Draft an OT with our top pick

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
iced continuing to misread me and jump to erroneous conclusions:
You should really take your own advice here
Where did I say you didn't recheck your facts? I was merely explaining why I wrote that bit about the the experts. You're correct that I should take my own advice. That's why I didn't assume you hadn't rechecked your facts. Of course that doesn't mean I never make assumptions sometimes and wind up with egg on my face. Not in this case though. ;)

“If I had a dollar for every time a random woman walked up to me and tried to seduce me, I'd have 50 cents. That's assuming drag queens are half price.”
Jarod Kintz, This Book is Not for Sale
 
Last edited:

BigRamFan

Super Bowl XXXVI was rigged!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
2,887
Name
Craig
There is saffold - that's why we paid him as a swing tackle. He's great in a pinch - but saying we shouldn't use him at LT should Long go down but move matthews/robinson to guard doesn't make sense, imo. You know what you're getting out Saffold. You don't know if either one of those can play LT in the Nfl

Btw i wouldnt want to draft Mathews unless he plays Tackle, but thats me. And obviously hell no to robinson/jason smith 2.0



my point was though them saying they weren't going to sign someone unless they were an upgrade

heres the speculation on quick/britt

http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/nfl/stl/?r=1
We paid Safflod to play OG. IMO, putting him at LT is in no one's best interest.
But Matthews would/will play OT at some point. This is all about getting the best 5 OL on the field and having the depth to still compete in the, very likely, event of injury.
IMO, you are being way too critical of Robinson. Agree to disagree on this one.
Well, from a pragmatic standpoint, Britt is an upgrade over all of our current WRs. He has produced more in the NFL than any of them to this point, but there is a reason his contract was structured the way it was. He is not guaranteed a roster spot come September.
 

MerlinJones

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
1,020
I don't get how people are comfortable with these receivers... My method we address 2 Gigantic Glaring Holes (Wide receiver and Guard)... which I guess you don't view as a need? Cause when you compare our production to the rest of the league its downright pathetic.

I am way more comfortable with players who have proven that they have played at a high level - our receiving corps has yet to do that, and yet to do that for 6 years...

Torry Holt was the last Ram Receiver to even sniff out 800 yards...

think about that..

The Cards, Niners, and Seahawks had atleast two players break 800 last season. The Rams haven't had one player do it since 2008

Do you think the fact that the Seahawks and Niners have dominant offensive lines played a role in that at all? It's amazing what a QB can do when he has time to throw.
It's probably just a coincidence though, I guess.

Just curious, do you consider Kellen Clemens to be on the same level as Palmer, Wilson, and Kaepernick?
(I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just want to know what you think)
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Do you think the fact that the Seahawks and Niners have dominant offensive lines played a role in that at all? It's amazing what a QB can do when he has time to throw.
It's probably just a coincidence though, I guess.

Really? What's so dominant about The Seahawks o-line. I'm pretty sure that's an area that often gets considered a weak link.

But I guess Wilson is just scrambling around for no reason?

BTW Seattle is ranked 27th for the season - that's not dominant, that's weak.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/01/13/2013-offensive-line-rankings/

27. Seattle Seahawks (20th)PB: 25th, RB: 23rd, PEN: 30th

Stud: With injuries depleting the ranks, it was left to Michael Bowie (+7.1) to lead the team with their highest grade. He may eventually end up at guard (as he was for their recent playoff victory over the Saints) with his run blocking particularly impressive.

Dud: The team has to hope they never, ever have to start Paul McQuistan (-24.8) at left tackle again. It went very badly and he wasn’t much better at guard.

Analysis: An interesting year. Losing Russell Okung hurt but when they did get him on the field his play was a level or three below it’s usual high standard. At center Max Unger had a down year as a variety of combinations on either side of him failed. Essentially, they did enough at times for Marshawn Lynch to make yardage, but this had the feel of an experimental group with the coaches trying to luck into the right combination.

their highest player has a +7.1 grade.. for comparison, Long was 26+ and barksdale was +12..

