How Good Is Sammy Watkins?

  • 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.

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Like 99.9% of all blanket statements, that one was just as poor and incorrect (IMO) as the other one I disliked. If you have a huge hole at guard and you have Julio Jones and A.J. Green as your WRs with Tavon in the slot I think a G would be 1,000,000,000,000 times more valuable to your team. But then again, I added the second sentence caveat that you appear to have ignored.:wink:

Provided you have a top guard prospect...

there isn't one at the Watkins level..(top 10)
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
Yeah but we weren't talking about this draft in particular. Let's keep it general.

Unless you want to talk about this draft in particular, in which case none of the general statements I just made pertain and we'll have to start from zero. I'm OK with that. It's a big reason why I'm here. :woot:
 

ausmurp

Starter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
569
Jrry I agree with the Blackmon Watkins comparison. Been saying that since day one. Blackmon looked just as fast in college - remember how many slants he took to the house? I don't think we can afford to pass on him.

That being said, don't take his bowl performance too seriously. Ohio State d is the worst in school history, no lie.
 

RFIP

Guest
Jrry I agree with the Blackmon Watkins comparison. Been saying that since day one. Blackmon looked just as fast in college - remember how many slants he took to the house? I don't think we can afford to pass on him.

That being said, don't take his bowl performance too seriously. Ohio State d is the worst in school history, no lie.

I was aa huge Blackmon guy, still love his talent and I do see similarities but Watkins IS faster and more powerful imo. Plus, weed aside, he's a better person.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
The thing is; we can fix the oline via FA and later in the draft. At WR... Gifted WR's don't hit FA and they go high in the draft.

If the Rams feel they need help at WR, it's time to stop messing around. Draft Watkins and we're set at WR.

Disagree. On occasion, gifted WRs do hit FA. On occasion, gifted OLs hit FA. For the most part, both go high in the draft but sometimes you can find them later.

We cannot guarantee to fix the OL via FA and later in the draft. We can TRY but how well has that worked out for us in the past?

They say, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". We have a gift horse and I believe we're looking at it in the mouth.

In order for Watkins to be a feasible pick for me, he has to either be at the top of my board or an overwhelming need. I don't see him as either. At #6 or #7 if Matthews is gone, sure, I'm game.

Look at the way we won games with Kellen Clemens in, I don't care who your WRs are. If you can run the ball like that, you'll be fine passing off the play-action. And I don't believe our WRs are talentless hacks. I think Tavon Austin and Stedman Bailey will both be very good WRs in this league.

You want to know how you win in this league? You dominate in the trenches. If we truly want to help our QB, grab Jake Matthews(unless we stay at #2...then take Clowney or Bridgewater). Because you saw how atrocious our running game was without Saffold at OG against Seattle. Matthews doesn't just keep Sam upright...he allows us to run the ball effectively. And that makes a great difference for Sam who had a 111.5 QB Rating in 2013 when throwing off a play-action.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
I was aa huge Blackmon guy, still love his talent and I do see similarities but Watkins IS faster and more powerful imo. Plus, weed aside, he's a better person.

Based on what? Have you ever met Justin Blackmon? His issues are substance related just like Watkins has had in college. There's nothing wrong with Blackmon's personality. He just has a problem.

Watkins isn't more powerful...but he is faster. For sure.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Whom were all outplayed by 3rd rounder warford - a very popular predraft target for a lot of ram fans.

Much better chance of finding a starting guard in the later rounds vs a #1 WR..

when your tight end is your leading receiver, your receivers are dam near the top in the league in drops and theres a #1 staring at you in the face - smart money is probably to take that #1 :cool:

And every WR drafted in the first round was outplayed by 3rd rounder Keenan Allen. Same logic. Same outcome. Do you want to claim we shouldn't draft a WR in the 1st round based on that?

WR no more valuable than a G or C? Please tell me that is not an exact quote?

When you can dictate coverage it makes EVERYTHING on offense that much easier, including blocking for your OL as the amount of stacked boxes will be greatly reduced.

That's an exact quote. You know what dictates coverage better than a #1 WR? A strong running game.

You know what helps your WRs get open? Being able to run a deep drops and longer developing routes because your QB has time in the pocket. Do you remember the SF and Dallas debacles? No WR can get open when his QB is getting sacked 6 to 7 times a game. And Sam won't be able to do his job under those circumstances. I don't care how good the WRs are.

Right now, we have nothing on the interior. Sorry but I don't trust Scott Wells to stay healthy and imo, Harvey Dahl stunk in 2013. And our best OL is trying to get back from a torn ACL and MCL.

