Rams Draft Haul of 2014, Mack and Roby?

  • 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.
Yeah the mock is from Walter Football.

I think Mack isn't a bad pick even though he is a OLB. He makes our front 7 elite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaphod
While I like a lot of things about Walter Football, I'd heard that their mocks were really bad. I ad never really looked at their mocks before so I had no opinion about them. Now I do have an opinion. I agree with all my fellow posters who told me they were crap. :LOL:

But I still like Walter for other things. I think it's a good site.
 
I wouldn't discount Mack except that I don't like the talent level he has built his career going up against thus far. I seriously have doubts as to the #13 pick shown. My Walter Football comment is based on the fact that I have never seen them have a clue about the Rams in reality. It's not unusual nor specific to Walter. We are somewhat of an under the radar team unless we really make some waves. But Walter seem to historically be WAY off when it comes to the Rams. Looks like they're continuing that trend.
 
Yeah, I get that about not understanding the Rams Stu. What's even stranger about that Roby pick is he's only their 4th rated CB. Makes no sense to me at all. But I like the fact that they have new stuff all year long. I like their player avals and prospect rankings. Although I don't always agree with their rankings it' still another piece in my information puzzle.
 
Nah - don't get me wrong Alan. I check out their site a fair bit. I have no hatred for the site itself. I just don't see much knowledge of the Rams over there. Can't really blame them that much. WTF have we done to make them give us the time of day? Times a changing' though and if they still don't know anything about us after we start smacking teams around, I will lose all respect.
 
I don't think it's a question of us not earning their respect, I don't think they know very much about any team. That's not their strength.
 
Taking Mack would be absolutely dumb imo. He is a 3-4 LB and does not fit the 4-3. It is not like we need another LB but depth is always good. guess you could groom him to replace Dunbar but we have more pressing positions that need help. I like Robinson but Mathews will be a steady all-pro for 10 years. If we stay at 2 I say take Mathews then at 13 take Dix or Pryor or Dennard or Gilbert. 2nd round take a WR or OLB. 3rd round take a RB or QB. 4th and on take more OL and DT and DE and maybe a TE.
 
I think we actually do need a OLB. It's just not a huge priority to replace Dunbar. But I want to replace him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mojo Ram
Roby is just a better version of Brandon McGee. Neither is a very instinctual football player and both have great athletic ability, especially speed.

Some like the way Roby hits but he is not a good tackler. He want to the Darian Stewart school of tackling.

The Rams have not brought Roby in for a visit so I don't think he is a likely choice.
 
scifiman said:
Taking Mack would be absolutely dumb imo. He is a 3-4 LB and does not fit the 4-3. It is not like we need another LB but depth is always good. guess you could groom him to replace Dunbar but we have more pressing positions that need help. I like Robinson but Mathews will be a steady all-pro for 10 years. If we stay at 2 I say take Mathews then at 13 take Dix or Pryor or Dennard or Gilbert. 2nd round take a WR or OLB. 3rd round take a RB or QB. 4th and on take more OL and DT and DE and maybe a TE.
Click to expand...

Mack would fit right in on the Rams.
 
RobertWinn said:
Yeah the mock is from Walter Football.

I think Mack isn't a bad pick even though he is a OLB. He makes our front 7 elite.
Click to expand...

A pass rushing DT would have a much bigger impact and could likely be had at 13.
 
scifiman said:
Taking Mack would be absolutely dumb imo. He is a 3-4 LB and does not fit the 4-3. It is not like we need another LB but depth is always good. guess you could groom him to replace Dunbar but we have more pressing positions that need help. I like Robinson but Mathews will be a steady all-pro for 10 years. If we stay at 2 I say take Mathews then at 13 take Dix or Pryor or Dennard or Gilbert. 2nd round take a WR or OLB. 3rd round take a RB or QB. 4th and on take more OL and DT and DE and maybe a TE.
Click to expand...

Mack fits the 4-3. Especially a Gregg Williams 4-3. Picture him in a Von Miller type role. At the top of the draft you can't just draft for need.

Mack is a difference maker and would have just as big of an impact year 1 as any other rookie outside of maybe a safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaphod and Mojo Ram
Hawk said:
Mack fits the 4-3. Especially a Gregg Williams 4-3. Picture him in a Von Miller type role. At the top of the draft you can't just draft for need.

Mack is a difference maker and would have just as big of an impact year 1 as any other rookie outside of maybe a safety.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board Hawk..
 