Just curious, do you consider Kellen Clemens to be on the same level as Palmer, Wilson, and Kaepernick?
(I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just want to know what you think)
lmao hell no. but what does this have to do with the lack of production last year or the past 6 years? nothing....
 
Last edited:

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
We paid Safflod to play OG. IMO, putting him at LT is in no one's best interest.
But Matthews would/will play OT at some point. This is all about getting the best 5 OL on the field and having the depth to still compete in the, very likely, event of injury.
IMO, you are being way too critical of Robinson. Agree to disagree on this one.

At some point - when? 3 years? When you're passing up on a stud receiver now...

I still think there will be plenty of studly guards available (any of the ones you named) and we will plug that Guard hole. And when its time to move on from Long, either sign one in FA or draft one then. But not 3 years before it when we could be getting another starter at a different position. And even then, you won't know in 3 years down the line if he can make the jump from Guard to Tackle.

Well, from a pragmatic standpoint, Britt is an upgrade over all of our current WRs. He has produced more in the NFL than any of them to this point, but there is a reason his contract was structured the way it was. He is not guaranteed a roster spot come September.
I actually don't think he's an upgrade lol, especially based on the lack of production he's had in his career...which is still sadly more than any of our receivers lol
 

MerlinJones

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
1,020
Really? What's so dominant about The Seahawks o-line. I'm pretty sure that's an area that often gets considered a weak link.

But I guess Wilson is just scrambling around for no reason?

BTW Seattle is ranked 27th for the season - that's not dominant, that's weak.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/01/13/2013-offensive-line-rankings/



their highest player has a +7.1 grade.. for comparison, Long was 26+ and barksdale was +12..


lmao hell no. but what does this have to do with the lack of production last year or the past 6 years? nothing....

Apologies about Seattle. Guess my whole argument has been shot in the ass.

You win.
 

lockdnram21

Legend
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,348
The only thing that worries me about this is that who's riding the bench?

Barksdale and Long are the starting Tackles, Saffold is the guard and Wells is the center..so who's manning the guard spot if you draft Su'A Flo, Martin, Bitino, Yankey, and/or Matthews/Robinson. IMO it's wasted pick if you take 2 - I'd keep the same draft as you except watkins for matthews/robinson and take one of those guards.
 

lockdnram21

Legend
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,348
And you're missing my point - the Protection has been Much better, and last season was easily one of the top 10 in terms of protection. 8th in sacks and 12th in hits? Wasn't even that bad the year before where we gave up 3 less sacks (and Bradford played the whole season).

I think people have Seattle's week 17 game stuck in their head and that's what they keep thinking about when discussing the o-line..

then again it is hard to get chris william's failures out of your head -shudders- He should write a book on how to not play LT

how do we know if Long will come back at the same level and when does he come back? He had a serious injury Acl an Mcl. he plays a position with a lot of bending down. im just not comfortable depending on Long. Now to the Wrs. Tavon showed what he can do. Bailey Should have seen the field earlier.Givens had off year(i will get back to that in sec.) Quick was getting open more as the season progressed, Clemens either couldnt get it to him because of line wasnt accurate or just didnt see him. Imo Quick will show up this season. I think he will beat out Britt. Now to Watkins, If they draft him then Givens probaly want see the field. sammy and tavon can both take the top off of defenses. Givens had a off year , i would say it was partly to the injuries and Kc. He had some drops and soe quextion effort. it could have been the injuries. i think part of the reason why he wasnt effective in the beginning was because we didnt have a rb that people fear. His rookie year we seen a lot of 8 in the box because of jackson. this yearteams didnt fear our running game. so it made it easier to Cover Givens and the rest of our rreceivers. you see Tavon started getting loose, Quick Made that 80yard catch . that was predicated off us having a running game
 

Ram Quixote

Knight Errant
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,923
Name
Tim
In all of this talk about Long being ready for Week 1, there hasn't been any talk about who would line up at LT during TC and preseason. Saffold? The Rams would prefer him to concentrate on OG. Barksdale? I think it's agreed Joe isn't a LT. So, who spends time at LT? Not Long, unless he far exceeds the recommended healing time for ACL/MCL injuries. Keep in mind, we're talking about continuity on the OLine. I just don't expect Fisher to settle for second best, whoever he considers his first choice.

