Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

an interesting internal debate going on

April 09, 2014 02:25PM
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.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  an interesting internal debate going on

db1192April 09, 2014 02:25PM

  Good stuff man

Drew2839207April 09, 2014 02:31PM

  Re: an interesting internal debate going on

Rams43193April 09, 2014 02:39PM

  Re: an interesting internal debate going on

dzrams158April 09, 2014 03:23PM

  Re: an interesting internal debate going on

Rams43137April 09, 2014 03:53PM

  Re: an interesting internal debate going on

dzrams129April 09, 2014 04:00PM

  Re: Well IF you believe in tendencies...

laram141April 09, 2014 04:37PM

  Re: Well IF you believe in tendencies...

JYB149April 09, 2014 04:59PM

  Re: You're right...

laram117April 09, 2014 05:02PM

  Re: an interesting internal debate going on

Amitar111April 09, 2014 04:38PM

  Re: Hmmm...

laram205April 09, 2014 02:42PM

  Re: Just take Watkins lol

BigGame81143April 09, 2014 02:46PM

  We might not agree on much, '81..

sstrams132April 09, 2014 03:43PM

  Re: Hmmm...

dzrams138April 09, 2014 03:09PM

  It's been tried

Blue and Gold100April 09, 2014 04:30PM

  Can we get 5,000 views? (nm)

BigGame81100April 09, 2014 02:42PM

  Re: Can we get 5,000 views?

BigGame81157April 09, 2014 02:43PM

  Better hope the 4 point FG is forthcoming

Da Guru158April 09, 2014 03:12PM

  Sounds like a trade down is all gravy...

max138April 09, 2014 04:04PM

  Dunbar is not a SAM. Rams did't play SAM and WILL in 2013

Blue and Gold124April 09, 2014 04:20PM

  The issue is Long has played inside

Blue and Gold156April 09, 2014 04:27PM

  turns out none of this was accurate....

PHDram185May 28, 2014 01:37AM

  Re: Maybe, maybe not...

dzrams155May 28, 2014 01:06PM

  Re: Maybe, maybe not...

Rams43109May 28, 2014 01:42PM

  Re: Maybe, maybe not...

PHDram92May 28, 2014 02:37PM

  Re: turns out none of this was accurate....

JYB114May 28, 2014 01:58PM

  Re: turns out none of this was accurate....

Ramadune114May 28, 2014 02:13PM

  oh please.....

PHDram106May 28, 2014 03:34PM

  Here's the real truth from my experience

Ramadune85May 28, 2014 05:19PM

  Not the first or last time that someone tries to sell bogus "inside" info with no proof

Flipper336116May 28, 2014 03:22PM

  true

PHDram95May 28, 2014 03:42PM

  I think people were

Blue and Gold85May 28, 2014 04:32PM