My Mock

[harrydog]

I agree that either of the Longs are probably "safer" picks than VG but like I've said in the past, I think VG has more upside potential to go along with the risk.
Any of those three would be OK with me though, and if not one of them, I think we have to trade down.

[todd1]

I understand the trepidation on drafting VG at #2 instead of C. Long. But I would do it, without any hesitation. I see C.Long as a Grant Wistrom type. Nothing at all wrong with that as we know, but not a true difference maker that opposing offenses will have to gameplan around. I think VG could be a stud pass rusher like Freeney or Leonard Little (minus the bar-hopping). Although that may be what is termed a "one-trick pony", that one trick is the key to having a great defense in the NFL (see Giants, NY).

One last thing, on the topic of being a "clean" prospect: How clean was Antonio Cromartie? Going back 2 years, Tye Hill would have been far more "clean" going into that draft, right? How many of us, if those two players were available to us right now, would take Hill over Cromartie? I realize they both still have long careers ahead, my point is simply that sometimes you have to take a risk to be successful. Take a chance on the rare athletic abilities that can't be taught. VG has to be the pick.

[HUbison]

How clean was Antonio Cromartie?

About as clean as Ryan Leaf, Charles Rogers, and Mike Williams. All with rare athletic ability.

[todd1]

Oh, you mean clean like Robert Gallery, Mike Williams (the OT from Texas), and Andre Carter. All with high character and clean backgrounds, all top 7 picks.

There are examples on both sides. I would prefer to err on the side of athletic ability.

[Fortuninerhater]

I understand the trepidation on drafting VG at #2 instead of C. Long. But I would do it, without any hesitation. I see C.Long as a Grant Wistrom type. Nothing at all wrong with that as we know, but not a true difference maker that opposing offenses will have to gameplan around. I think VG could be a stud pass rusher like Freeney or Leonard Little (minus the bar-hopping). Although that may be what is termed a "one-trick pony", that one trick is the key to having a great defense in the NFL (see Giants, NY).

One last thing, on the topic of being a "clean" prospect: How clean was Antonio Cromartie? Going back 2 years, Tye Hill would have been far more "clean" going into that draft, right? How many of us, if those two players were available to us right now, would take Hill over Cromartie? I realize they both still have long careers ahead, my point is simply that sometimes you have to take a risk to be successful. Take a chance on the rare athletic abilities that can't be taught. VG has to be the pick.

I was on the phone with my 49er loving cousin as the Rams made the mistake of drafting Hill over Cromartie. Even as I screamed to no avail, at the TV "You Idiots", why would you take a 5'9 corner over a 6'1 corner with no noticeable difference in their skillset? Still haunts me, because even a 49er fan realized we had just made the wrong choice and he reminds me everytime he gets a chance.

[HUbison]

Oh, you mean clean like Robert Gallery, Mike Williams (the OT from Texas), and Andre Carter. All with high character and clean backgrounds, all top 7 picks.

There are examples on both sides. I would prefer to err on the side of athletic ability.

Todd, go re-read the definition from earlier in this thread. We're not talking about character and background. To say Gholston isn't as "clean" as either Long has absolutely nothing to do with character.

And while I'm here, I'm curious about this comparison as well....

I see C.Long as a Grant Wistrom type.

Other than both being Caucasio-Americans, where is the similarity between Long and Wistrom?

[todd1]

I understand what you mean by "clean"...most NFL ready from a skills and mental standpoint, right? Less bust potential. That's why I noted the players I did when stating that the so called clean players of past drafts also fail. Gallery is the poster-child for the "clean" outright bust.

As for the Long - Wistrom comparison: Now that you mention it, they ARE both white. I hadn't noticed. But from a football standpoint, they're very comparable in that they are not explosive edge rushers. They are effort guys that get to the QB with motor. In my opinion, that makes them complimentary players. Todd McShay also feels that is the hole in Long's game (consistent edge rushing), and getting to the QB is our #1 defensive need. Wistrom was the beneficiary of having other teams gameplan for Little. I think Long is in for a similar type career, which means we're still searching for the heir to Little. Again, not saying that a Wistrom-type player is all bad, I just think we can do better with the #2 overall pick (in the person of VG).

[TekeRam]

Long just had a pro day where he showed the whole league that he can play OLB in a 3-4. Considering that he would be in coverage as well as rushing around the edge as an OLB, I have to imagine that he has a bit more speed than everyone give him credit for. I know that's his rap, and I agree, he's not quite as fast as Gholston. But let's look at that, ok?

First, a QB's not forty yards away, and he IS behind a wall of blockers. As I haven't seen Long's lifting numbers yet(I don't think he's lifted for scouts yet, actually) we can't "compare" strength, but the reports say Long is stronger. We'll give it a push as Gholston tied for best at the combine.

For agility, point goes to Long, as his three cone was 7.02 vs Gholston's 7.12.

For short acceleration, we turn to the 20 yard shuttle. Chris Long LED all defensive linemen with a 4.21, while Gholston came in with a 4.40. Point goes to Long.

The one thing that Gholston wins is the forty yard dash. So, when he has to go all the way across the field, Gholston will win ever so slightly. As in one tenth of a second. Let's see how much that is. 40 yards is 120 feet which is 1440 inches. 1440 inches/4.67 = 308.35 inches/second for Gholston. Long did it in 4.75, so he travels an average of 303.15 inches/second. 5 INCHES per second faster. At the point Gholston hits 40 yards, Long will have travelled 1415.75 inches, which equates to 118 feet. So if for some reason, they need to cross the field, Long will be a whole two feet behind Gholston.

