Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

In seemingly everybody's predraft speculation (at least everybody on this board) the prevailing thought is that the Rams will definitely take an OT at 2 with the loss of Jake Long.

 

It seems to be a sensible take.

 

Whether it's Jake Matthews, or Auburn's Robinson climbing up the boards, the Rams taking a T at 2 seems to be the perfect balance of need meeting value.

 

But this article from the St. Louis Post dispatch seems to question that comfortable assumption with a look at how Jeff Fisher built his teams.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/b...50443.html

 

(BTW...Fisher STILL sucks)

 

If Fisher's seemingly having a philosophy of not drafting OLS high wins out here, in what direction would the Rams go, and how would that impact the Jaguars at 3?

 

For the purposes of this discussion, we will not go into Snead's publicly stated desire to trade down from two and focus solely on assuming the Rams stay at two.

 

While with the tacks, Fisher took at least two QBs in the first round-McNair and Vince Young.  Bradford hasn't exactly lit the league on fire-even though much of that is for reasons beyond his control.  Bradford also hasn't been healthy.  With two first round picks in the top 13, the Rams could go QB and still be able to draft a LT at 13.  If the Rams were to take the Jaguars' guy at QB, it could potentially mess up the entire draft, although if it left the Jaguars with with Clowney, that wouldn't be a bad consolation prize.  If Clowney and their QB of choice is gone in the first two picks,  I think Jacksonville trades down to a T hungry team (Oakland might be the first landing spot, with Tampa and Buffalo also in the mix).

 

Fisher's Tennessee teams also took DL three times during his tenure (DE Kenny Holmes, DE Jevon Kearse, and DT Al Haynesworth).  While Clowney certainly meets value at 2, and some have mocked guys like Barr and Mack into the top 5, DE doesn't meet a need there.  The Rams are already stacked at DE with Long and Quinn at DE.  Furthermore, running Clowney, Barr or Mack as stand up OLBs don't appear to be scheme fits in their defense.  Fisher likes the athletic and all around LBs who can blitz and drop effectively into coverage (think Eddie Robinson and Ogletree for current ideals at LB).  Clowney, Barr and Mack all are relative unknown quantities regarding pass drops, and putting them in coverage would seem to waste their considerable pass rushing skills.    As it stands now, no DT appears to carry a top 5 grade, but even if one did, the Rams appear set at DT, having just drafted Michael Brockers.  On the other hand, the teams above them in the division-most notably Seattle and San Francisco-believe in pounding the ball.  You could argue Seatlle needs more beef up front to counter those attacks.  But if Fisher still wanted a DT early, they should still be able to get one at 13 to pair with Brockers. 

 

Theoretically, though unlikely, they COULD go Watkins at 2.  Watkins would enable Austin to move inside to the slot position and give opposing secondaries matchup nightmares.  But Fisher has always been a ball control guy, not much of an air it out philosophy, and such a move would run counter to that ball control, grind it out philosophy.  Such a development would seemingly represent a best case scenario for Jaguars fans who would want either a QB or Clowney.   

 

The only other areas that seem to be a need for the Rams (and arguably isn't much of a need considering Zac Stacy's respectable rookie performance) are RB and CB-where the Rams may want to get younger at Finnegan's spot.  Again, no player at either position seems to warrant the #2 overall spot.

 

Of course, all of this could very easily be moot.  Snead could win out on any draft day decisions and take the T at 2.  Of course, there is also the trade down possibility. 

 

The question I have is what offers more positive possibilities/negative repercussions for the Jaguars...the Rams staying at 2 with Fisher's draft philosophy...the Rams staying at 2 with Snead's philosophy (whatever that might be), or the Rams trading down?

I believe them when they say they are committed to Bradford, so I don't see them taking a QB at #2.

 

I think Manziel is the only player that someone will make a big trade for, so if he is on the board they will trade back and have an awesome draft selection to work with to get better in multiple fronts. If he is gone, I think they will give Fisher a player to build his defense around in Clowney.