1)Matthews name is over hyping his draft status. He's a good player;but the bloodline name is helping inflate his draft stock no question.
2)I disagree about WR's available vs OT's.
3)You're really okay with takign a guard or center in the top 5 /top 8?
4)free agency hasn't hit yet
5)Couch Boudrea is a hell of an o-line coach; can't say the same for Sherman
6)This offensive line had players playing at a pro bowl level; proven players. There isn't a proven wide receiver in this group, playing even at an above average level not named tavon austin...and none of them can catch either

1. In what way is he overhyped? Seems to me that people love to use his "name" against him without actually telling us where he doesn't live up to expectations. I've watched the guy. I've evaluated him. And his name meant nothing to me while I was focused on his game. It didn't enter my mind. He's a top tier OL prospect. It's all on film.
2. Feel free to but that's my opinion. I don't like Kouandjio and Lewan. I do like Evans and Lee.
3. Absolutely. Have said this many times in the past. I only care about getting great players.
4. No, it hasn't.
5. I think Sherman is a better coach than he's given credit for.
6. This offensive line has Joe Barksdale and Jake Long coming off major knee surgery. And Tim Barnes if we bring him back on the ERFA...that's about it. The WR corp has Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey, Chris Givens, Jared Cook, Brian Quick and Austin Pettis. If you ask me which group I'd rather go into 2014 with...it's the WR corp...easily.

%20%7D
%20%7D
%20%7D


Just look at them. Now tell me Watkins looks more like Crabtree. LOL.

I'm pretty sure Fisher isn't taking the 3 guys you want first.

That is, if you believe what he has said, we ain't taking a QB. And an OT with the first pick doesn't fit his draft philosophy. And I believe they'd rather use Clowney for trade bait.

Snead is trading down. Fisher wants more points. Watkins makes the most sense.

Your plays didn't show up? So I can't. :wink:

I don't care if Fisher takes the 3 guys I want. Wouldn't be the first time the Rams didn't. I make recommendations based on what I see. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.

But I don't agree that Watkins makes the most sense. If it were a year ago? Sure. Now? No.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And every WR drafted in the first round was outplayed by 3rd rounder Keenan Allen. Same logic. Same outcome. Do you want to claim we shouldn't draft a WR in the 1st round based on that?

Keenan Allen was always projected as a first round talent prior to injury, warford was not. You know this

6. This offensive line has Joe Barksdale and Jake Long coming off major knee surgery. And Tim Barnes if we bring him back on the ERFA...that's about it. The WR corp has Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey, Chris Givens, Jared Cook, Brian Quick and Austin Pettis. If you ask me which group I'd rather go into 2014 with...it's the WR corp...easily.

barrett jones at center...

I view the line like this

LT-Long (Saffold if not healthy)
LG - draftpick
C - Jones
RG - Saffold (hopeful resign or tag), UDFA/Draftpick/FA
RT - Barksdale
 

max

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
Name
max
The odds of getting a quality starting WR after the first round is a lot less than getting a quality starting OG after the first round. That's just a commonly known fact.

Keenan Allen was a first round talent with a questionable knee. No way he goes in the 3rd round if the knee checked out. The guy was running a 4.9 40 right before the draft.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Keenan Allen was always projected as a first round talent prior to injury, warford was not. You know this

Where he was projected is irrelevant. It's an excuse. He went in the 3rd round. And just like Larry Warford, he outplayed the guys that went ahead of him.

But, ultimately, that's irrelevant. You'll almost always have guys that outplay your 1st round picks. And, typically, the most productive player as a rookie DOES NOT end up being the best player in the draft class.

barrett jones at center...

I view the line like this

LT-Long (Saffold if not healthy)
LG - draftpick
C - Jones
RG - Saffold (hopeful resign or tag), UDFA/Draftpick/FA
RT - Barksdale

So we're hoping that Jones is ready despite him not playing this year, we can re-sign Saffold(because we're not tagging him) and that we find someone at LG. On the WR corp, we're missing a #1 WR and the rest of the slots are filled. I think you just proved my point.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
The odds of getting a quality starting WR after the first round is a lot less than getting a quality starting OG after the first round. That's just a commonly known fact.

Keenan Allen was a first round talent with a questionable knee. No way he goes in the 3rd round if the knee checked out. The guy was running a 4.9 40 right before the draft.