So how much better is Gholston? Physically, they're about the same. Chris Long is already a master of his game and never quits. Like Peyton Manning, he endlessly watches film to try to get better(I was so excited to hear an expert use that reference after I had for a while!). He plays to not disappoint himself and his family. He fears failure above all else. You could confuse him with Ray Lewis in a huddle. I'm sure Gholston is a great leader too, but he was also shut out by a lot of sub par teams, and I haven't heard an explanation for that yet.

[HUbison]

As for the Long - Wistrom comparison: Now that you mention it, they ARE both white. I hadn't noticed. But from a football standpoint, they're very comparable in that they are not explosive edge rushers. They are effort guys that get to the QB with motor. In my opinion, that makes them complimentary players. Todd McShay also feels that is the hole in Long's game (consistent edge rushing), and getting to the QB is our #1 defensive need. Wistrom was the beneficiary of having other teams gameplan for Little. I think Long is in for a similar type career, which means we're still searching for the heir to Little. Again, not saying that a Wistrom-type player is all bad, I just think we can do better with the #2 overall pick (in the person of VG).

I could not disagree more, todd. Long has shown a versatility that Wistrom has never shown. Wistrom was great, I'm a big fan. But he was purely a 4-3 End, much more like a Justin Smith than a Chris Long. Wistrom never had the mobility to play off the line; which Long has done.

And hats off to Teke for displaying the very little difference between Gholston and Long physically.

[todd1]

Teke,

Great analysis. But did you happen to see Mayock break down film on Gholston? His first step is outstanding. Long may have had the better 20 yard split, but I know what I've seen on the film that they show of each player. No Way does Long get off the snap as quickly as Gholston. Again, if we go C. Long, I still think we're looking for an impact pass rusher in next year's draft.

Bison,

I guess we agree to disagree. I would not jump off a cliff if we draft Long, but I just think Gholston will be the better pro. Everyone likes to point to Gholston's lack of production in games other than Michigan & Wisconsin, but do you know how many sacks Long had prior to his senior year? A whopping 7 in 30 games played. Why does nobody ever mention his lack of production his first 3 years of college play? In comparison, Gholston had more sacks (22.5 in 28 collegiate games) in less time (Long career - 21 sacks in 43 games). A run-stuffing DE is not worth the #2 pick, IMO. And I don't think Long projects all that well to an OLB in a 3-4, either. Not as well as Gholston. I think Long will be a solid player, good competitor, great locker room guy. Gholston will be an IMPACT player and pass rusher that a defense can be built around.

[HUbison]

Why does nobody ever mention his lack of production his first 3 years of college play?

The exact same reason nobody mentions All-Pro Richard Seymour's lack of production........he was a 3-4 DE. It wasn't until Long's senior year that he saw time as a 4-3 DE.

[rams_fan81]

Teke I don't think that there is anyway that Chris Long is stronger than Vernon Gholston and Long probably knows it which is why he hasn't lifted.

[Fortuninerhater]

To me the bottom line difference between Long and Gholston is Chris is viewed as more solid and Vernon more dynamic. So basically it's whatever your preference is. For me, I like dynamic more than solid.

[HUbison]

To me the bottom line difference between Long and Gholston is Chris is viewed as more solid and Vernon more dynamic. So basically it's whatever your preference is. For me, I like dynamic more than solid.

Now THAT is an interesting viewpoint; and a common one I would guess. I agree with the general perspective that solid describes Long where dynamic describes Gholston. But are those qualititative assignments indicative of performance or not? That's the true question. Oddly enough, their sack numbers are identical.

So which one leads to a better professional......solid or dynamic?

[mde8352gorams]

1. Vernon Gholston (DE - Ohio St.) - can not pass on this ridiculous athlete. I've seen him compared to Merriman and Adalius Thomas. I'll take it. Also fills HUGE need.
2. Reggie Smith (SS/CB - Oklahoma) - excellent versatility. Can help out at CB if Fakhir decides to burn a few. Also can eventually replace Chavous at SS.
3. Will Franklin (WR - Mizzou) - speed merchant on the outside can fill the need for a deep threat. Admittedly a bit of a homer pick on my part, but he will go in this range.
4. Jeremy Zuttah (OL - Rutgers) - again, Versatility! Can play all the OL spots. I've heard he may be an excellent Center prospect as well.
5. Kevin O'Connell (QB San Diego St.) - intriguing developmental QB prospect. We've had some luck sith SDSU products, too.
6. Gary Guyton (OLB - Georgia Tech) - LB depth with solid measurables.
7. Tommy Blake (DE - TCU) - Excellent talent with serious off-field issues. But at round 7, why not?

I realize my draft takes a huge leap of faith with our o-line - hoping Pace can stay healthy, Barron finally gets it, etc. But we have so many holes, there is no way we can address them all in one draft.

Alternatives -

I was torn on Smith and James Hardy (WR - Indiana) at the top of the second round. I really like Hardy, he ran excellent times at the Combine at 6'6" and seems to fit Linehan's mold of receivers. I see him as a Plax Burress type. Not sure if Saunders would like the big WR, though.

If we were to go with Hardy in Round 2, it would alter the following picks. Maybe take Carl Nicks (OT - Neb) at the top of round 3 and hope Zbikowski (S- ND) falls to top of round 4.

Thoughts??

I like your picks of Gholston and especially William Franklin at WR. Franklin has caught my attention because I see him as a round 3-4 type pick where I feel we'll be able to address the WR position. He is also one of the few excellent route runners in this draft. One web site was downgrading all the WR hype in this draft cause the guys are not as polished as they should be at the position. A lot of them are not good route runners or they won't go over the middle. I have also been reading that James Hardy has some off-field issues that may make him less desireable, although he's an incredible talent.

We may need to address the OL line sooner than round 4 and I don't think Nicks will last past round 2.

Gholston is starting to get the #1 DE rating above Chris Long, so this talk about "too high to pick at #2" is baloney!

Go Rams!:r