PDA

View Full Version : Khalil Mack, OLB/DE, Buffalo


kiwitexansfan
01-30-2014, 09:04 PM
Since so many other players have threads dedicated to them, I wanted to create one for Mack. If we do trade down I really hope that this is a guy we take a long hard look at.

One of the things that OB and Crennel have talked about is being multiple and flexible, Mack is all that in spades. He is a great athlete, relentless and a gifted rusher.

We need someone other than Watt in the front 7 for offenses to worry about and I think he has that same motor that Watt has.

Thoughts?

LINK (http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2013/11/27/2014-nfl-draft-scouting-report-buffalo-olbde-khalil-mack/)to scouting report

bhsman
01-30-2014, 09:47 PM
I'd love to get Mack if we trade down; great strength and hand usage, looks natural in coverage, good instincts, etc. He wasn't also just a big fish in a small pond, as he played up to his competition against Ohio State where he had a pick six and multiple sacks against a very athletic dual-threat QB in Braxton Miller.

bah007
01-30-2014, 10:59 PM
The more I watch him the higher he climbs on my board. #2 behind Clowney now. Great athlete, playmaking ability, and has scheme versatility.

He'll be a stud. For our defense, I might even take him before Clowney. He can play SAM in a 43, OLB in a 34, and can spin down to DE in a nickel.

Wolf6151
01-31-2014, 03:43 AM
If we were to trade down and depending on how far down, I'd love to have Mack as a Texan.

TexansFTW
01-31-2014, 09:34 AM
This guy has been the biggest gainer across many draft "experts" boards.

My question, why wasn't he rated this high after the season?

HOU-TEX
01-31-2014, 09:39 AM
This guy has been the biggest gainer across many draft "experts" boards.

My question, why wasn't he rated this high after the season?

Buffalo

bhsman
01-31-2014, 01:35 PM
Buffalo

Pretty much. He could be a big riser a lá Eric Fisher last year.

Blake
01-31-2014, 02:08 PM
Hate to say I dont know squat about this kid. Can we draft him and call him Big Mac?

aussie_texan
01-31-2014, 06:20 PM
this guy as soared up my figurative board. certainly is rated higher the barr who for me has fallen to the bottom of the top 10.

beerlover
02-01-2014, 10:37 AM
Mack has been well known in draft circles for awhile, this strikes me more as the flavor of the week. He could have solidified his stock by competing in the Senior Bowl against better talent, but why risk that when media pushes him higher for doing nothing? Even mocked him to Texans mid season, when there still was hope, at least was trying to stay optimistic, looks pretty weakl now I'll admit but **** happens, now some people think he is a top 5 pick, possibly #1? :polevault: C'mon guys, y'all know Texans will win enough games with weak schedule going forward to finish outside top 10 picks looking in (13th). Still can enhance roster deficiency, linebacker corps while Case Keenum proves he has the "right stuff".

http://media.tcpalm.com/media/img/photos/2011/09/30/420110930164501001_t607.JPG
1st - Kahali Mack, Buffalo, OLB/ILB, 6026 248

Physical prototype with a combination of excellent size and overall athleticism for the position. Can bend the edge or slip though seams to make plays, plus in coverages, could fill inside linebacker role next to Brian Cushing. Natural instincts, NFL body, exceptional change of direction, quick feet & unstoppable motor really beefing up nicked up Texan LB corps. I see him becoming a special player in the league, fitting nicely into Texans needs & locker room.

Playoffs
03-15-2014, 11:06 AM
More goodness from Stephen White...

The Notebook: Khalil Mack is smooth, polished and ready to wreak havoc (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/2/25/5440356/khalil-mack-2014-nfl-draft-pass-rushers-scouting-report)

His ceiling might not be as high as Jadeveon Clowney's, but Buffalo linebacker Khalil Mack is one of the most polished pass rushers in the 2014 NFL Draft. Retired NFL defensive end Stephen White put Mack under the microscope for his latest Notebook.
For my second draft breakdown I decided to go with Khalil Mack, outside linebacker for the University at Buffalo. Buffalo runs a 3-4 so Mack is an edge pass rusher, but he also drops into coverage a fair bit.

