Does having a true #1 WR protect Bradford??

[Alan]

Desperation doesn't mix well with anything that's for sure.

 

[RamFan503]

Desperation doesn't mix well with anything that's for sure.

Drunk hot chicks? Mix in a little desperation and I think that's one hell of a combination.

 

[Alan]

Got me! I didn't have my mind in the gutter like I should have. See what happens when you get old? :seizure:

 

[RamFan503]

Got me! I didn't have my mind in the gutter like I should have. See what happens when you get old? :seizure:

Les would have been waaaaaaay ahead of us.:mustache:

 

[iced]

Desperation and Free Agency are not a good mix.
And the point I'm making is that it's irrelevant how many times he was sacked. Peyton Manning doesn't get sacked because he does such an amazing job of getting rid of the ball and working the pocket. That doesn't make his OL good.

1) His o-line has been and was heralded as being good
2)Peyton is in his own class that 31 other qb's in this league that will never reach. Yes that includes Tom Brady. What Peyton does Pre-snap is uncomparable, and that effects presures/sacks/points/everything.

Bradford's Arizona game was mastery. There were at least 3 occasions where a pocket passer like Sam SHOULD HAVE been sacked but he managed to avoid the pressure and get rid of the ball or scramble. In fact, Dahl badly blew two blitz pick-ups that left free rushers in his face almost immediately after receiving the snap.

The OL was not some dominant force in those games, the sack numbers are not representative of the OL's play.

okay - they weren't some dominant force.

but they also weren't some inept or inadequate line that people are trying to paint either - you don't get that many drop backs without getting sacked because the qb bailed you out in 3 plays. Even RG3 didn't help his line out that much

 

[jrry32]

1) His o-line has been and was heralded as being good
2)Peyton is in his own class that 31 other qb's in this league that will never reach. Yes that includes Tom Brady. What Peyton does Pre-snap is uncomparable, and that effects presures/sacks/points/everything.



okay - they weren't some dominant force.

but they also weren't some inept or inadequate line that people are trying to paint either - you don't get that many drop backs without getting sacked because the qb bailed you out in 3 plays. Even RG3 didn't help his line out that much

And if I told you that he was under pressure on 41% of the passing plays in the Arizona game in comparison to 39% in the Dallas game?

 

[Boffo97]

If we picked Watkins then completely ignored the OL for the rest of the draft/FA, I'd want Snead and Fisher fired yesterday.

But picking Watkins (or Clowney for that matter) is not in and of itself ignoring the OL. Right now, the weak area is the guards. There are other ways to address the guard deficiency other than using a top ten draft pick for it.

Give me a good free agent guard, a good drafted guard, and assuming Long is good to go Week 1 (which the Rams seem to think he will be, but will have information otherwise if there is such before these decisions are made), then we're golden... especially since if the Rams have a guy who can get open quicker, the line won't have to protect Sam for as long.

 

[jrry32]

If we picked Watkins then completely ignored the OL for the rest of the draft/FA, I'd want Snead and Fisher fired yesterday.

But picking Watkins (or Clowney for that matter) is not in and of itself ignoring the OL. Right now, the weak area is the guards. There are other ways to address the guard deficiency other than using a top ten draft pick for it.

Give me a good free agent guard, a good drafted guard, and assuming Long is good to go Week 1 (which the Rams seem to think he will be, but will have information otherwise if there is such before these decisions are made), then we're golden... especially since if the Rams have a guy who can get open quicker, the line won't have to protect Sam for as long.

Same could be said of the WR position. And yet some take the Watkins or bust stance on that...

The bold is not true.

Right now, we have absolutely nothing behind Jake Long at LT and we have absolutely nothing at OG. So yea, I think I'd be quite happy to kill two birds with one stone.(grab a guy that can play LT in case Long isn't ready and LG if he is)

 

[Boffo97]

Same could be said of the WR position. And yet some take the Watkins or bust stance on that...

Again, this has been repeatedly answered. It's not just about a WR. It's about a #1 WR. Although I have seen some positive signs that maybe Evans could be that. We'll see what the Rams think. If we're not taking a #1, we might as well stay with what we have for another year.

Conversely, the premise of this thread seems to be that unless we take a tackle to play Guard or Right Tackle (though I like Barksdale at the latter), we're ignoring the OL. That's just a false dilemma.

The bold is not true.

Don't know how you think that. The QB can't throw the ball (at least not productively) if no one is open, right?

Right now, we have absolutely nothing behind Jake Long at LT and we have absolutely nothing at OG. So yea, I think I'd be quite happy to kill two birds with one stone.(grab a guy that can play LT in case Long isn't ready and LG if he is)

Then let's get a backup tackle and a couple of guards. I'm with you on that. I don't think anyone's NOT with you on that.

