Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

  1. #16
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,478
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    This is an interesting scenario. It would probably set the record for most Top 35 picks starting on a defensive front seven in the league, whether that's a good or bad thing.

    I'm still not confident this team has room for another every down linebacker, because someone is going to have to sit in passing situations. I'm not convinced by the argument that the Rams remain in a base 4-3 in those moments, just haven't seen a strong enough case to think it's a realistic possibility.

    I do like the two Day Two linemen though, as well as Ward. Not as crazy about Purifoy personally, but it addresses a need.

    Nice work!


  2. #17
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,588
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I'm still not confident this team has room for another every down linebacker, because someone is going to have to sit in passing situations. I'm not convinced by the argument that the Rams remain in a base 4-3 in those moments, just haven't seen a strong enough case to think it's a realistic possibility.
    I'm not either. Honestly, I've heard a lot of Mack talk, and was curious how this would shake out in that scenario. Obviously, the front 7 would be excited, but it just leaves so many holes unaddressed, ie. WR and backup QB.

    I like the day 2 picks with Sua'-filo and Ward, though I'm not convinced some team doesn't go all "Kyle Long" on him and take him in late 1. I really like the Turner pick, but as always you have to be concerned how the big fish in the small pond does in the ocean. Like you, I'm not sold on Purifoy, but he was the value at that pick, and he seems like a Williams kind of guy.
    Nick likes this.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  3. #18
    citr92 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,249
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    I'm not either. Honestly, I've heard a lot of Mack talk, and was curious how this would shake out in that scenario. Obviously, the front 7 would be excited, but it just leaves so many holes unaddressed, ie. WR and backup QB.

    I like the day 2 picks with Sua'-filo and Ward, though I'm not convinced some team doesn't go all "Kyle Long" on him and take him in late 1. I really like the Turner pick, but as always you have to be concerned how the big fish in the small pond does in the ocean. Like you, I'm not sold on Purifoy, but he was the value at that pick, and he seems like a Williams kind of guy.
    turner seemed to hold his own against kansas st. at least

  4. #19
    turbofargo's Avatar
    turbofargo is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    414
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    This is a defensively favored draft. Seems to be hard to strike a balance if you need help on both sides and getting key players that can be high contributing parts of the team. I like this cause it makes our front seven very formidable, we still get a FS without wasting a high pick on one, add to the offensive line which would help our run favored offense.

    There are offensive favored combos I have seen that I have really liked as well. As far as defensive heavy this one is a good one. I can see options that could make it different but just as good. 13 could be Dennard instead of Donald and be a great one in my eyes.

    There are other combinations that would work well. Part of the fun of these, debating the merits. So far haven't seen a draft where everyone was on board. Someone who wants more offense if going to be not as happy, but I think this would work well for the team.

    If we could get our defense from good to dynasty style great, why not do it. With a couple offense editions we can be a really good team. If Quick picks up his game, and Bailey/Austin do there thing we will be in very good position.

    I am really enjoying reading all of this!! God I love this stuff :-)

  5. #20
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,626
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    This is an interesting scenario. It would probably set the record for most Top 35 picks starting on a defensive front seven in the league, whether that's a good or bad thing.

    I'm still not confident this team has room for another every down linebacker, because someone is going to have to sit in passing situations. I'm not convinced by the argument that the Rams remain in a base 4-3 in those moments, just haven't seen a strong enough case to think it's a realistic possibility.

    I do like the two Day Two linemen though, as well as Ward. Not as crazy about Purifoy personally, but it addresses a need.

    Nice work!
    Presumably they would all play like top 35 players, and if that's the case, it can only be a good thing.

    I don't even know how "having room for another every down LB" is a question.

    Of course we have room, in fact we're starving for an upgrade at that spot.

    Khalil Mack would instantly upgrade our LB core, and Jo Lonn Dunbar would provide tremendous depth at a spot we've been weak at for a decade.

    Aaron Donald is only the best DT in this draft, and if he plays to his potential, he may be the second coming of Warren Sapp.

    Bottom line is both Mack and Donald would be starters from day 1.

    So even if we had no room, room would be made.

  6. #21
    jerseyramsfan's Avatar
    jerseyramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    419
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    This kind of mock will cause nightmares... Yuck...

  7. #22
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,478
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Presumably they would all play like top 35 players, and if that's the case, it can only be a good thing.
    Until it's time to start extending them in a couple of years and we find out quickly we likely don't have the room to do that.