I broke down Mack's play against Ohio State, Baylor, Stony Brook, UMass, Ohio University and San Diego State. Those represent the first, second and third games of the year, a couple of games in the middle of the season, and the bowl game at the end of the season, in order...

TheMatrix31
03-15-2014, 09:42 PM
If his motor is anywhere near Watt's and Cushing's, then we need look into getting him.

I don't want any more lazy ****s. And I don't want to waste a high pick on a lazy ****.

Playoffs
03-19-2014, 04:39 PM
Agree or not, these are the types of opinions you pretty much ignore. Hoge is the equivalent of Craig James... headline seeker.

NFL on ESPN ‏@ESPNNFL
"Khalil Mack is the best football player in this draft, by a MILE!" - Merril Hoge on NFL LIVE

Hoge said Mack was better than Clowney "by a hundred miles."

drs23
03-19-2014, 05:11 PM
Agree or not, these are the types of opinions you pretty much ignore. Hoge is the equivalent of Craig James... headline seeker.

NFL on ESPN ‏@ESPNNFL


Hoge said Mack was better than Clowney "by a hundred miles."

So are over or under? :kitten:

NastyNate
03-19-2014, 06:08 PM
I mocked him at 1-1. He's the most pro-ready defensive prospect and he doesn't have the Haynesworth bust potential of Clowney. LB is our biggest need after qb, why not take him when QB is so underwhelming at 1-1 this year? Garropolo fills the need in 2nd round...

_King_
03-19-2014, 11:00 PM
I'd draft Khalil Mack and Kyle van noy.

:drool:

Texn4life
03-20-2014, 12:11 PM
Hoge has turned into one of these guys that just says ridiculous comments for the sake of it sometimes. Just said Mack is the best defensive player he's EVER seen going into the draft....... Mack is a good player, but really Merril? Ever? C'mon now I get it you like him, but geez he makes it hard to take him serious when he says stuff like this.

IDEXAN
03-22-2014, 02:32 PM
I do like this guys versatility and sounds like he could fit nicely into Crennel's defense, or anybodys for that matter since he would seem to be able to play OLB in the 4-3 or 3-4. It would also enable us to move Reed inside with Cushing and play Khalil on the outside along with Mercilus.

Lucky
03-22-2014, 04:03 PM
Mack could be everything these internet scouts say he is. But, he won't make as big an impact as a QB, a true pass rusher like Clowney, or even a franchise LT. Really good LBs without a true impact skill are not selected #1 overall. To me, it's silly to suggest taking a guy like Mack at 1-1. And that's not even taking into consideration his level of competition.

Had the Texans decided to work a deal with New England for Mallett, trading out of 1-1 would have made a lot of sense. At the 5th, 6th, or 7th spot, Mack may have made a lot of sense. But, the Texans still need a QB. And to pass over a QB for a LB, even a very good LB, doesn't add up.

bah007
03-22-2014, 05:05 PM
Mack could be everything these internet scouts say he is. But, he won't make as big an impact as a QB, a true pass rusher like Clowney, or even a franchise LT.

I won't argue your point about QB, but there is an argument to be made that there isn't a franchise QB at #1. I don't necessarily agree with that, but our front office may see it that way.

We already have a franchise LT.

Many don't believe that Clowney is a great fit for Crennel's style of defense, and most agree that Mack is. Plus, Clowney has injury concerns and will be having surgery after the draft. Clowney may be the best 43 DE in this draft but he isn't regarded as the best 34 OLB, which is the position he would be playing.

Really good LBs without a true impact skill are not selected #1 overall. To me, it's silly to suggest taking a guy like Mack at 1-1. And that's not even taking into consideration his level of competition.

Mack has a lot of impact skills. He's widely regarded as one of the elite talents in this draft. You can knock him for his level of competition but there was no drop off in his level of play against the good teams that he played.

