Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

  1. #1
    Barry Waller is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Alton, Il. USA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    25

    Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    For some reason, even though Khalil Mack projects as a top 4-3 LB prospect, especially as a weak side guy that goes after the qb, some fans discount him as a poor fit for Gregg Williams defense.

    Looking at his various stops, and the number of times he brings an OLB in a blitz, on any down, it's clear that the days of just throwing as many DBs out there as possible on passing downs are gone.

    Looking at his defenses, there are always three, even four linebackers with stats that indicate staying on the field, yet even though the Rams have no starter on the weak side right now, Mack, a terrific fit there who would not come off the field other than maybe short yardage situations, gets kind of overlooked as a possible Rams pick at #2.

    If anyone would coem off for a DB, it would be Lautinaitis if you are in a blitzing mode.

    The Rams get burned in nickel and dime defenses anyway, and that won't change with some more rookie DBs.

    None of Williams defenses have ever seen a third safety get much action at all, other than via injury to the starter.

    His best defenses had a guy coming off the edge from that LB spot to wreak havok. The best was probably Marcus Washington in Washington.

    Williams defenses are clearly built around the linebackers and the pass rush, and the Rams have two good linebackers on the roster, and a nice extra in Dunbar.

    After the top two or three 4-3 linebackers in this draft, the talent level drops off a bunch.

    In the end, a trade down might take the Rams out of the Mack game anyway, and they could choose to take the OT instead at #2.

    However, I would say a top two of Mack and OT Zach Martin would add a more valuable pair than Robinson and a safety at 13 would, if no deal down can occur. .

    Barry Waller

  2. #2
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,246
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post
    For some reason, even though Khalil Mack projects as a top 4-3 LB prospect, especially as a weak side guy that goes after the qb, some fans discount him as a poor fit for Gregg Williams defense.
    Some sportswriters see him as a poor fit as well. Here is what Nick Wagoner had to say when asked if Mack was a good fit for the Rams ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan
    As Rams fans we continue to look at WR and OT for our first pick. How would you see a player like Khalil Mack fitting in with the Rams? He is very explosive and a play maker on the defensive side.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Wagoner
    I just don't see it. He's a great player but best used as a 3-4 OLB and though you could theoretically find ways to get him on the field in the 4-3, how much?

  3. #3
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    635
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    I'd prefer Mack over Clowney and it's not close. I just feel we need to address the OLine and in a better way than Zach Martin who doesn't impress me at all. Mack would be a great OLB in Williams' defense him opposite Tree in the nickle with JL on the sidelines would be lethal with all that speed behind our 4 DE's in passing downs. I wouldn't want any of the tackles outside of Matthews to spend time at LT early in the year which makes me want him more than anybody else at #2.

  4. #4
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,301
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post
    Looking at his defenses, there are always three, even four linebackers with stats that indicate staying on the field
    Can you provide some evidence to support this? Specifically, I'm looking for snap counts from a 4-3 NFL team that stayed in that base package for the majority of passing situations within the last five years.

    The reason I'm asking for supporting evidence related to snap count is because that's the real issue here - how you get Mack on the field. I don't think I've seen anyone argue that Mack isn't a fit in Williams' defense from a schematic standpoint. I think the argument is that he isn't a fit given the current personnel already on the roster, which already features two linebackers receiving 1,000+ snaps on defense and a deep rotation at defensive end.

    Someone is going to have to lose playing time when you add another "every down"-type player, and I don't see them benching Ogletree (an athletic first round pick in his own right) or Laurinaitis (the general of the defense).

    Looking back at the snap counts of linebackers from teams since 2007 in which Williams was the DC (as available on Pro Football Focus), none of them seem to suggest a schematic intention of heavily featuring three "every down"-type linebackers. If anything, they follow the pattern of two primary guys and one part time guy.


    • 2007 Redskins: Fletcher & McIntosh with 700+ snaps each, Washington with less than 360 snaps
    • 2008 Jaguars: No linebacker with more than 640 snaps
    • 2009 Saints: Vilma & Shanle with 800+ snaps each, Fujitia with less than 450
    • 2010 Saints: Vilma & Shanle with 850+ snaps each, Dunbar & Clark with less than 350 each
    • 2011 Saints: Injuries to Vilma (only played 11 games) skew the snap counts here


    So while Mack would likely be a good fit in this defense from a schematic standpoint, I don't see much evidence to support this idea that Williams has, in the recent past, used base 4-3 personnel with three "every down"-type LB roles even when defending against the pass. If you have some detailed snap information to the contrary, I'd be very interested in reading it, but the information I've found and communicated here doesn't support that claim or conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
    Some sportswriters see him as a poor fit as well. Here is what Nick Wagoner had to say when asked if Mack was a good fit for the Rams ---
    Add Jim Thomas to the list as well...