    Assuming the Rams exercise the club option on Quinn, both he and Brockers will be up for new deals after 2015. Both Chris Long and Ogletree will be ready for new deals after 2016. If the Rams draft Mack and Donald, they'll be ready for new deals after 2017 with Laurinaitis. So, IMO, we're talking about a 2-3 year grace period before some tough decisions will have to be made about who to keep.

    Even if you don't bring Long or Laurinaitis back, carrying five top-dollar contracts on your defensive front seven, in addition to the likely $100+ million deal the Rams will extend Bradford with, is going to make it difficult, IMO, to fill out the rest of the roster with the kind of quality players necessary to get over the hump.

    Maybe I'm wrong though, and there are other 4-3 teams out there with contracts paying five of their seven front guys close to top market value. If anyone has any info on that, I'd love to take a look.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    I don't even know how "having room for another every down LB" is a question.

    Of course we have room, in fact we're starving for an upgrade at that spot.

    Khalil Mack would instantly upgrade our LB core, and Jo Lonn Dunbar would provide tremendous depth at a spot we've been weak at for a decade.

    Aaron Donald is only the best DT in this draft, and if he plays to his potential, he may be the second coming of Warren Sapp.

    Bottom line is both Mack and Donald would be starters from day 1.

    So even if we had no room, room would be made.
    I don't think anyone is arguing about Mack being a big upgrade over Dunbar, but Dunbar's role is a situational one in this defense. He's the guy who comes off the field when the fifth DB comes on to it. Surely we're not spending a Top 10 pick on Mack to make him situational, and yet the Rams already have two other every down linebackers in Laurinaitis and Ogletree.

    So, are you suggesting not subbing on a fifth DB and instead playing base 4-3 regardless of opposing substitutions? For as much as that's been suggested in other threads, I've yet to see someone provide an example of a top 4-3 defense from the last half decade or so that did it that way. I'd love to have a look at how they did it, if one exists. If one doesn't, then I think it says something about the strategy.

    Mack and Donald are great prospects, but these are the kind of realities that I think have to be considered when thinking about these selections. Simply saying "room will be made" doesn't provide any real answers or responses to these issues.

  8. #23
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,626
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    First of all, I don't think Jeff fisher or Les Snead is going into this draft thinking about a prospects second contract. That would be unneccessary brain overload, at this time.

    I'm sure they will make the best of those situations when they get to them, but for now, their only focus should be getting the best possible players for this franchise, how ever they define best.

    After that, they will have ample time through training camp, OTAs and the pre-season, to figure out how best to run the defense.

    Issues determining who to take off the field on third down is actually a good problem to have, and I'm sure our capable, experienced coaching staff, will figure it out when the time is appropriate. After all, that's what they get paid to do.

    I am not one of those guys who gets caught up in how many plays a particular player plays because he was a high draft pick. I just care that he makes an impact when he is on the field. If he does that, I trust, the rest will take care of itself.

  9. #24
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,478
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Simply saying "room will be made" doesn't provide any real answers or responses to these issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    First of all, I don't think Jeff fisher or Les Snead is going into this draft thinking about a prospects second contract. That would be unneccessary brain overload, at this time.

    I'm sure they will make the best of those situations when they get to them, but for now, their only focus should be getting the best possible players for this franchise, how ever they define best.

    After that, they will have ample time through training camp, OTAs and the pre-season, to figure out how best to run the defense.

    Issues determining who to take off the field on third down is actually a good problem to have, and I'm sure our capable, experienced coaching staff, will figure it out when the time is appropriate. After all, that's what they get paid to do.

    I am not one of those guys who gets caught up in how many plays a particular player plays because he was a high draft pick. I just care that he makes an impact when he is on the field. If he does that, I trust, the rest will take care of itself.
    You're welcome to your opinion, of course. But that appears to simply be a longer version of the "Room will be made" response that I already said doesn't provide the kind of specific answers I think are needed for the questions being posed, and thus, not a particularly convincing argument given what I'm looking for.

  10. #25
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,626
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You're welcome to your opinion, of course. But that appears to simply be a longer version of the "Room will be made" response that I already said doesn't provide the kind of specific answers I think are needed for the questions being posed, and thus, not a particularly convincing argument given what I'm looking for.
    Not sure what you're looking for, and not sure I could provide it even if I did. You apparently are asking for things none of us as fans are privy to. So perhaps you should address messers Fisher, Snead and Demoff with your concerns.

  11. #26
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,478
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Not sure what you're looking for, and not sure I could provide it even if I did. You apparently are asking for things none of us as fans are privy to. So perhaps you should address messers Fisher, Snead and Demoff with your concerns.
    You don't have to be Jeff Fisher or Les Snead to answer these questions. You just have to support your opinion with evidence rather than vague platitudes of "Eh, the coaches will figure it out." The latter tells me nothing; the former gives me something to actually think about that could change my view on the issue.