Had the Texans decided to work a deal with New England for Mallett, trading out of 1-1 would have made a lot of sense. At the 5th, 6th, or 7th spot, Mack may have made a lot of sense. But, the Texans still need a QB. And to pass over a QB for a LB, even a very good LB, doesn't add up.

I'm glad we didn't make a move for Mallett. I think it would have been a big time mistake.

I agree that this team needs a QB. But you don't force one at #1 just because you need one. How many times have we seen this play out and the guy busts? If there is a QB that you like at #1, you take him #1. If there isn't then you move on.

And it seems silly to me that Mack makes a lot of sense at #5, but isn't an option at #1. The days of crazy rookie salaries are over, so you don't have to worry about paying a LB insane money because you took him #1. Take the player that will add the biggest positive impact to your team, regardless of what position he plays.

Number19
03-22-2014, 05:25 PM
I won't argue your point about QB...Mack has a lot of impact skills. He's widely regarded as one of the elite talents in this draft. You can knock him for his level of competition but there was no drop off in his level of play against the good teams that he played...Take the player that will add the biggest positive impact to your team, regardless of what position he plays.Excellent points. You make my argument for me - and much better.

IDEXAN
03-22-2014, 10:52 PM
Mack could be everything these internet scouts say he is. But, he won't make as big an impact as a QB, a true pass rusher like Clowney, or even a franchise LT. Really good LBs without a true impact skill are not selected #1 overall. To me, it's silly to suggest taking a guy like Mack at 1-1. And that's not even taking into consideration his level of competition.

Had the Texans decided to work a deal with New England for Mallett, trading out of 1-1 would have made a lot of sense. At the 5th, 6th, or 7th spot, Mack may have made a lot of sense. But, the Texans still need a QB. And to pass over a QB for a LB, even a very good LB, doesn't add up.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm still full bore for Clowney as our first round pick if we keep the 1.1, especially since there's probably no real daylight between the top half dozen or so QBs in this Draft and we already have our "franchise LT". I'm just trying to anticipate the possibility of a trade, unlikely as it may be, looking at prospects when and if we've got to choose after the best of the best are off of the Board.

IDEXAN
03-22-2014, 11:00 PM
Many don't believe that Clowney is a great fit for Crennel's style of defense



Do you mean to suggest that in this very, very talented Draft, some would say the singular best Draft in decades, that the Texans with the top overall pick should remove from their Board the most talented player in the entire Draft because he's not compatible with their defense ? Are you freaking serious ?

Lucky
03-23-2014, 09:40 AM
Take the player that will add the biggest positive impact to your team, regardless of what position he plays.
That's my point. Mack wouldn't make the biggest impact. Let's look at facts. He's from a small conference where played very well, but I wouldn't say dominated. Mack had 28.5 sacks in 4 years, versus Clowney's 24 sacks in 3 years. Mack had a huge game against Ohio State, no question. But against Baylor and in the bowl game with San Diego State, he was a non-factor. Now if Baylor and San Diego State can scheme to where Mack can't make an impact, how difficult will it be for an NFL team?

Mack's a bigger projection than Clowney* or any of the top QBs. That doesn't mean he can't become a very good player. But does he come into this draft with the rating or production of the last LB taken high (Von Miller #2)? No. Mack is not that kind of prospect. If the Texans trade down and pickup additional picks, you can make a case that Mack + say a RT taken with a high 2nd is worth more than Clowney. But, there's no way that can be said straight up. From the article from SBNation (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/2/25/5440356/khalil-mack-2014-nfl-draft-pass-rushers-scouting-report) linked above:

It comes down to a choice between a guy who will probably start right away and be productive and guy with a mountain of unrealized potential. At his best, Mack may make a Pro Bowl or two, but will likely never be an All-Pro guy or contend for Defensive Player of the Year during his career or a guy who has the potential to be in the conversation for DPOY every year of his career after he has fully developed in the NFL (like Jadeveon Clowney). I understand the impulse to go with the safe pick in Mack, but for me, no matter who I pick No. 1 overall, I want him to be a guy with a high ceiling who help can turn around my franchise, because there is usually a good reason why we are picking that high in the first place.


