26 on the wonderlic 27 starts 60% completion. That's the theory

 

That's it! Thanks man! -- If you are indeed a man, otherwise thanks person!

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Fansided has us picking Johnny at #3. Wow.

---

Titansequaltrash aka my mini me. Follows me around like a cute puppy dog.

Does anyone know, is there a size limitation to playing the LEO?


As in, is Clowney actually too big for the position?


Obviously he is explosive enough but the LEO always seems to be a good deal smaller... 6'2" 250-ish.

 

The LEO was created in Seattle because they lacked the true 4-3 DE. If Clowney is there, and he's as good as advertised and there are no QBs close to his value...you take Clowney and say goodbye to LEO.

---

The LEO was created in Seattle because they lacked the true 4-3 DE. If Clowney is there, and he's as good as advertised and there are no QBs close to his value...you take Clowney and say goodbye to LEO.

 

Bingo. Fit the scheme to the players, not the other way around. If Clowney is a special as we are lead to believe, then you design the whole Defense around him.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

That's it! Thanks man! -- If you are indeed a man, otherwise thanks person!

Haha I am a man don't worry but yeah I really like the theory I made a topic on it a few months ago, I plan on making one for the top 10 projected quarterbacks when we know who's declaring and the proper season is over etc

---

The LEO was created in Seattle because they lacked the true 4-3 DE. If Clowney is there, and he's as good as advertised and there are no QBs close to his value...you take Clowney and say goodbye to LEO.

but then we won't be able to talk about LEO anymore

---

Does anyone know, is there a size limitation to playing the LEO?


As in, is Clowney actually too big for the position?


Obviously he is explosive enough but the LEO always seems to be a good deal smaller... 6'2" 250-ish.

The way I understand it, the LEO position is a OLB/DE hybrid. He needs to be big enough to line up with his hand on the ground, as well as being long and quick enough to rush standing up. They also need to be able to drop into coverage if asked. They may line up on the right side with their hand in the dirt one play. The next play he may be standing up on the left side, but could drop into coverage. 3rd down they may be back on the right side, rushing the passer this time in a standing position. Just 3 quick examples obviously, but the point is to move them all around and create mismatches.

 

Barr is the ideal LEO position player (If Barr is gone at our pick, I would take Khalil Mack in a heartbeat as well). He's a 3 down player who can do everything. He's stout against the run, good at rushing the passer and has the athletic ability to drop into coverage. He played the Buck LB position last year at UCLA. Another name for it is the Elephant position. Obviously different schemes may call those different things, but they're very similar to what I believe Gus and them are looking for at the "LEO" position.

 

Clowney is the ideal 4-3 DE. He can play any position on the DL. Clowney is best at putting his hand in the dirt and going forward. He shouldn't be asked to drop into coverage, because that's not who he is. He needs to have his hand in the dirt every play and needs to go forward.

---

Khalil Mack is going to gain a lot of steam heading into the draft. He could be our guy.

---

Shock the world

Why does everyone love Barr so much? This is a serious question. Of his games that I have watched on youtube(Stanford, Nevada, and Nebraska), he has looked like hot garbage. Maybe they only posted his worst games? From what I have seen, I would take Khalil Mack 100 out of 100 times over Barr.

---

Why does everyone love Barr so much? This is a serious question. Of his games that I have watched on youtube(Stanford, Nevada, and Nebraska), he has looked like hot garbage. Maybe they only posted his worst games? From what I have seen, I would take Khalil Mack 100 out of 100 times over Barr.

First of all, there's 16 game cutups of Barr on draftbreakdown, watch them all. You've watched 3 games that I assume are probably from this season. They have used him differently this season, then they did last season because teams are doubling him this season. If you watch his cutups, he may not make the play every down, but he's usually always around the ball. Whether he is making the play, or impacting the play in some way. The guy sets the edge with the best of them, can rush the passer and he can drop into coverage. He covers the TEs and RBs quite a bit for UCLA during his last 2 years.

 

The guy is already so good at his position, but still so raw that his ceiling is unknown. If you can get him with a group of good coaches, who knows how great he could become. He has only played LB for 2 seasons and has put up the kind of numbers he has. He went to UCLA as a RB and wanted to play RB. Although how many RBs do you see at 6'4 and 250? After sitting on the bench the coaches finally convinced him that he would be more useful as a Defensive player and would get way more playing time. Well, the rest is history as they say.

 

Another reason why people are high on him, the guy is 6'4, 250 and he runs a sub 4.5 40. Iirc he ran a 4.46 at the UCLA spring training day at that size. Guys don't come around like that, that often.

---

Why does everyone love Barr so much? This is a serious question. Of his games that I have watched on youtube(Stanford, Nevada, and Nebraska), he has looked like hot garbage. Maybe they only posted his worst games? From what I have seen, I would take Khalil Mack 100 out of 100 times over Barr.

What the guy below said is true...but you also might be right too. Barr is a great prospect but Mack might be even better.

---

What the guy below said is true...but you also might be right too. Barr is a great prospect but Mack might be even better.

Yea don't get me wrong. As much as I like Barr, I like Mack almost just as much. I would take either with a big ol smile on my face.

---

I get where you're coming from, but you're romanticizing the possible impact a monster pass rusher will have. JJ Watt last year in his record breaking all time greatest all around season in defensive line history only had a positive play on 19% (pressures, sacks, deflections, run stops, etc) of his snaps (with a 3.5% sack rate)...and that is an earth shattering amount of productivity. It's extremely unlikely that Clowney or Barr will ever have a season like Watt's. 

 

So, for all of this drooling you and others will be doing you need to understand that even in our wildest dreams Clowney or Barr will be more or less useless for 80-90% of the snaps...or more even. 

 

That's why we gotta take Teddy, Carr, or Bortles if we get the chance. The NFL is always about the QB. 

 

Great point, and the Mettenberger talk has slowed down as well. I like his potential. He's had a roller coaster season, but I would take him over Bortles. That's just me.

---

LOVE THEM JAGUARS!

why do people on here want aj mccarron? He screams alex smith to me and to that I say no thank you.

---

Great point, and the Mettenberger talk has slowed down as well. I like his potential. He's had a roller coaster season, but I would take him over Bortles. That's just me.

I would love to go Clowney/Mack/Barr in the first and then take Mettenberger in the second.

---

I would love to go Clowney/Mack/Barr in the first and then take Mettenberger in the second.

I would think mettenberger would be available way pastlot 2nd now after his injury.

---

Yeah pass on mettenburger too. Manziel or bust.

---

Titansequaltrash aka my mini me. Follows me around like a cute puppy dog.

Would say Barr.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>