    The specific concerns I brought up were...

    1) Are the Rams going to be able to afford all these guys 3-4 years down the road?
    That's easily addressed by providing any examples of other teams, even better if they played the 4-3 alignment as well, that had five top dollar contracts among front seven players. Don't have to be a coach or GM to find that, as there are multiple sites that provide contract information for current players.

    2) Who, in your opinion, gets benched in passing situations?
    Laurinaitis, Ogletree, Long, and Quinn have all proven effective enough (IMO) to be considered every down players. Yet if the Rams draft Barr, they're either going to bench one of these four names for a fifth DB or they're going to defend multi-receiver pass packages with a base 4-3 look. If it's the former, who gets benched? If it's the latter, has there been a recent example of another team that played predominantly base 4-3 even in passing situations? Being able to point to another team finding success with this strategy would make it easier to envision the Rams using it with success.

    I don't think I'm asking anyone to split the atom with these issues here, just asking for more information about the consequences of the choices people are advocating.
    Last edited by Nick; -03-16-2014 at 09:52 PM.

  12. #27
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,626
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    I doubt that Fisher or Snead is currently thinking 3 or 4 years down the road mainly because it is impossible to know what they'll be faced with at that time.

    There could be millions of variables that could change the landscape of this team between now and then, so why would I waste my time on some futile research project?

    Personally, I won't start concerning myself with where this team will be in 3 or 4 years for 2 or 3 years.

    If we're both still here at that time, I'd be glad to give my opinion on the state of the Rams pending free agents, salary cap issues and the like.

    But for now, I'm only concerned with the 2014 season.

    IMO, as a general rule the players playing the best should be on the field at all times. Unfortunately, that means there'll be times when any one of them could be on the bench.

    Ideally you'd want the players that match up best with the offense presented. Sorry if you're looking for specific names, all I can say is it will vary.

    In no way however, does any of this culminate in removing Aaron Donald or Khalil Mack from our draft board, IMO.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -03-16-2014 at 10:42 PM.

  13. #28
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,478
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    so why would I waste my time on some futile research project?
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Sorry if you're looking for specific names
    There's no reason to apologize for not providing specific names, but I am a little confused as to why you're still responding to my requests for specifics if you feel you can't actually provide them.

    Based on your response, your answer to "Are the Rams going to be able to afford all these guys 3-4 years down the road?" appears to be "Who cares?" while your answer to "Who, in your opinion, gets benched in passing situations?" seems to be "It depends."

    Hopefully someone else has some ideas on those things, or maybe you're right and these questions are just too tough for fans to answer. We don't seem to have any trouble answering these questions for Robinson/Matthews/Lewan or Watkins/Evans, though.
    Last edited by Nick; -03-17-2014 at 08:31 AM.

  14. #29
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,897
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    First of all, I don't think Jeff fisher or Les Snead is going into this draft thinking about a prospects second contract. That would be unneccessary brain overload, at this time.
    Jeff not so much perhaps, but Les and Demoff had better be. My guess is there is some form of template contrived that serves as a guide regarding to what to do, and what not to do as concerns the salary cap down the road. Another other issue is balance. It is fair to say our D-line is better than our current O-line, especially when it comes to depth. If the Rams were to draft Robinson or Matthews, either one of those guys ostensibly would be on the field for every down. One would hope a blue chip OT would help tip the team balance
    closer to parity with regard to our O vs our D.

  15. #30
    punahou's Avatar
    punahou is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HAWAII
    Posts
    635
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: HUb's mini-mock 1.0

    I think at 44 we could get the UW safety, which, if hes there, Id rather have over that guy.

    And... well no WR=( With Watkins and Evans in this draft we goota get one of them! OUr receiving corps is mundane at best, and though we have TAustin, hes a specialty WR that teams can focus on as no other receivers we have merit defensive concern.
    Last edited by punahou; -03-17-2014 at 03:12 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. HUb's 1st & Ram's 1st four. v3.1
    By HUbison in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -04-16-2008, 01:10 PM
  2. HUb's 1st & Ram's 1st four. v2.0
    By HUbison in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: -03-21-2008, 09:30 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: -10-24-2007, 04:06 PM
  4. HUb's top 13 picks, and 7 rds of Rams
    By HUbison in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -04-17-2007, 08:02 AM
  5. HUb's mock draft...first edition
    By HUbison in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: -03-06-2006, 01:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •