La on Brockers

This topic has 12 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by wv.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

Author

Posts
February 26, 2015 at 10:16 am #19108

wv
Participant

========================
Laram

They’ve played him head up over the center, 0, 1, 3 and even a 2 tech head up over the guard.

He hasn’t settled in at any position really other than as a space eater over the center.

He has never been the penetrator that the Rams thought he could be, or what he was touted to be on the board.

He’s basically a nose that can clean up some scrapes on occasion.

The problem is,the Rams play a 4 man line in their base defense with lft and rght dt’s.

Brockers would have been better in a 3-4, where he could play a true nose.

He was a bad pick for the Rams, and certainly not a mid-first round pick.

========================

February 26, 2015 at 3:23 pm #19112

zn
Moderator

To me every bit of that could be written with a positive spin and therefore with different conclusions.

I for one never thought of Brockers as a “penetrator.”

And I don’t see the problem with him being a 4/3 nose.

I also don’t do the “where he was picked” game. The Rams needed a DT, when Donald came aboard they needed a 4/3 nose, those are not easy to find, I am okay with the pick.

February 26, 2015 at 4:05 pm #19116

bnw
Blocked

I remember QBs simply stepping up in the pocket to evade the rush from the outside (Quinn, Long) before Brockers. Once Brockers arrived Quinn’s sack/pressures noticeably increased, same with Long. Last season the injury to Long hurt overall D line performance.

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

February 26, 2015 at 5:14 pm #19133

Dak
Participant

My only thing with Brockers is that he’s been injured going into two seasons, and in those seasons the D-line wasn’t as effective. The year Brockers had no health concerns, he was better and the D-line was one of the best in the league.

February 26, 2015 at 5:41 pm #19135

wv
Participant

zn wrote:

To me every bit of that could be written with a positive spin and therefore with different conclusions.
I for one never thought of Brockers as a “penetrator.”

And I don’t see the problem with him being a 4/3 nose.
I also don’t do the “where he was picked” game. The Rams needed a DT, when Donald came aboard they needed a 4/3 nose, those are not easy to find, I am okay with the pick.

Well, I’m a little disappointed in him.
I got caught up in the hype. Thot he’d be more
dynamic.

w
v

February 26, 2015 at 5:47 pm #19137

Dak
Participant

wv wrote:

To me every bit of that could be written with a positive spin and therefore with different conclusions.
I for one never thought of Brockers as a “penetrator.”

And I don’t see the problem with him being a 4/3 nose.
I also don’t do the “where he was picked” game. The Rams needed a DT, when Donald came aboard they needed a 4/3 nose, those are not easy to find, I am okay with the pick.

Well, I’m a little disappointed in him.
I got caught up in the hype. Thot he’d be more
dynamic.

w
v

I don’t remember “dynamic” as part of his draft profile.

February 26, 2015 at 6:10 pm #19139

wv
Participant

Dak wrote:

I don’t remember “dynamic” as part of his draft profile.

Well, apparently you do not subscribe
to the illustrious “Mackeyser’s NFL Draft Guide”

w
v

February 26, 2015 at 6:17 pm #19142

Agamemnon
Participant

He was 22 and a redshirt jr. when he was drafted. Typical of some of the Rams picks ( Quick and Robinson ). Young and not too experienced. He won’t get his full growth for another year or two.

Agamemnon

February 26, 2015 at 8:02 pm #19151

Herzog
Participant

He also made the mistake of thinking weight loss would be good for his position. I think that was a BIG mistake. He is still one of my favorite players and I’ll bet his presence lifted Donald’s numbers a level.

He’s not a splash numbers guy…. But everyone else is because of his presence.

February 26, 2015 at 10:16 pm #19162

InvaderRam
Moderator

i think i tend to agree with ag. he’s young and relatively new to the position. i don’t think he played the position until his sophomore year. and then came out after his junior year i believe. i don’t think we’ve seen his best yet.

February 27, 2015 at 1:50 am #19174

zn
Moderator

from off the net

—

Flipper336

[Before the 2012 draft I thought] Cox was the better one gap DT but I preferred Brockers. Why is that? Because I didn’t see that as the best way to develop him. The Rams are probably the only team that would’ve had him slim down and make him a penetrating DT. They only saw his length and their coach was quoted saying he would make Brockers a pass rusher. I’ll never forget it because I thought it was dumb the second I heard it.

Did I think he could eventually be a one gap guy? Sure, but I certainly never thought that was the best way to use him. As a pass rusher in any scheme I of course thought he could develop but I didn’t anticipate asking him to lose weight and be quicker, [what I liked about Brockers] was based on making him stronger and more powerful.

This staff has had no clue what they wanted from him and he has played fine, imagine if they let him do what he does best, like they did with Donald, from day one?

February 27, 2015 at 5:24 am #19181

Herzog
Participant

Yeah, I completely agree with Flipper’s remarks. Brockers is a BEAST. I wanted him to add muscle (and weight)…not lose it.

February 27, 2015 at 6:24 am #19184

wv
Participant

Herzog wrote:

Yeah, I completely agree with Flipper’s remarks. Brockers is a BEAST. I wanted him to add muscle (and weight)…not lose it.

Agreed. It makes even ‘more’
sense now that they have A.Donald.

w
v
Author

Posts