And how about the odds of getting a starting LT after the first round? They're lower than the odds of getting a starting WR. This proves that we should take Jake Matthews. Thank you.
 

max

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
Name
max
I'm not saying if we don't draft Watkins it's the end of the world. But he is the best WR in this draft. And he is also the most NFL ready. And I believe we need to draft another WR. Quick and Givens are huge question marks at best.

But there's no doubt that we need to ensure that we can protect Sam. Fisher knows that. And it's his neck on the line if he decides to pass on an OT in the first round as has been his history.

All this mean to me is that I'd be shocked if we took Clowney and passed on both Watkins and Matthews.
 

max

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
Name
max
And how about the odds of getting a starting LT after the first round? They're lower than the odds of getting a starting WR. This proves that we should take Jake Matthews. Thank you.

Nope. The only thing it proves is that we shouldn't take Clowney and pass on both Watkins and Mattthews, as I said above.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Where he was projected is irrelevant. It's an excuse. He went in the 3rd round. And just like Larry Warford, he outplayed the guys that went ahead of him.

But, ultimately, that's irrelevant. You'll almost always have guys that outplay your 1st round picks. And, typically, the most productive player as a rookie DOES NOT end up being the best player in the draft class.

You're missing the point - Keenan Allen was a first rounder. Period. He was one of the best receiver's til he got injured; just like lots of other players fall when they an injury, especially if its a knee for a receiver.

So we're hoping that Jones is ready despite him not playing this year, we can re-sign Saffold(because we're not tagging him) and that we find someone at LG. On the WR corp, we're missing a #1 WR and the rest of the slots are filled. I think you just proved my point.

I showed 5 linemen and somehow that proves your point about the WR core? mm kay...

I'd be very surprised if we go matthews, or clowney
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Nope. The only thing it proves is that we shouldn't take Clowney and pass on both Watkins and Mattthews, as I said above.

We should take whoever the highest ranked player on our board is. That's Clowney for me. If he's gone, that's Matthews. If he's gone, that's Watkins.

As it stands now, my board is:
1. Bridgewater
2. Clowney
3. Matthews
4. Watkins
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
You're missing the point - Keenan Allen was a first rounder. Period. He was one of the best receiver's til he got injured; just like lots of other players fall when they an injury, especially if its a knee for a receiver.

You're missing the point. Keenan Allen was only a first rounder in fantasy land. You're making an excuse because the same argument you used with Warford against OGs is true of Allen with WRs. Allen was a 3rd round pick. That's a fact. He outproduced the guys taken ahead of him. That's a fact. It's the same thing you're arguing with Warford.

I showed 5 linemen and somehow that proves your point about the WR core? mm kay...

I'd be very surprised if we go matthews, or clowney

Yes. Because the Rams OL has bigger issues than the WR corp. Which was my point.
 

max

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
Name
max
We should take whoever the highest ranked player on our board is. That's Clowney for me. If he's gone, that's Matthews. If he's gone, that's Watkins.

As it stands now, my board is:
1. Bridgewater
2. Clowney
3. Matthews
4. Watkins

Here's where we disagree conceptually.

I prefer targeting players at specific spots in the draft. I'm looking for players that will have the biggest impact on my team immediately.

By way of example, I don't believe either Bridgewater or Clowney will have the biggest immediate impact on my team in comparison to Matthews or Watkins. So I prefer to trade down and take either Matthews or Watkins, and add an extra pick.

But, granted you have to trust your evaluations. You don't pass on Lawrence Taylor or John Elway.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Here's where we disagree conceptually.

I prefer targeting players at specific spots in the draft. I'm looking for players that will have the biggest impact on my team immediately.

By way of example, I don't believe either Bridgewater or Clowney will have the biggest immediate impact on my team in comparison to Matthews or Watkins. So I prefer to trade down and take either Matthews or Watkins, and add an extra pick.

But, granted you have to trust your evaluations. You don't pass on Lawrence Taylor or John Elway.

That's just not how I do it. I take the approach that the draft is for the future. I try to grab the best talent possible while keeping positional value and need in mind. I call it "value" or BVA(Best Value Available). It's a combination of all 3 but talent and positional value weigh more heavily for me than need.

But no one approach is the only right approach. Just different strokes for different folks.

My assumption is that the rookie likely won't contribute a ton to my team immediately...because most players just don't put up a ton of production as rookies. So the immediate isn't what I'm concerned as much about. Free agency is about plugging holes that need to be plugged. The draft, for me, is about collecting as much talent as possible.

And again, that's just my explanation on how I do it. Totally understand if you don't feel the same way.