I just disagree that a Top 10 pick at Guard playing who knows how long there before hopefully moving to Tackle is the best plan. The Rams might not agree with me on that, and that's fine. They've been rejecting my divine wisdom for a while now.

 

[jrry32]

Don't know how you think that. The QB can't throw the ball (at least not productively) if no one is open, right?

I believe our WRs can get open if the QB is protected.

What I don't believe is that grabbing one WR is going to make a difference if our QB isn't protected well. Getting open quicker doesn't work on every play. Because they tend to vary the routes that each WR runs. Which means that #1 WR is going to run all types of routes and routes are based on timing. Which means that Bradford will have to hold onto the ball longer on some of the routes the WR runs.

So unless our plan is to just get the ball out of the QB's hands as quickly as possible...which doesn't typically work unless you have a QB with Brady's or Manning's football IQ...we're going to need to protect the QB and give routes time to develop. Because I don't care how good you are at WR, you aren't getting open if the QB doesn't have time to allow your route to develop.

Then let's get a backup tackle and a couple of guards. I'm with you on that. I don't think anyone's NOT with you on that.

Or, conversely, we can get a tackle of the future that provides depth at LT while also providing a top tier option at OG...killing two birds with one stone. And not forcing us to use valuable resources on multiple players.

I just disagree that a Top 10 pick at Guard playing who knows how long there before hopefully moving to Tackle is the best plan. The Rams might not agree with me on that, and that's fine. They've been rejecting my divine wisdom for a while now.

Why? Does it matter on game day if the guy is a guard or tackle? Is he not still blocking a defender, giving a QB more time to throw, and opening holes up for the running game?

 

[Boffo97]

Why? Does it matter on game day if the guy is a guard or tackle? Is he not still blocking a defender, giving a QB more time to throw, and opening holes up for the running game?

Why it matters is that I feel we can have a #1 WR *and* a great guard instead of a tackle playing as guard and no #1 WR. That's the job of a great GM: Prioritize so ALL areas of the team can be great rather than throw resources into an area where we're already set for who knows how long "just in case".

If we're going the "just in case" route, we might as well draft Clowney.

The rest, I disagree with.

 

[jrry32]

Why it matters is that I feel we can have a #1 WR *and* a great guard instead of a tackle playing as guard and no #1 WR. That's the job of a great GM: Prioritize so ALL areas of the team can be great rather than throw resources into an area where we're already set for who knows how long "just in case".

If we're going the "just in case" route, we might as well draft Clowney.

The rest, I disagree with.

If Clowney is on the board, we should draft him.

Or we could end up with no #1 WR and a mediocre guard in your scenario.

Or we could end up with a top tier LT playing OG at an elite level and a #1 WR in my scenario.

That's the fun of the draft.

But we're a lot more set at WR right now than we are on the OL so...

 

[Boffo97]

If Clowney is on the board, we should draft him.

Or we could end up with no #1 WR and a mediocre guard in your scenario.

Or we could end up with a top tier LT playing OG at an elite level and a #1 WR in my scenario.

That's the fun of the draft.

But we're a lot more set at WR right now than we are on the OL so...

Yes, anyone in the draft could be a bust. Since that's possible with everyone, I say the possibilities there cancel out (even though I think Robinson and Clowney have higher bust potential than Watkins or Matthews.)

In general, we are more set at WR than we are on the OL. In specific though, we are more set at LT than we are at #1 WR (we don't have one).

But, again, no one who wants Watkins is saying to ignore the offensive line issues. They're just saying not to fix the guard issue by drafting a LT to play guard with a Top 10 pick.

 

[jrry32]

Yes, anyone in the draft could be a bust. Since that's possible with everyone, I say the possibilities there cancel out (even though I think Robinson and Clowney have higher bust potential than Watkins or Matthews.)

Well, no, that's not really true. But that wasn't the point I was making, I was pointing out how illogical it was to act like finding a great guard outside the first round was some likely scenario. It is just as illogical for me to argue that we can draft Matthews in the top 10 and still draft a #1 WR outside the first. Well...yes, that's possible but not anything close to highly probable.

In general, we are more set at WR than we are on the OL. In specific though, we are more set at LT than we are at #1 WR (we don't have one).

And yet that's irrelevant. Because the OLs we're talking about play more than just LT.

But, again, no one who wants Watkins is saying to ignore the offensive line issues. They're just saying not to fix the guard issue by drafting a LT to play guard with a Top 10 pick.

And I'm saying we fix multiple issues by taking the better prospect(Jake Matthews) rather than choosing a lesser need and a lesser talent(Watkins). But the people arguing take an OG later should also recognize that this WR class is considered to be EXTREMELY deep and the odds are just as good that we can find a WR outside the top 10.

I should also point out that if a guy both has the skill-set to be drafted in the top 10 as a LT and the necessary attributes to play OG, he's very likely going to be an even more dominant OG than he is a LT...so if anything, that just means we're getting a better player to play at OG.

For example...Saffold at LT vs. RG.

 

[Boffo97]

Well, no, that's not really true. But that wasn't the point I was making, I was pointing out how illogical it was to act like finding a great guard outside the first round was some likely scenario. It is just as illogical for me to argue that we can draft Matthews in the top 10 and still draft a #1 WR outside the first. Well...yes, that's possible but not anything close to highly probable.

It's not illogical at all. Tons of great guards have been found outside the 1st round. Yes, there have been some highly drafted ones. They have been the exception rather than the rule.

Plus, I think Boudreau can develop great guards with lesser draft picks.

And yet that's irrelevant. Because the OLs we're talking about play more than just LT.

We hope.

The question then becomes do they play guard so much better than the people going into the drafts as guards to justify the high draft pick? For all we know, the guy might never move over and play LT (Robinson especially concerns me there).

And I'm saying we fix multiple issues by taking the better prospect(Jake Matthews) rather than choosing a lesser need and a lesser talent(Watkins). But the people arguing take an OG later should also recognize that this WR class is considered to be EXTREMELY deep and the odds are just as good that we can find a WR outside the top 10.

I should also point out that if a guy both has the skill-set to be drafted in the top 10 as a LT and the necessary attributes to play OG, he's very likely going to be an even more dominant OG than he is a LT...so if anything, that just means we're getting a better player to play at OG.

For example...Saffold at LT vs. RG.

Yes. I know what you're saying. I just disagree with you.

That said, you're going back to just finding *A* Wide Receiver. It has NEVER been about *A* Wide Receiver. It, yet again, is about a *#1* wide receiver. IF the Rams see Watkins as that type of special rare receiver (I know you don't), then they should draft him. If they don't, or also see Evans or someone else in that #1 role, then probably Matthews is our best option.

If we can't get a #1, we might as well stick with what we have for another year, although I still wouldn't advise Pettis to buy a house in St. Louis. I've heard there are some good WRs next year too.

 

[jrry32]

It's not illogical at all. Tons of great guards have been found outside the 1st round. Yes, there have been some highly drafted ones. They have been the exception rather than the rule.

Plus, I think Boudreau can develop great guards with lesser draft picks.

Yea, that's not what the phrase means, it's quite the opposite. The rule is that the higher you draft a player, the more likely he is to pan out. Even for the OG position. So the great guards being found later in the draft are more the exceptions, not the ones early on.

I think a lot of Boudreau but frankly, I don't think any coach can turn chicken shit into chicken salad. So no, I don't feel comfortable gambling Sam's health on the hope we can find an OG later on because sometimes, it happens.

We hope.

The question then becomes do they play guard so much better than the people going into the drafts as guards to justify the high draft pick? For all we know, the guy might never move over and play LT (Robinson especially concerns me there).

It's no more "hoping" than the "hope" that Sammy Watkins becomes a #1 WR.

Yes, they can play it so much better...and they can play both OT positions additionally.

If Robinson is so dominant at OG that we don't want to move him, I say it's a great pick.

Yes. I know what you're saying. I just disagree with you.

That said, you're going back to just finding *A* Wide Receiver. It has NEVER been about *A* Wide Receiver. It, yet again, is about a *#1* wide receiver. IF the Rams see Watkins as that type of special rare receiver (I know you don't), then they should draft him. If they don't, or also see Evans or someone else in that #1 role, then probably Matthews is our best option.

And it's not just about A Guard. It's about GREAT guards...at least that's what you keep saying. But then you claim that we'll just grab one later on...as if they grow on trees. There are maybe 5 OGs in the NFL right now that I'd classify as great. There's a real dearth of proven top tier talent at the position right now.

 

[Boffo97]

Yea, that's not what the phrase means, it's quite the opposite. The rule is that the higher you draft a player, the more likely he is to pan out. Even for the OG position. So the great guards being found later in the draft are more the exceptions, not the ones early on.

I think a lot of Boudreau but frankly, I don't think any coach can turn chicken crap into chicken salad. So no, I don't feel comfortable gambling Sam's health on the hope we can find an OG later on because sometimes, it happens.

And here you're assuming that any guard except for the two tackles is "chicken crap". If that was the case, then yeah, we'd be stupid not to pick one of the two tackles since no one's arguing that Guard isn't a need. But I don't think there's that much of a talent dropoff AT PLAYING GUARD between the two tackles and the top rated guards who will be available later. (Too bad it seems that Cleveland won't give us their two picks... Watkins at #4 (or maybe a little lower if we could swing a 2nd trade), Clinton-Dix at #13 and Yankey at #26 would be awesome.

I agree, in general, that the highly drafted players turn out better, but we're talking about a position that has typically been regarded as 2nd tier in the draft. There will be good guards later.

It's no more "hoping" than the "hope" that Sammy Watkins becomes a #1 WR.

Watkins is going into the draft as a WR. The tackles are going into the draft as tackles.

Yes, they can play it so much better...and they can play both OT positions additionally.

We'll see if the Rams agree with you.

If Robinson is so dominant at OG that we don't want to move him, I say it's a great pick.

I'm not sure I agree with you even if that is the reason he isn't moved.

I'd find it more likely that he wouldn't pan out as a tackle due to his questionable pass protection skills. If you don't know that he as them (and we don't), it's much safer to assume he doesn't than otherwise. So he might end up being just a guard.

And it's not just about A Guard. It's about GREAT guards...at least that's what you keep saying. But then you claim that we'll just grab one later on...as if they grow on trees. There are maybe 5 OGs in the NFL right now that I'd classify as great. There's a real dearth of proven top tier talent at the position right now.

See above about how guards TYPICALLY (there are exceptions) have been regarded as a 2nd tier position in the draft.

 

[Boffo97]

At this point though, we're really going around in circles, so I'll just say this:

If the Rams agree with your takes on the potential of the tackles and Watkins, they should draft one of the tackles.

If they think Watkins can be a special #1 type, they should draft him.

 

[Boffo97]

Oops. I double posted.

Which, by a hidden esoteric rule, means I lose the argument. It's sorta like Godwin.

 

[jrry32]

And here you're assuming that any guard except for the two tackles is "chicken crap". If that was the case, then yeah, we'd be stupid not to pick one of the two tackles since no one's arguing that Guard isn't a need. But I don't think there's that much of a talent dropoff AT PLAYING GUARD between the two tackles and the top rated guards who will be available later. (Too bad it seems that Cleveland won't give us their two picks... Watkins at #4 (or maybe a little lower if we could swing a 2nd trade), Clinton-Dix at #13 and Yankey at #26 would be awesome.

Well, no, you've never really specified on where you'd draft them. I think the longer you wait, the more likely it is that you'll come away with chicken crap.

But as someone who has Yankey rated as the top OG in the draft, there's a significant drop off between him and Robinson/Matthews...SIGNIFICANT.

I agree, in general, that the highly drafted players turn out better, but we're talking about a position that has typically been regarded as 2nd tier in the draft. There will be good guards later.

And there will be good WRs later so you can make the exact same point...as much as you don't like it, my friend. That 2nd tier position had two OGs go top 10 last year...

Watkins is going into the draft as a WR. The tackles are going into the draft as tackles.

Well, no, see that's the problem. Watkins is going into the draft as a WR that had 70% of his receptions(71 out of 101 of his catches) come within 5 yards of the LOS. That means only 30 of his receptions came 6+ yards down the field. That's not a NFL #1 WR.

Which you're claiming him to be.

So we're both making projections...

I'm not sure I agree with you even if that is the reason he isn't moved.

I'd find it more likely that he wouldn't pan out as a tackle due to his questionable pass protection skills. If you don't know that he as them (and we don't), it's much safer to assume he doesn't than otherwise. So he might end up being just a guard.

Well, seeing as Guard is an important position on the field...after watching years of Moose Ojinnaka, Chris Williams, Harvey Dahl(last year, sadly), Adam Goldberg and other terrible players we've had wreck our game-plans with their inability to give the QB a pocket...I'll be quite okay if Robinson is just a dominant OG.

After all, Mike Munchak was "just a guard". Larry Allen was "just a guard". Steve Hutchinson was "just a guard". And yet if I'd take each and every one of those three players in the top 2 picks of the draft without thinking twice.

See above about how guards TYPICALLY (there are exceptions) have been regarded as a 2nd tier position in the draft.

For two reasons mainly:
1. Scarcity
2. Comparatively, they make less money which made it hard to justify drafting them before the rookie caps came into place

It's the same reason why TEs are rarely taken in the top 10 and yet you are not capable of convincing me that Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski don't have as a great an impact on the game as the #1 WRs in this league.