rush that I have seen, features a stiff armed bull rush. I like the tilt, but he will have to get much stronger to bull rush NFL tackles every time.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
I am too, but, take the Ohio State game for instance, he played like rover in that game, and he was very productive, but who is going to let him just roam around like that in the NFL? Maybe a guy like Greg Williams, but NFL OC's are a lot smarter too. I like him, but he's raw, so I don't like him at #2 overall like him. I like him more in the 10 - 15 range. Like I said, I may be in the minority.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 23,932
- Name
- mojo
So for you its Clowney over Mack at #2 if given the choice?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
I think he's more elite, but I'd rather trade down, because I don't see either as a huge need. If I was picking for another team, I'd have Clowney over Mack all day.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 24,576
I like Mack and would be fine with the Rams taking him in round2, with some added picks to go with preferably, but even if it was at #2id be okay with it. He is a dynamic and versatile weapon. The Rams would have more options and opportunity to use Mack than they would Clowney.
I don't understand why so many want Clowney But not Mack. I think it would be easier to find playing time for a LBer/DE hybrid than just a third DE.
I don't understand why so many want Clowney But not Mack. I think it would be easier to find playing time for a LBer/DE hybrid than just a third DE.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
I don't want either, but Clowney is a bigger, faster, better athlete, he's more explosive, and more polished. If we are going to say Mack can play as a hybrid, certainly Clowney can as well.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 24,576
I don't agree. Clowney isn't very disciplined against the run and isn't a sideline to sideline chaser. He could be but doesn't seem to care.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
So, you don't think Clowney could play as a hybrid? And you do think Mack is the more polished player?
RaminExile
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 3,065
Most likely a smokescreen but I wouldn't be upset if we DID take Mack. He's a super football player and would make us better. 5 years from now we'd be saying it was the right pick even though he wasn't a "need" at the time. Can play anywhere - DE, OLB, MLB - athletic, can rush the passer and stop the run. Mack is a more polished player than Clowney IMO but Clowney's got a HOF potential ceiling - which is a rare thing to be able to say about a rookie.
I think if we did take him he'd rotate a bit - but we'd also play more 3 lb sets and a bit less nickel - and that would be playing to our strengths.
I think if we did take him he'd rotate a bit - but we'd also play more 3 lb sets and a bit less nickel - and that would be playing to our strengths.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 36,016
- Name
- Stu
V3
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 3,848
I've been watching more on him and I'm almost certain now that this is nothing more than a smokescreen(I'm getting the feeling the Rams REALLY want to trade down). He doesn't fit the Rams at all. He can't play DE(gets pushed around a lot) and no 4-3 team would be stupid enough to spend the #2 pick(or even close to that) on a SLB. They just aren't that important in a 4-3. I could see him being a solid player for a 3-4 team but he's going to need at least a year to adjust. He doesn't seem very ready, technically speaking.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 36,016
- Name
- Stu
Sorry - but Clowney is pretty damn good at run defense, can easily go sideline to sideline and would have very little problem IMO playing OLB. I don't necessarily want him for the Rams but I wouldn't say these are real areas of concern. Maybe he won't have the mindset to be all world and that might be the biggest concern.
The problem I have with Mack by in large is the level of competition and talent he faced for the majority of his career. That and he was able to freelance far more than he will be allowed in the NFL. He had a pretty decent game against Ohio State but his interception might as well have been a hand off and his pressures came against a severely outclassed Sophomore RT.
I think Mack is a very good talent but REALLY don't see us taking him at #2 or with our first pick regardless. But of course, I'm usually wrong so there's that.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 24,576
Mack is a LBer that is good at rushing the passer, so he could play DE easier than a DE that doesn't play LBer, can play LBer.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 24,576
Going from Lber to DE is easier than DE to LBer. Clowney is a free lancer himself. Sure level of competition could be a concern. But so could taking playoffs and not chasing plays run away from you.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 36,016
- Name
- Stu
Probably not going to need it if you believe my wife. Actually - the other day I was telling her that though it seems like she's saying it several times a day, I never get tired of hearing her say, "you're right". In my household that's always a popular way of acknowledging that she was wrong."But of course, I'm usually wrong so there's that."
You're welcome to join our fraternity. If you don't accidentily get something right in the next 90 days we'll teach you the secret handshake.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 36,016
- Name
- Stu
Not sure where you get that Clowney doesn't chase plays away from his side. Like I said, I'm not lobbying for the guy but I have watched a bunch of tape on both and I have seen him chase, fall back into coverage, stuff the run, etc. In fact, I have seen him chase many more away plays than Mack. My biggest knock on Clowney is that a smart Lineman can often use his speed against him to run him past the play. Kinda like Quinn as a rookie and even still though to a lesser extent.