So, Richarson is the only player on the Rams that graded out with a positive grade in both the run and pass game and I think most would agree that Saffold is considered our best lineman....but T is more of a need than G? I think this comes from several horrible games last season in which Bradford took a beating. The Rams oline certainly needs to improve but it isent as desperate as most "experts" think in my opinion. If a highly rated T falls to 16 I certainly would have no issue with that pick, in particular a LT as it could improve two spots. In reality the Rams Ts didnt receive a lot of help last year and when Saffold was healthy he performed well in the pass game.
I do like going Oline with that first pick (or one of first rounders) I am convinced that G is a bigger need. But, this is were we get into the value discussion. Gs rarely go high. Warmack is probably gone. If Cooper is there are say 21, would you be more inclined to take the #2 G prospect or the #4 or #5 T prospect? The Rams Oline was not great with the run blocking for whole stretches of last year. I think a roadgrader inside would do a good deal for the passing game. Consistant 2nd and under 7 would help Bradford out a great deal no matter who is running routes. Drafting another young WR that is going to take a year or two to develop....I dont know. The idea of drafting a highly rated TE with one of the high picks does make sense in that it could help both running and passing games.
If you make a comparison between the Oline and a MLB teams starting pitching rotation it is a good one. All the attention and a good deal of the money goes to the number one starter (the LT in the case of the line). It is a very important position, but, in reality the 2-5 starters pitch just as often as the number 1. Thats my (probably lame way) of saying if Warmack (doubtful) or Cooper (possible) is there in the first I grab either over the 4th rated T.