And while your busy praising the stats of last season's Oline, I keep thinking how nice it would be to have even better numbers.

Btw, @iced you have hope that Long will return and be his bad-assed self. Others of us have hope that our young receivers will improve. There is talent there, despite your attempts to disrespect them.

Your attitude toward the talent of our young receiving corps is short-sighted. Austin and Bailey were rookies last year. Quick and Givens were in their second year. Don't talk to me about low expectations for those 2. You know as well as I that the 3rd year is when the light comes on. In addition, much was sacrificed in the passing game in favor of the running game, or do you still believe that 15.5 passes per game for KC wasn't responsible for the low numbers of our young receivers? Or that Clemens liabilities as a passer affected the intermediate and long passing game?
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
10,736
Name
Scott
Alan. Yes there was hype for Dorsey and Gholsten. I also remember there being far more critics on these guys than there are now for Clowney. It seems most talking heads are in love with the guy as a player.
Do you think Clowney is overvalued?
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Btw, @iced you have hope that Long will return and be his bad-assed self. Others of us have hope that our young receivers will improve. There is talent there, despite your attempts to disrespect them.

Your attitude toward the talent of our young receiving corps is short-sighted. Austin and Bailey were rookies last year. Quick and Givens were in their second year. Don't talk to me about low expectations for those 2. You know as well as I that the 3rd year is when the light comes on. In addition, much was sacrificed in the passing game in favor of the running game, or do you still believe that 15.5 passes per game for KC wasn't responsible for the low numbers of our young receivers? Or that Clemens liabilities as a passer affected the intermediate and long passing game?

ummm excuse me? I have said multiple times outside Tavon there isn't much talent. You wanna put your faith in bailey with the small sample size?

You can use the Clemens excuse all you want - but for me it doesn't hold water. There are plenty of other starting receivers that managed to produce with back up qb's - they atleast managed to reach the endzone (unlike givens) or find themself to be a consistent threat (unlike quick/givens.) There is plenty of young talent on this team from the same draft class that are vastly out producing them despite being similar picks. Jenkins, Trumaine Johnson are perfect examples.

Josh Gordon managed to put up ridiculous numbers despite having several quarterbacks

but I guess givens 30 yards average receiving per game is fine for you? or his inability to even break 700 yards in 16 games with bradford? (As if this is some high bench mark either?)

Jared Cook led our team in receiving - whats his excuse? oh wait, only the receivers get one because they're vastly under performing. Givens and Hakeem nicks are the only starting receivers/ #1 in snaps that failed to record a touchdown in the NFL.

You can call it short sighted all you want - I call it looking at the production and the results. This WR corps also was one of the highest in drops and there were plenty of failed sight adjustments. So don't preach to me about opportunities when they squandered a lot of them. Givens also had one of the higher drop percentages in the league. And Quick was barely good enough to get on the field - he was #4 among snap counts for receivers.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
Dodgersrf with a tough question:
Alan. Yes there was hype for Dorsey and Gholsten. I also remember there being far more critics on these guys than there are now for Clowney. It seems most talking heads are in love with the guy as a player.
Do you think Clowney is overvalued?
Dorsey and Clowney are alike in some ways and not in others. With Clowney it's a matter of does he want it badly enough and not whether he has the tools. I don't see how anything but time can answer that question. I don't think he's overvalued, I just think he's a big risk. If we actually needed a DE I'd take that risk because the need would be added to his obvious athletic ability and weighed against the risk. I think the scales would tip in his favor. Without the need I'm not so sure.

Then there's the other factor of us not being able to get one of the top 3 OTs without trading up. The draft needs to be looked at as a whole IMO. Clowney/Moses? That might work but what about the fact that we'd miss out on Ha-Ha, Pryor, Gilbert and Dennard? Looked at as a whole I don't want him.
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
I don't view tape like some do. Mostly just watch games so you tell me who's coming out next year at a level of Matthews/Robinson we can get at 20-32? Unless we trade down and get a 1 for 2015, Rams won't get the chance to get that stud O lineman for years!
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
I don't view tape like some do. Mostly just watch games so you tell me who's coming out next year at a level of Matthews/Robinson we can get at 20-32? Unless we trade down and get a 1 for 2015, Rams won't get the chance to get that stud O lineman for years!
My bad, thought I didn't express myself previously! Haven't seen a response yet. Not a fan of Watkins if that helps! :sneaky::sneaky:
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
rhinobean wanting to seize the opportunity:
I don't view tape like some do. Mostly just watch games so you tell me who's coming out next year at a level of Matthews/Robinson we can get at 20-32? Unless we trade down and get a 1 for 2015, Rams won't get the chance to get that stud O lineman for years!
I totally agree with that rhino. The problem is, you could say that about a player like Clowney or Watkins or Mack too. No matter what we do we'll be screwed at all but one of those positions in the future. At least as long as we keep winning SBs. :)
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
I totally agree with that rhino. The problem is, you could say that about a player like Clowney or Watkins or Mack too. No matter what we do we'll be screwed at all but one of those positions in the future. At least as long as we keep winning SBs. :)
I know, Alan! Hoping to build that line now, then get quality skill players later! If Tavon, Quick and the rest can't cut it, cut them! :(
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
rhinobean feeling some pain:
I know, Alan! Hoping to build that line now, then get quality skill players later! If Tavon, Quick and the rest can't cut it, cut them! :(

We have a lot of the pieces to the puzzle and we just need a few more and some depth or good luck injury wise. We're about to be a better team in a month so I'm feeling good about things. No matter what road we choose to follow.
 

Ram Quixote

Knight Errant
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,923
Name
Tim
ummm excuse me? I have said multiple times outside Tavon there isn't much talent. You wanna put your faith in bailey with the small sample size?

You can use the Clemens excuse all you want - but for me it doesn't hold water. There are plenty of other starting receivers that managed to produce with back up qb's - they atleast managed to reach the endzone (unlike givens) or find themself to be a consistent threat (unlike quick/givens.) There is plenty of young talent on this team from the same draft class that are vastly out producing them despite being similar picks. Jenkins, Trumaine Johnson are perfect examples.

Josh Gordon managed to put up ridiculous numbers despite having several quarterbacks

but I guess givens 30 yards average receiving per game is fine for you? or his inability to even break 700 yards in 16 games with bradford? (As if this is some high bench mark either?)

Jared Cook led our team in receiving - whats his excuse? oh wait, only the receivers get one because they're vastly under performing. Givens and Hakeem nicks are the only starting receivers/ #1 in snaps that failed to record a touchdown in the NFL.

You can call it short sighted all you want - I call it looking at the production and the results. This WR corps also was one of the highest in drops and there were plenty of failed sight adjustments. So don't preach to me about opportunities when they squandered a lot of them. Givens also had one of the higher drop percentages in the league. And Quick was barely good enough to get on the field - he was #4 among snap counts for receivers.
Wow. Just ... wow.

You know, there isn't such a need for so much anger. Besides, I've heard all your arguments before. And spare me the condescension.

You're going to throw out the Josh Gordon card? Even I know our receivers don't match up to him, yet. Give me a break.

If all you can do to justify picking Watkins is by comparing our receivers' production to a WR stud, then there's nothing left to be said. AT ALL.