At the end of the day, somebody is going to be very happy with Mack, and he is likely to have a very productive career no matter where he goes. I just don't see him having the kind of ceiling that you will have with a guy like Clowney.
And this is from an internet scout that dismisses Mack's level of comeptition off of one game (Ohio State) and disregards the others where Mack was made a non-factor. Which seems silly to me. I think it's fair to project Mack as a top 10 pick based upon his production at his level and his measurables. But it's a projection. Because he hasn't produced at the level of a Clowney, or a Manziel, or a Bridgewater, or even a Bortles. There's no way you take Mack straight up over those guys.

* Note: I completely reject the notion that Clowney couldn't play in Crennel's defense. The defense he learned under Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. The defense that starred Lawrence Taylor (the player Clowney has been compared to the most). Ridiculous.

bah007
03-23-2014, 12:00 PM
Do you mean to suggest that in this very, very talented Draft, some would say the singular best Draft in decades, that the Texans with the top overall pick should remove from their Board the most talented player in the entire Draft because he's not compatible with their defense ? Are you freaking serious ?

There are two schools of thought among successful coaching staffs.

1. Take the best player and change your system however you have to so that he fits it

2. Stick to your system and take the best player that fits it, even if that means passing on "more talented players" (Seattle just won a Super Bowl doing this)

If Crennel believes #1 then we take Clowney and move to a hybrid defense where he mostly has his hand in the dirt.

If Crennel believes #2 then Clowney is not the #1 player on their board.

The absolute biggest mistake you can make in the draft is taking guys who don't fit your system and trying to fit them in. Just because he is an amazing talent as a 43 DE does not mean he is the same amazing talent as a 34 OLB.

bah007
03-23-2014, 12:24 PM
That's my point. Mack wouldn't make the biggest impact. Let's look at facts. He's from a small conference where played very well, but I wouldn't say dominated. Mack had 28.5 sacks in 4 years, versus Clowney's 24 sacks in 3 years. Mack had a huge game against Ohio State, no question. But against Baylor and in the bowl game with San Diego State, he was a non-factor. Now if Baylor and San Diego State can scheme to where Mack can't make an impact, how difficult will it be for an NFL team?

Mack had more responsibilities in his defense and wasn't strictly a pass rusher like Clowney was so of course Clowney had more sacks. That's not a fair comparison. That's like talking down a SS because his SLB had more tackles than him.

He was schemed against because he was the only player on his entire defense that was capable of making a play.

Clowney was schemed against pretty successfully in his final season. Difference is that South Carolina has studs all over their defense to pick up the slack. I notice that you omitted mentioning Clowney's lack of production in his final season when he was schemed against and his impact was limited. What's the difference between the two in that regard?

Mack's a bigger projection than Clowney* or any of the top QBs. That doesn't mean he can't become a very good player. But does he come into this draft with the rating or production of the last LB taken high (Von Miller #2)? No. Mack is not that kind of prospect. If the Texans trade down and pickup additional picks, you can make a case that Mack + say a RT taken with a high 2nd is worth more than Clowney. But, there's no way that can be said straight up....

Mack may be a bigger projection in that he played a lower level of competition. But Clowney is a bigger projection in that he has far less experience doing some of the things that he would be required to do in Crennel's defense.

And the QBs are all much larger projections than either of these guys. They always are. It's the hardest position to project to the NFL level.

Clowney as a 43 DE is worth more than Mack is as a 43 SLB. That's true. But we don't run that system. I project Mack as a better fit for Crennel's defense, thus I see him as more valuable for that system. If we are planning on altering the system to make Clowney a better fit then I would reevaluate that opinion, but I can only go on what defenses Crennel has traditionally run.

And this is from an internet scout that dismisses Mack's level of comeptition off of one game (Ohio State) and disregards the others where Mack was made a non-factor. Which seems silly to me. I think it's fair to project Mack as a top 10 pick based upon his production at his level and his measurables. But it's a projection. Because he hasn't produced at the level of a Clowney, or a Manziel, or a Bridgewater, or even a Bortles. There's no way you take Mack straight up over those guys.

It's not all about college production. The NFL isn't college football. Production is only one variable of the projection to the next level. Tim Tebow was incredibly productive at the highest level of college football. Based on your argument, it would seem that you rated Tebow as a better prospect than even Clowney.

* Note: I completely reject the notion that Clowney couldn't play in Crennel's defense. The defense he learned under Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. The defense that starred Lawrence Taylor (the player Clowney has been compared to the most). Ridiculous.

If that's your stance then I understand where you're coming from. To understand where I'm coming from you would have to understand that I don't listen to who other people compare these guys to. I do my own research and watch all these guys with my own eyes. I spend an immense amount of time doing this because it is my hobby. Everything that I say is my own opinion and not based on anything that has been written or said by anyone else. Now, maybe my system is flawed because I don't have access to the same tools that these other guys do but I find that I am right more often than not. Perhaps this could be one of those times that I am wrong. I would certainly prefer to be wrong if we end up drafting Clowney.

I also never make the assertion that Clowney couldn't play in Crennel's defense, only that he is not a great fit for it and thus it does not maximize his talents.

IDEXAN
03-23-2014, 01:34 PM
There are two schools of thought among successful coaching staffs.

1. Take the best player and change your system however you have to so that he fits it

2. Stick to your system and take the best player that fits it, even if that means passing on "more talented players" (Seattle just won a Super Bowl doing this)

If Crennel believes #1 then we take Clowney and move to a hybrid defense where he mostly has his hand in the dirt.

If Crennel believes #2 then Clowney is not the #1 player on their board.

The absolute biggest mistake you can make in the draft is taking guys who don't fit your system and trying to fit them in. Just because he is an amazing talent as a 43 DE does not mean he is the same amazing talent as a 34 OLB.
Or perhaps there's a third option which is to hire Wade Phillips or a DC like him with his flexibility and adaptability to make the defense fit the personnel, that is all kinds of personnel as Wade has proved over the years where for example one defense for one team played with a sub-300 lb NT while another defense with another team featured a 350 lb plus NT. I'm fearful because I'm pretty sure O'Brien didn't hire a DC who espoused the #3 school of thought.

NCTexan
03-23-2014, 01:41 PM
Or perhaps there's a third option which is to hire Wade Phillips or a DC like him with his flexibility and adaptability to make the defense fit the personnel, that is all kinds of personnel as Wade has proved over the years where for example one defense for one team played with a sub-300 lb NT while another defense with another team featured a 350 lb plus NT. I'm fearful because I'm pretty sure O'Brien didn't hire a DC who espoused the #3 school of thought.

Thats different than his #1... How? It's what he was saying. Fit scheme to personnel.

Lucky
03-23-2014, 02:07 PM
I do my own research and watch all these guys with my own eyes. I spend an immense amount of time doing this because it is my hobby. Everything that I say is my own opinion and not based on anything that has been written or said by anyone else.
Well, what did you think about how Mack played against Baylor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTPtgf0s4ew)? I didn't see a lot of double teaming Mack. He just didn't seem to make a lot of plays. Granted, his team was completely over-matched. But was there anything in this game that jumped out and said "1st pick in the draft!"? I'm not saying the guy sucks and shouldn't be a 1st round pick. Just that there's nothing there to suggest Mack will make the type of impact a team is looking for in the 1st pick of the draft. Mack has as many or more questions to be answered as Clowney, Bridgewater, or Manziel without the potential upside they bring.

Lucky
03-23-2014, 02:22 PM
Many don't believe that Clowney is a great fit for Crennel's style of defense, and most agree that Mack is.



* Note: I completely reject the notion that Clowney couldn't play in Crennel's defense. The defense he learned under Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. The defense that starred Lawrence Taylor (the player Clowney has been compared to the most). Ridiculous.