V3 said:
I agree if by this you mean over-drafting a player somewhere in the first two rounds.
Click to expand...

Nope. He could be the starting SLB and move up to the line on third down. What makes you think he wont be any good? Mayock says he is better than Clowney. I think he is going to be a Demarcus Ware level player.
 
Elmgrovegnome said:
Nope. He could be the starting SLB and move up to the line on third down. What makes you think he wont be any good? Mayock says he is better than Clowney. I think he is going to be a Demarcus Ware level player.
Click to expand...

I think he'll be good for a 3-4 team. Not big on his open field tackling or coverage skills, which are essential for a SLB in a 4-3. He should get better in those regards but he's still only a SLB. Granted there isn't much tape on him but going off the two teams he played that were good(not MAC), I thought he looked bad against Baylor and against Ohio St he pretty much only rushed(I've watched more than just those two).

There's no denying his athletic ability and pass rushing skills. I'm not arguing that but there's more than that for a SLB in a 4-3 and if you use him as a DE, he's too small, IMO. There are small DE's that are successful but they're VERY rare in today's game. SLB in a 4-3 is not important enough to be wasting the 2nd overall pick in the draft on. They could be taking a LT that will be at the very least very good for the next 7 years or so. Heck, I'm fine with taking Watkins, too, since we still don't have a #1(don't think Austin will ever be that and Bailey will probably be a good #2).

Fisher and Snead seem to fall in love with physical freaks and end up taking them WAY too early. Austin has his place but he wasn't worth #8 and #46. Brockers is a nice run stuffer but you can get run stuffing 4-3 NT's later in the draft. I hate that he was taken in the first half of the first round. Quick is big and has good speed for his size but wasn't worth anywhere near where he was taken. Khalil seems to be the next iteration of that physical freak love affair. He's a MUCH better fit for a 3-4 and has much more value in that scheme. Over the years I've developed certain beliefs and taking a SLB for a 4-3 team high in the draft is HORRIBLE value, IMO. Can anyone even name the last SLB in a 4-3 that was a game changer? Khalil may not be a reach at #2 for a 3-4 team but he is for a 4-3. At least that's how I feel about it.
 
V3 said:
I think he'll be good for a 3-4 team. Not big on his open field tackling or coverage skills, which are essential for a SLB in a 4-3. He should get better in those regards but he's still only a SLB. Granted there isn't much tape on him but going off the two teams he played that were good(not MAC), I thought he looked bad against Baylor and against Ohio St he pretty much only rushed(I've watched more than just those two).

There's no denying his athletic ability and pass rushing skills. I'm not arguing that but there's more than that for a SLB in a 4-3 and if you use him as a DE, he's too small, IMO. There are small DE's that are successful but they're VERY rare in today's game. SLB in a 4-3 is not important enough to be wasting the 2nd overall pick in the draft on. They could be taking a LT that will be at the very least very good for the next 7 years or so. Heck, I'm fine with taking Watkins, too, since we still don't have a #1(don't think Austin will ever be that and Bailey will probably be a good #2).

Fisher and Snead seem to fall in love with physical freaks and end up taking them WAY too early. Austin has his place but he wasn't worth #8 and #46. Brockers is a nice run stuffer but you can get run stuffing 4-3 NT's later in the draft. I hate that he was taken in the first half of the first round. Quick is big and has good speed for his size but wasn't worth anywhere near where he was taken. Khalil seems to be the next iteration of that physical freak love affair. He's a MUCH better fit for a 3-4 and has much more value in that scheme. Over the years I've developed certain beliefs and taking a SLB for a 4-3 team high in the draft is HORRIBLE value, IMO. Can anyone even name the last SLB in a 4-3 that was a game changer? Khalil may not be a reach at #2 for a 3-4 team but he is for a 4-3. At least that's how I feel about it.
Click to expand...
How about Von Miller or Brian Orakpo??

Of course the traditional 4-3 OLB isn't worth a high pick, but a hybrid pass rusher like Mack is definitely worth taking that high in the draft. Williams loves to blitz and I think if we really plan on drafting Mack, then we're going to see some big scheme changes and he's going to play the Leo role/nickel DE for us kind of like those two guys or Bruce Irvin with the Seahawks. You guys are being too rigid in your thinking, we brought Williams in to bring in some creativity and fresh ideas, if we're looking at a prospect like Mack it's certainly not to have him fill the same role that Ogletree played last year, that would be stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mojo Ram and Zaphod
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back