Brian Quick on the Vincent jackson plan

[-X-]

Well actually -X-, I wasn't confusing him with Quick. That won't happen until later tonight. I was referring to the pick we didn't make in the second round. Kind of like Doyle's "the dog that didn't bark".

Huh? He was the first pick of the second round. We didn't trade up to get him or anything, so how did we lose out on a pick?
Didn't you ask if he was worth two players? I'm not sure I'm following your point there...

 

[iced]

I am throwing Bailey into the mix for a starting job, thats why I don't think Quick would get those yards if Bailey gets more snaps and Watkins is out there most of the time.

did bailey get more snaps than Quick did over the final few games? I don't think he did from what I remember .

 

[Alan]

-X- needing a better explanation:
Huh? He was the first pick of the second round. We didn't trade up to get him or anything, so how did we lose out on a pick?
Didn't you ask if he was worth two players? I'm not sure I'm following your point there...

OK, first of all, we drafted Quick in 2012 and I'm referring to the 2013 draft.

We traded one of our firsts and our second round pick last year to move up to pick Austin.

So in essence we could have stayed put and drafted somebody else instead of Tavon. Then in the second round we could have drafted another player who would probably have been good too. You'd expect that with a medium high second round pick. So using my draft strategy we would have netted two good players. For the trade up to be worthwhile, in my mind, Tavon needs to be as good as two starters. Hopefully I've explained it better this time.

Do you think Tavon will eventually reach that level? I have my doubts about that.

 

[iced]

OK, first of all, we drafted Quick in 2012 and I'm referring to the 2013 draft.

We traded one of our firsts and our second round pick last year to move up to pick Austin.

So in essence we could have stayed put and drafted somebody else instead of Tavon. Then in the second round we could have drafted another player who would probably have been good too. You'd expect that with a medium high second round pick. So using my draft strategy we would have netted two good players. For the trade up to be worthwhile, in my mind, Tavon needs to be as good as two starters. Hopefully I've explained it better this time.

Do you think Tavon will eventually reach that level? I have my doubts about that.

Every draft is different - you really think there was a #1 Receiver prospect in that draft? Because I don't.

However I did see Tavon as one hell of a weapon - someone with a mix of barry sander's feet and agility spliced with Desean Jackson speed and the vision of a running back (because he was a running back in high school, and actually wanted to be a RB in College).

I think he'll end up being better than Randall Cobb - and he's not a #1 Receiver for GB either.

 

[Tron]

did bailey get more snaps than Quick did over the final few games? I don't think he did from what I remember .

Don't know if Bailey got more snaps or not, but he was more productive.

Quicks last 5 games of the season - 6 targets, 5 receptions, 57 yards, 1 touchdown
Baileys last 5 games of the season - 22 targets, 15 receptions, 195 yards, 0 touchdowns. 2 rushing attempts, 33 yards, 1 touchdown.

 

[Alan]

Yeah iced, I think he'll be good too. Just not two starters good. There are very few players I would put in that category and most of those are QBs. Peterson of the Vikes and Megatron are two non-QBs that spring to mind but there aren't many more like that in my mind.

 

[iced]

Yeah iced, I think he'll be good too. Just not two starters good. There are very few players I would put in that category and most of those are QBs. Peterson of the Vikes and Megatron are two non-QBs that spring to mind but there aren't many more like that in my mind.

we'll see - it'll really depend on if we can surround both him and bradford with weapons..... more weapons you have to be scared of, the more opportunities for everyone.

 

[Alan]

iced with words of wisdom:
we'll see - it'll really depend on if we can surround both him and bradford with weapons..... more weapons you have to be scared of, the more opportunities for everyone.

That's true but it could also be argued that players like Megatron can excel without much of a supporting cast. I think he's made Stafford look much better that he really is. But your overall point is undoubtedly true.

 

[-X-]

Yeah iced, I think he'll be good too. Just not two starters good. There are very few players I would put in that category and most of those are QBs. Peterson of the Vikes and Megatron are two non-QBs that spring to mind but there aren't many more like that in my mind.

Yeah, but you can't really look at it like that. I mean you can, but it's a dichotomy. If he wasn't going to be there when the Rams picked (and he wasn't), then what are they to do? The only form of compensation is another player or pick, so there really was no choice in the matter other than to watch the player they wanted slip out of their fingers. I get what you're saying, but again ... can't look at it through that prism.

 

[iced]

Yeah, but you can't really look at it like that. I mean you can, but it's a dichotomy. If he wasn't going to be there when the Rams picked (and he wasn't), then what are they to do? The only form of compensation is another player or pick, so there really was no choice in the matter other than to watch the player they wanted slip out of their fingers. I get what you're saying, but again ... can't look at it through that prism.

more importantly you need to look at how talented and deep the draft was overall vs other ones.....you can't just blindly apply every draft to every other one - otherwise we'd get another rg3 deal this year for sure

 

[lockdnram21]

I dont see us Drafting Watkins i see Quick and Givens starting on outside. Then it will be up to them to keep their jobs. Bailey will get a lot a snaps and will see his snaps increase if one of the 2 dont produce.

 

[Alan]

Aren't you assuming when you say "there was really no choice in the matter when the player they wanted" that there was no other player they wanted? Would our draft have sucked if Austin had been picked by Arizona? I don't think so. Was the 2012 draft ruined because someone picked Blackmon before us? I'm pretty sure there were great players to be had at #16, just as there were very good players to be had at the 14th pick in the second round.

 

[-X-]

Aren't you assuming when you say "there was really no choice in the matter when the player they wanted" that was no other player they wanted? Would our draft have sucked if Austin had been picked by Arizona? I don't think so. Was the 2012 draft ruined because someone picked Blackmon before us? I'm pretty sure there were great players to be had at #16, just as there were very good players to be had at the 14th pick in the second round.

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there was no other receiver as highly rated on their board, and that receiver was their top ranked position of need coupled with Austin being the BPA on said board. That's their prerogative, obviously, but I would have waited for Cordarrelle Patterson myself. I don't know what to say about your Blackmon comment. I have no indication that they even wanted him that badly, and that's evidenced by the fact that they stayed put and gambled on losing him. In my opinion, they could have yielded more picks IF he fell, and that would explain the famous "slammed his glasses on the table" comment offered by Mike Silver. In fact, I think Demoff commented on that scenario in one of our chats. Austin, on the other hand, was someone they HAD to have. Is he worth two players? Sure. Why not? It's an entirely subjective question that only Snead/Fisher can answer. 49ers traded up for Jerry Rice. Rams gave up two picks for Marshall Faulk. Cowboys gave up 4 picks for Tony Dorsett. Tavon could end up being the kind of player who warrants a trade of one extra pick. History will bear that out one way or another.

 

[OnceARam]

Let's just keep drafting WR's with high picks until we find one that can play.

 

[Alan]

I agree with you when you say that there was probably no other WR as highly rated by the Rams. That's pretty much self evident by their actions. But we had many holes that needed to be filled and WR was only one of them. We could have picked Hopkins or Patterson instead but that's beside the point. It does remind me that I don't think it's always a mistake to trade up. If you don't really have any holes in your team that desperately need filling except for the player you trade up for, it can be a good idea. Like the trade for Julio Jones. Or when you need that "franchise" QB.

I see your side of this but I just don't believe that it's a good idea except in those instances I mentioned.

In any case, that's my "red rag to a bull for me." :barefoot:

 

[-X-]

I agree with you when you say that there was probably no other WR as highly rated by the Rams. That's pretty much self evident by their actions. But we had many holes that needed to be filled and WR was only one of them. We could have picked Hopkins or Patterson instead but that's beside the point. It does remind me that I don't think it's always a mistake to trade up. If you don't really have any holes in your team that desperately need filling except for the player you trade up for, it can be a good idea. Like the trade for Julio Jones. Or when you need that "franchise" QB.

I see your side of this but I just don't believe that it's a good idea except in those instances I mentioned.

In any case, that's my "red rag to a bull for me." :barefoot:

Fair enough. Let's revisit this in about 5 years and see how it panned out.

 

[Alan]

-X- with this:
Fair enough. Let's revisit this in about 5 years and see how it panned out.

You give me way too much credit. I can't even find where I put the copy of who I wanted to draft last year to see how well I would have done. If you remember, I said I'd do that when we discussed this the last time. I kind of thought I'd be able to to a search for it later when I needed it. Unfortunately, we've had a few changes here and I think we lost that thread because my son couldn't find it.

It sucks to get old.

 

[Yamahopper]

If after this training camp his 3rd Quick still can't get his reads and routes right then that's going to be hard to overcome. Watkins comes in Quick is gonna have to play special teams like Pettis did.

 

[Alan]

Yamahopper with thoughts about Quick:
If after this training camp his 3rd Quick still can't get his reads and routes right then that's going to be hard to overcome. Watkins comes in Quick is gonna have to play special teams like Pettis did.

Do you think so? I'm not sure they'd have Quick trying to learn his duties on special teams when he is having so much trouble learning his WR stuff. No offense to Quick but I don't think they think Quick can handle much new information to say it nicely. What's your thought on that aspect?

 

[VARAMS]

Quick gets another chance but he will be competing for looks with at least 4 other equal/better WRs and Jerod Cook. There are no guarantees with picks but the Rams missed on the r2.1 pick with Quick. how many better WRs were drafted after Quick - Alshon Jeffrey, Marvin Jones, TY Hilton, Chris Givens??