Quote:I believe them when they say they are committed to Bradford, so I don't see them taking a QB at #2.

 

I think Manziel is the only player that someone will make a big trade for, so if he is on the board they will trade back and have an awesome draft selection to work with to get better in multiple fronts. If he is gone, I think they will give Fisher a player to build his defense around in Clowney.

 

 

The only problem I have with the idea of Clowney going #2 to the Rams-besides the fact I'd want him here-is where does he fit with the Rams?

 

As previously stated, the Rams are loaded at DE, and he doesn't really fit in as a LB in Fisher's schemes.

 

Of course, schemes can evolve and perhaps they can fit him in as a stand up DE whose sole purpose is to blitz/rush the passer, but I don't see it.

I honestly think the Rams will try and trade out of that pick. Bradford is legit, he just hasn't been healthy long enough to show it. I don't think they will draft a QB. If they don't trade out, I could see a selection like Watkins if they don't go Matthews. I think the philosophy of not drafting Olinemen high might be legitimate. Even though the most dominant tackles usually come way up high, you can still get decent out of lower picks, and there certainly are players who can make much more of a difference that high in the draft.

If I was the Rams, I would take a QB at #2. I just get the sense that they want to give Bradford one more shot and will spend their early picks on surrounding him with better talent. I think they will try to trade down, even if it's just to 3 or 4 with a team wanting a QB. And that they end up with one of the tackles. Watkins would be a nice pick also, but I don't know if I can see them spending another premium pick on a receiver.

Quote:The only problem I have with the idea of Clowney going #2 to the Rams-besides the fact I'd want him here-is where does he fit with the Rams?

 

As previously stated, the Rams are loaded at DE, and he doesn't really fit in as a LB in Fisher's schemes.

 

Of course, schemes can evolve and perhaps they can fit him in as a stand up DE whose sole purpose is to blitz/rush the passer, but I don't see it.

 

I dont think that matters as much anymore with the way teams rotate Dlineman so frequently.  Plus on passing downs no reason not to have 3 or even 4 DE on the field at the same time.  We saw the Giants do it successfully.  If I were their GM, I think Clowney would be a great pick for them. 

 

But Im hoping they pass as well.  Clowney is the guy I want for the Jags. 

Quote:I believe them when they say they are committed to Bradford, so I don't see them taking a QB at #2.

 

I think Manziel is the only player that someone will make a big trade for, so if he is on the board they will trade back and have an awesome draft selection to work with to get better in multiple fronts. If he is gone, I think they will give Fisher a player to build his defense around in Clowney.

Whoever would trade up for Manziel is a bonafide fool and have shark brains running their organization...

Quote:I honestly think the Rams will try and trade out of that pick. Bradford is legit, he just hasn't been healthy long enough to show it. I don't think they will draft a QB. If they don't trade out, I could see a selection like Watkins if they don't go Matthews. I think the philosophy of not drafting Olinemen high might be legitimate. Even though the most dominant tackles usually come way up high, you can still get decent out of lower picks, and there certainly are players who can make much more of a difference that high in the draft.

 

Despite the article, i still think the Rams will either take a LT there at 2 or trade out as you indicate there.  As a general rule, I can support taking a LT high, but aside from that, I think OL can be found later.

 

There are reasons for the Rams to stick with Bradford and it would not be a shock at all to see them go that route.  I think Watkins at 2 is a longshot for the Rams, but I think if they take him, they will be difficult to defend.

So much for this discussion going without insults.

 

I just don't see Fisher taking a QB in this draft. He's as old school as they come, and the only one that may meet that mold is Bortles, and I don't get the feeling that he is really ranked as high as some media outlets would have us believe. What I can see is Fisher taking Clowney just to have as much Defensive talent as he can get his hands on and wreaking havoc with every offense he comes across. Now whether or not that jives with the GM's take, I don't know but it is something I can see Fisher doing.

 

I think we'd be in a worse situation if St. Louis took Clowney, but that's just me.