If that's your stance then I understand where you're coming from. To understand where I'm coming from you would have to understand that I don't listen to who other people compare these guys to. I do my own research and watch all these guys with my own eyes. I spend an immense amount of time doing this because it is my hobby. Everything that I say is my own opinion and not based on anything that has been written or said by anyone else.
I'm trying to understand why it's OK for you to suggest that "many don't believe" Clowney is a good fit for the Texans, and "most agree" that Mack is. But when I say Clowney has been compared the most to LT, I'm just parroting my entire opinion on what others have said? Why is that?

IDEXAN
03-23-2014, 05:03 PM
Thats different than his #1... How? It's what he was saying. Fit scheme to personnel.
Show me a DC who ran a 3-4 who had a 290-305 pound NT with one team and a 340-350 pounder with another team ? In other words I think Phillips is one of a kind and if he's a #1 he's the only one in the NFL.

PHILLYTEXANFAN
03-23-2014, 09:39 PM
The absolute biggest mistake you can make in the draft is taking guys who don't fit your system and trying to fit them in. Just because he is an amazing talent as a 43 DE does not mean he is the same amazing talent as a 34 OLB.

See Jason Babin

bah007
03-24-2014, 10:06 AM
Or perhaps there's a third option which is to hire Wade Phillips or a DC like him with his flexibility and adaptability to make the defense fit the personnel, that is all kinds of personnel as Wade has proved over the years where for example one defense for one team played with a sub-300 lb NT while another defense with another team featured a 350 lb plus NT. I'm fearful because I'm pretty sure O'Brien didn't hire a DC who espoused the #3 school of thought.

This is exactly what I described in #1, altering your scheme to fit your personnel.

bah007
03-24-2014, 10:13 AM
I'm trying to understand why it's OK for you to suggest that "many don't believe" Clowney is a good fit for the Texans, and "most agree" that Mack is. But when I say Clowney has been compared the most to LT, I'm just parroting my entire opinion on what others have said? Why is that?

I never accused you of parroting your entire opinion on what others have said. You seem to be very defensive in this discussion and I'm not sure why. It's not like I called you out or anything. We just disagree on how a prospect fits into Crennel's traditional defensive style.

You bring up a fair point. I personally don't take much stock in what others have to say about these prospects, but that doesn't mean that others don't as well. You seemed to when you brought up the LT comparisons. So I responded by letting you know that many people believe that Mack is a better fit for Crennel's defense.

If it clears things up, I also believe that. But not because other people said it. I believe it based on what I have seen from both players with my own eyes.

bah007
03-24-2014, 10:30 AM
Well, what did you think about how Mack played against Baylor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTPtgf0s4ew)? I didn't see a lot of double teaming Mack. He just didn't seem to make a lot of plays. Granted, his team was completely over-matched. But was there anything in this game that jumped out and said "1st pick in the draft!"? I'm not saying the guy sucks and shouldn't be a 1st round pick. Just that there's nothing there to suggest Mack will make the type of impact a team is looking for in the 1st pick of the draft. Mack has as many or more questions to be answered as Clowney, Bridgewater, or Manziel without the potential upside they bring.

Mack did not do a great job rushing the passer in that game. This is his worst game on tape.

Baylor did a great job of limiting Mack's impact through great coaching. There was an immense talent gap between these two teams. Baylor knew that Mack is the only difference maker that Buffalo had. They did two things very well to limit his impact. They ran the ball away from him consistently, keeping him away from the ball carrier. He did not do a great job moving through traffic and finding the ball. Baylor also utilized their short passing and screen game to get the ball out before he could get to the QB. A lot of teams tried this. Baylor did it best, and it clearly worked. He was a non-factor.

Then again, every player has at least one bad game on tape. It doesn't seem fair to hold this one game against Mack like he is the only one that ever had a bad day, but ignore Clowney's performances against North Carolina and UCF. The difference being that when Mack has a bad day his team gets rolled. When Clowney has a bad day he has a bunch of studs around him to pick up the slack. And Manziel has more bad tape out there than both of these guys combined.

To be clear, I don't think that you hate Mack as a prospect. It just seems that you are holding him to a different standard.

