I have looked at his film, and aside from the OSU game he looks flat. He had multiple bad games when a title berth was on the line against supposedly 'inferior' competition. He was never this super DOMINANT player, he just put on a clinic against OSU (and let's be honest, that was easy to do last year). I don't care about his lifting or his drills. Every year we have players that do amazing things at pro days and at the combine, but almost all of them fail.
I just don't see Mack as this amazing player that the analysts do. I would want a player that has consistent tape, not just highlights. He showed plenty of spark this year, but I still don't think he showed the necessary consistency he should have against his level of competition. He just strikes me as someone closer to being a playoff contender should take a risk on, but not the Jags.
Also, most of Seattle's current LB's were later round picks. They turned out great because they fit Gus' system. That could happen here if we just give it a shot and don't waste a high pick on somebody who may or may not be a slight upgrade in the LEO spot. I am all for getting LB help in the draft, but I feel 3 is too early.
Some of the things I have noticed are that: Mack has shown issues tackling in space(something the LEO spot would have him do sometimes), he has issues with snap anticipation, he doesn't have the ideal explosiveness out of the stance, and he can't seem to overpower people to consistently find an open tackling lane.
If Jadeveon Clowney and Sammy Watkins were drafted 1&2, I would trade back. Even with a somewhat low offer and take Mack at about 6 or 7 if he was there. Otherwise I would pick Teddy Bridgewater or Johnny Manziel. I am not a huge believer in JFF or TB, but I feel there is a major dropoff after them (in our system. I still think Bortles will be a Roethelisburger type player).
So I have to ask you guys honestly, do you believe Mack will be a MUCH better fit in our system than a 4th rounder that will have a similar skill set?