Quote:If I was the Rams, I would take a QB at #2. I just get the sense that they want to give Bradford one more shot and will spend their early picks on surrounding him with better talent. I think they will try to trade down, even if it's just to 3 or 4 with a team wanting a QB. And that they end up with one of the tackles. Watkins would be a nice pick also, but I don't know if I can see them spending another premium pick on a receiver.

 

I agree with everything here. 

 

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the Bradford issue to make the Rams taking a QB at 2 a possibility or to build a better team around Bradford.

 

I think even if they trade down, T would be a viable option for them, even as low as 13, and Watkins would be a very good pick for them.

Quote:I dont think that matters as much anymore with the way teams rotate Dlineman so frequently.  Plus on passing downs no reason not to have 3 or even 4 DE on the field at the same time.  We saw the Giants do it successfully.  If I were their GM, I think Clowney would be a great pick for them. 

 

But Im hoping they pass as well.  Clowney is the guy I want for the Jags. 

 

I understand the rationale here, but by definition, you will make a productive, highly drafted player a situational guy if you rotate them.  They all would likely still be effective, but making them part time...especially a guy taken 2nd overall?  I dunno. 

Quote:So much for this discussion going without insults.

 

I just don't see Fisher taking a QB in this draft. He's as old school as they come, and the only one that may meet that mold is Bortles, and I don't get the feeling that he is really ranked as high as some media outlets would have us believe. What I can see is Fisher taking Clowney just to have as much Defensive talent as he can get his hands on and wreaking havoc with every offense he comes across. Now whether or not that jives with the GM's take, I don't know but it is something I can see Fisher doing.

 

I think we'd be in a worse situation if St. Louis took Clowney, but that's just me.

 

I COULD see them going QB here, but I admit it isn't likely. 

 

If I had to rank the possibilities by likelihood...

 

1.  Trade down

2.  LT-Robinson or Matthews 

3.  Clowney

4.  QB

5.  Watkins

 

So tell me why we'd be in a worse situation if St. Louis took Clowney.

 

To me, it would suck if we didn't end up with Clowney or a stud QB, but at least Clowney wouldn't be in Houston if St. Louis took him.

95% chance they trade down.

Quote:I COULD see them going QB here, but I admit it isn't likely. 

 

If I had to rank the possibilities by likelihood...

 

1.  Trade down

2.  LT-Robinson or Matthews 

3.  Clowney

4.  QB

5.  Watkins

 

So tell me why we'd be in a worse situation if St. Louis took Clowney.

 

To me, it would suck if we didn't end up with Clowney or a stud QB, but at least Clowney wouldn't be in Houston if St. Louis took him.

 

I state that it would be bad for us because of the talent that I perceive in Clowney. If he isn't available for Jacksonville to draft, that just means that the talent pool is a lot more diluted is all. I agree with you that St. Louis wants to trade down, and I can see Fisher going with Matthews simply due to family ties. Robinson however makes no sense to me. While he is a mauler, can he really play LT in the NFL? That's what St. Louis needs, at least in my opinion it is.

 

Watkins is an intriguing option for them. He would definitely be a weapon, but would he be underutilized there?

Quote:I state that it would be bad for us because of the talent that I perceive in Clowney. If he isn't available for Jacksonville to draft, that just means that the talent pool is a lot more diluted is all. I agree with you that St. Louis wants to trade down, and I can see Fisher going with Matthews simply due to family ties. Robinson however makes no sense to me. While he is a mauler, can he really play LT in the NFL? That's what St. Louis needs, at least in my opinion it is.

 

Watkins is an intriguing option for them. He would definitely be a weapon, but would he be underutilized there?

 

I agree with the Clowney analysis.  In a best case scenario for me, the Jaguars can choose between Clowney and Bridgewater.

 

As far as robinson is concerned, I think he can play LT.

 

To me, I think he has feet better than or at least equal to Marcus McNeill, who I really liked coming out of Auburn.  McNeill had a pretty good career at LT.