I also don't agree that Mack has limited upside. I think having better players surrounding him will increase his ability to make an impact because he won't be schemed against to the level that he was in college. I think that holds true for Clowney as well. Despite being surrounded by superior talent, he was still the most schemed against defender on his team. And if we were running a system in which Clowney would have his hand in the dirt I would be thrilled to put him across from the most schemed against defensive player in the NFL. But based on Crennel's history, that is not the system we will be running.

IDEXAN
03-25-2014, 10:55 AM
See Jason Babin
Comparing J. Clowney to J. Babin is like comparing a Maserati to a Model-T Ford. Clowney is all over Ytube dunking basketballs and anchoring his H.S. sprint relay team in the state championship meet, the guy is a world-class athlete.

Number19
03-25-2014, 12:18 PM
Comparing J. Clowney to J. Babin is like comparing a Maserati to a Model-T Ford. Clowney is all over Ytube dunking basketballs and anchoring his H.S. sprint relay team in the state championship meet, the guy is a world-class athlete.
He wasn't comparing Babin to Clowney. He was using Babin as an example of a college player who had outstanding production as a DE; but failed to have the same impact when moved to a different position with different responsibilities.

IDEXAN
03-25-2014, 12:40 PM
He wasn't comparing Babin to Clowney. He was using Babin as an example of a college player who had outstanding production as a DE; but failed to have the same impact when moved to a different position with different responsibilities.
Understand that, but I think a players ability to play multiple positions, especially when one is played from a 3-point stance and the other is not and requires more lateral movement and other varied physical maneuvers, is more a function of basic athleticism than anything else.

Playoffs
05-06-2014, 01:26 PM
Lance Zierlein was at NFL Films and participated in their Mock Draft...

Khalil Mack went to the Texans #1 overall.

drs23
05-06-2014, 07:02 PM
Lance Zierlein was at NFL Films and participated in their Mock Draft...

Khalil Mack went to the Texans #1 overall.

Pinch me. I think I'm dreaming. Best choice in my H'st of JMHO, of course.

ATXtexanfan
05-06-2014, 07:07 PM
I'm good with this dude going 1 overall to houston

CharloTex
05-06-2014, 07:14 PM
Sign me up too.

Double Barrel
05-06-2014, 07:18 PM
I'd be happy with the pick, too.

steelbtexan
05-06-2014, 07:25 PM
Pass on Mack at 1-1.

Clowney/Robinson

steelbtexan
05-06-2014, 07:30 PM
Do you mean to suggest that in this very, very talented Draft, some would say the singular best Draft in decades, that the Texans with the top overall pick should remove from their Board the most talented player in the entire Draft because he's not compatible with their defense ? Are you freaking serious ?

Just remember the guy who took Montgomery/OkOye/etc.... running/ruining the draft.

mussop
05-06-2014, 09:16 PM
Pass on Mack at 1-1.

Clowney/Robinson

I just got through watching the Baylor game. He got pushed around pretty good. even pancaked once. Still think he can be good. He flashes and makes big plays most games. Of course most are against terrible competition. I wonder what Clowney would of looked like against Stoney Brook and San Diego St??

I won't freak out if we draft him but I will be disappointed that we passed on two other guys that are clearly better.

bhsman
05-06-2014, 10:40 PM
I just got through watching the Baylor game. He got pushed around pretty good. even pancaked once. Still think he can be good. He flashes and makes big plays most games. Of course most are against terrible competition. I wonder what Clowney would of looked like against Stoney Brook and San Diego St??

The thought of San Diego State leaving that No. 44 TE on Clowney all game like they did Mack is hilarious to me.

I won't freak out if we draft him but I will be disappointed that we passed on two other guys that are clearly better.

I won't freak out either, but we're still taking an SOLB at 1-1. =/

Texian
05-07-2014, 08:57 AM
When I watched what Mack did in the Mid American Conference and noted his body of work and then compared it to what I watched Jeremiah Attaochu do in the Atlantic Coast Conference and noting his body of work, I would take Attaochu all day long.

Playoffs
05-07-2014, 12:09 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnC0TFxIIAA_mM6.jpg

Okay, you win you hit me first. I win, you run away really fast.