    óInterest in Mack? I donít think so. Itís hard to project where Mack would play in St. Louis. Does he replace Ogletree? wouldnít think so. On the strong side (Dunbarís spot) thatís a position thatís on the field about 35% of the time. Against they could also work him into the d-line rotation, itís hard to justify using a high pick on a part-time player.
    It's not just fans who have trouble seeing how the coaching staff would make all of this work.

  5. #5
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,494
    Rep Power
    167
    Mack himself stated that he views himself as a 3-4 OLB.

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...all-draft-pick
    Nick likes this.

  6. #6
    Randart's Avatar
    Randart is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    541
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    In thinking about this I would have to consider A. Barr & Mac together...
    So how would they best be used in what I project as the Rams scheme?
    Mac I view as a better in space player than Barr, and Anthony better at pass rushing.
    Mac might make the better backup to JL if he went down then you have a awesome athelete taking over the middle of the field. Therefore he fills two spots your outside backer and backup MLB making his value go up imho. Barr has more upside or so many say but I think he will always be better at rushing the passer and breaking up screens than playing in coverage. It is just an interesting comaparison. Would love to hear what Fish and GW think of these two guys, that would be fun to listen to!

  7. #7
    shower beers's Avatar
    shower beers is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,043
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post

    If anyone would coem off for a DB, it would be Lautinaitis if you are in a blitzing mode.

    Has this happened before in the past? I can't really recall J Lau leaving the field hardly ever, let alone on third down.

  8. #8
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey View Post
    I'd prefer Mack over Clowney and it's not close. I just feel we need to address the OLine and in a better way than Zach Martin who doesn't impress me at all. Mack would be a great OLB in Williams' defense him opposite Tree in the nickle with JL on the sidelines would be lethal with all that speed behind our 4 DE's in passing downs. I wouldn't want any of the tackles outside of Matthews to spend time at LT early in the year which makes me want him more than anybody else at #2.
    Let's see.....you'd prefer a 3-4 LB (Mack) over a 4-3 DE (Clowney), and it's not even close, even though we run a 4-3.

    Got it.

  9. #9
    citr92 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Let's see.....you'd prefer a 3-4 LB (Mack) over a 4-3 DE (Clowney), and it's not even close, even though we run a 4-3.

    Got it.
    i see some say he could be a DE too...stand up DE maybe?

  10. #10
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    635
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Let's see.....you'd prefer a 3-4 LB (Mack) over a 4-3 DE (Clowney), and it's not even close, even though we run a 4-3.

    Got it.
    Probably because we already have 4 quality and very productive DE's. It's by far the best position on the roster with two great starters and two very good depth players. Wasn't there a report from bleacher report we were quoting here that ranked us having 4 of the top 50 4-3 DE? It's not a position we need to upgrade. Our 3rd LB however is a position that needs to be upgraded. We have Dunbarr on a 1 year deal and last years UDFA Ray Ray Armstrong. I have high hopes for Ray Ray but if I were able to upgrade a weak starting spot with somebody like Mack I'm all for it.

    Reading many scouting reports on him it is believed he's good enough in run support to play a 4-3 olb though he needs work in coverage. And like Clowney he's capable of playing an end in a 4-3 on rush downs. So he could be as good as Clowney in rush situation and is capable of playing OLB so yes I'd much rather add him. Add to that there are no questions about his work ethic, desire and his health.

  11. #11
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey View Post
    Probably because we already have 4 quality and very productive DE's. It's by far the best position on the roster with two great starters and two very good depth players. Wasn't there a report from bleacher report we were quoting here that ranked us having 4 of the top 50 4-3 DE? It's not a position we need to upgrade. Our 3rd LB however is a position that needs to be upgraded. We have Dunbarr on a 1 year deal and last years UDFA Ray Ray Armstrong. I have high hopes for Ray Ray but if I were able to upgrade a weak starting spot with somebody like Mack I'm all for it.

    Reading many scouting reports on him it is believed he's good enough in run support to play a 4-3 olb though he needs work in coverage. And like Clowney he's capable of playing an end in a 4-3 on rush downs. So he could be as good as Clowney in rush situation and is capable of playing OLB so yes I'd much rather add him. Add to that there are no questions about his work ethic, desire and his health.
    That would only matter if they were all better than Clowney.

    However, the truth of the matter is, Clowney would supplant any one of them not named Quinn by midseason, and he'd be a helluva lot cheaper than Chris Long.

    Regardless of what you've recently heard, Jadaveon Clowney is by far the best defensive player in this draft and has been since his freshman year.

    Most of us hadn't even heard of Khalil Mack until this offseason began. If he were better than Clowney, or even in the same class, you'd think ESPN and other networks would've known prior to this offseason, wouldn't you?