 

While he would have some really tough assignments in that division in terms of pass blocking, I think he has the athletic ability to handle them.

i think the first thing they will try to do is trade down as anything higher than 6 and they will still probably take the best tackle on the board

 

if not i think mack- he is a little bit of a reach at 2 but clowney just won't fit in the scheme considering they have two solid defensive starters at end

 

the rams waived dunbar and then resigned him after the suspension suggesting they aren't too fussed about him

if there was one thing the rams didn't get from the lb core last year it was sacks well mack could change that

laurinitus ogletree and mack

along with quinn and long

to me thats a tasty front 7 that could get after those young mobile qbs like wilson and kaep

Quote:Despite the article, i still think the Rams will either take a LT there at 2 or trade out as you indicate there.  As a general rule, I can support taking a LT high, but aside from that, I think OL can be found later.

 

There are reasons for the Rams to stick with Bradford and it would not be a shock at all to see them go that route.  I think Watkins at 2 is a longshot for the Rams, but I think if they take him, they will be difficult to defend.

I'm not sure the LT class this year has someone worth the #2 pick. I say Clowney because right now QB and DE seem like the only two positions worth one of the top picks and you can assimilate a DE into what you are already doing much easier than a QB. You take a QB at #2 you are basically starting your offense over again from scratch.

 

I think Clowney has enough potential risk to preclude people from trading up for him, but with two first rd picks, the rams may be more willing to take on that risk.

Quote:i think the first thing they will try to do is trade down as anything higher than 6 and they will still probably take the best tackle on the board

 

if not i think mack- he is a little bit of a reach at 2 but clowney just won't fit in the scheme considering they have two solid defensive starters at end

 

the rams waived dunbar and then resigned him after the suspension suggesting they aren't too fussed about him

if there was one thing the rams didn't get from the lb core last year it was sacks well mack could change that

laurinitus ogletree and mack

along with quinn and long

to me thats a tasty front 7 that could get after those young mobile qbs like wilson and kaep

 

This analysis makes a lot of sense, but with one caveat:  I'd be more comfortable with it knowing how Mack is in coverage. 

 

Fisher comes from the Buddy Ryan style of defense from their days with the Bears.

 

If you look at the LBs on Ryan's Bears and Eagles' defenses, and Fisher's tacks' defenses and even now with the Rams, you'd see the Ryan era Bears with guys like Wilber Marshall and Otis Wilson, guys like Seth Joyner for the Eagles, and Keith Bulluck and Eddie Robinson with the Oilers/tacks who were great all around athletes who were good on the blitz and good in coverage.  Ogletree fits that mold perfectly for the Rams now.

 

Were I a defensive coach, I'd be very comfortable with Mack going after the passer.  I'm not so sure about him in coverage.

Quote:I agree with the Clowney analysis.  In a best case scenario for me, the Jaguars can choose between Clowney and Bridgewater.

 

As far as robinson is concerned, I think he can play LT.

 

To me, I think he has feet better than or at least equal to Marcus McNeill, who I really liked coming out of Auburn.  McNeill had a pretty good career at LT.

 

While he would have some really tough assignments in that division in terms of pass blocking, I think he has the athletic ability to handle them.

 

Do you see them taking Robinson at #2 though? I don't think Fisher passes on Matthews for him, I just don't. Now if he trades back far enough and Robinson is there and Matthews is gone then I can see it.

Quote:Do you see them taking Robinson at #2 though? I don't think Fisher passes on Matthews for him, I just don't. Now if he trades back far enough and Robinson is there and Matthews is gone then I can see it.

 

A lot can happen between now and May 8.

 

Players rise and fall, and I've been reading things about Robinson rising up.  I remember where everyone felt Ricky Williams would be the first Rb taken off the board for most of the 1999 offseason, but then Edgerrin James wound up being taken ahead of him.  I could see  Robinson rise up draft boards if he lights it up athletically at the combine, because they will see a guy with good size, a nasty run blocking disposition with the feet to play LT.  I could also see your scenario play out where Fisher favors Matthews due to the family connection-and oh yeah...him being a damn good tackle in his own right, who could reasonably replicate Bruce Matthews' career in terms of versatility and effectiveness.