    Not meaning to imply that Mack is not a great prospect, from what I've seen of him he certainly is, just not in the same class as Clowney, IMO.

    There are some here who try to downgrade Clowney to suit their own agenda, and you're certainly among them, but his talent is one thing you can't deny, no matter what you do or say.

    I'm going to leave you with this last question, and then I'm done with this debate.

    Can you name the one player in this draft, that if he were eligible, could've been the first pick in each of the last 2 drafts?

    I rest my case.

  12. #12
    demiurge is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    281
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    That would only matter if they were all better than Clowney.

    However, the truth of the matter is, Clowney would supplant any one of them not named Quinn by midseason, and he'd be a helluva lot cheaper than Chris Long.
    Wow. That's some crystal ball you have.

    In fact, you can't know that. You may assume that, but that in no way makes your assumption a reality, and no one has to accept your opinion as fact.

  13. #13
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    635
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    That would only matter if they were all better than Clowney.

    However, the truth of the matter is, Clowney would supplant any one of them not named Quinn by midseason, and he'd be a helluva lot cheaper than Chris Long.

    Regardless of what you've recently heard, Jadaveon Clowney is by far the best defensive player in this draft and has been since his freshman year.

    Most of us hadn't even heard of Khalil Mack until this offseason began. If he were better than Clowney, or even in the same class, you'd think ESPN and other networks would've known prior to this offseason, wouldn't you?

    Not meaning to imply that Mack is not a great prospect, from what I've seen of him he certainly is, just not in the same class as Clowney, IMO.

    There are some here who try to downgrade Clowney to suit their own agenda, and you're certainly among them, but his talent is one thing you can't deny, no matter what you do or say.

    I'm going to leave you with this last question, and then I'm done with this debate.

    Can you name the one player in this draft, that if he were eligible, could've been the first pick in each of the last 2 drafts?

    I rest my case.
    With DE's that Kansas City has and them picking first last year. Throw into that the fact that 3 of the 5 picks after them were DE it's pretty safe to say that last year they still would have taken Fisher 1st overall. There was also a physical freak DE last year, though he didn't have anywhere near the hype train as Clowney and no I'm not comparing Anash to him, KC still took the OT first.

    As for Clowney supplanting Long, we'll see if the Rams draft him. I wouldn't be shocked at all if he breaks camp as the 3rd DE. He'd damned well better with the hype he gets on a daily basis. If the Rams draft Clowney I'll root for him along with everybody else on the roster. But if they do draft him they had better spend a lot of draft capital on the OLine.

    Now you can look into your magic crystal ball all you want and walk off from the discussion in whatever manner makes you happy, but there's no way you, me, anybody else on this board or even Andy Reid himself can say for certain that he would have taken Clowney over Fisher in the 2013 draft.

  14. #14
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey View Post
    With DE's that Kansas City has and them picking first last year. Throw into that the fact that 3 of the 5 picks after them were DE it's pretty safe to say that last year they still would have taken Fisher 1st overall. There was also a physical freak DE last year, though he didn't have anywhere near the hype train as Clowney and no I'm not comparing Anash to him, KC still took the OT first.

    As for Clowney supplanting Long, we'll see if the Rams draft him. I wouldn't be shocked at all if he breaks camp as the 3rd DE. He'd damned well better with the hype he gets on a daily basis. If the Rams draft Clowney I'll root for him along with everybody else on the roster. But if they do draft him they had better spend a lot of draft capital on the OLine.

    Now you can look into your magic crystal ball all you want and walk off from the discussion in whatever manner makes you happy, but there's no way you, me, anybody else on this board or even Andy Reid himself can say for certain that he would have taken Clowney over Fisher in the 2013 draft.
    The point was that Khalil Mack wasn't even a thought in any of our minds last year, at this time.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -04-04-2014 at 02:04 AM.

  15. #15
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Mack Anything But a 'Bad Fit For Gregg Williams Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by demiurge View Post
    Wow. That's some crystal ball you have.

    In fact, you can't know that. You may assume that, but that in no way makes your assumption a reality, and no one has to accept your opinion as fact.
    You don't have to accept anything, you can live in denial for as long as you desire.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NFL Reinstates Gregg Williams
    By r8rh8rmike in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -02-08-2013, 05:37 PM
  2. Gregg Williams defense against the Rams in SB
    By Rambos in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: -04-10-2012, 05:39 PM
  3. Welcome Gregg Williams!
    By sosa39rams in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: -01-17-2012, 04:31 PM
  4. Gregg Williams is going to the
    By eauclare in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -01-15-2009, 06:44 PM
  5. Gregg Williams anyone?
    By RamsSB99 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: -02-01-2008, 06:13 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
  •