How much of a difference does having an elite guard make?

[Boffo97]

Unlike many, Im not really an advocate of drafting a certain position (sure I've joked around in threads) but my overall stance has been and remains, out of the top talent available, our scouting department needs to determine if they think one of those guys will be a game changer and if so, proceed accordingly. That is a luxury made easier by the fact we have 2 first round picks.

Thats the reason to me, both Clowney, and Watkins are still in play. If we think Clowney is going to be Julius peppers, or Watkins is megatron, you have to take them and make it work. I just want impact players/game changers on our team, by my account we only have 1 true player that fits that mold in Robert Quinn.

I absolutely agree we want game changers. But personally I've always had a "BPA informed by Need" policy. So, IMO, Clowney and the QBs are out because we have those positions entirely stocked with high 1st round players. However, I would approve of taking one if the talent differential between them and other top picks was massive. (Although Clowney and Manziel both have massive red flags to me.)

The tackles wouldn't be quite the same scenario as I am taking Long's injury history into account and they can be moved to other positions easier than Clowney could (and much easier than a QB could unless we want Manziel at receiver or something).

But #1 WR we don't have at all, and I do think it could help the offense. (I know some disagree with me, and that's their right.) So if talent is roughly equal, that's my priority. But talent could adjust the list.

And if we don't do SOMETHING for Guard, OL line need in general could be much more than any of us should be really comfortable with. Even if we did get Robinson/Matthews AND a top guard... two rookie guards... I'm not quite as prepared to declare the OL fixed just yet.

 

[jrry32]

I didn't say the two arguments were mutually exclusive, but it's a way to keep the goalpost moving around while peppering in silly things like "Watkins won't protect Sam!" as if the plan was to totally ignore the OL if we didn't take a tackle first. If only THAT nonsense can be canned, I think the air can be cleared a little around here. EVERYONE wants to address the OL. We just have different ideas of how to do it, and we have different ideas as to the rarity of really good guards vs. #1 WRs.

The goal-posts aren't moving. You were aware from the beginning that they were drafted to be the LT of the future and an OG in 2013. You just don't like that it eliminates your OG argument.

But I will add a reason to your list:

4. The Rams either feel Watkins is NOT a special #1 level guy, OR they feel that Evans IS and plan to draft him in the neighborhood of #13 OR they sign someone like Hakeem Nicks.

Or they do think Watkins can be that and still think Robinson/Matthews are better talents. Which is why I didn't use that as a reason.

And of course there's also the idea the Rams pull some razamatazz (that IS the technical term for it) and draft BOTH... which would make go "Huh."

That would make a certain part of me go "boing". Robinson and Matthews could be our Walter Jones/Steve Hutchinson, Willie Roaf/Brian Waters, Art Shell/Gene Upshaw, etc.

 

[jrry32]

Unlike many, Im not really an advocate of drafting a certain position (sure I've joked around in threads) but my overall stance has been and remains, out of the top talent available, our scouting department needs to determine if they think one of those guys will be a game changer and if so, proceed accordingly. That is a luxury made easier by the fact we have 2 first round picks.

Thats the reason to me, both Clowney, and Watkins are still in play. If we think Clowney is going to be Julius peppers, or Watkins is megatron, you have to take them and make it work. I just want impact players/game changers on our team, by my account we only have 1 true player that fits that mold in Robert Quinn.

I agree. So I tend to abide by my rankings. And of the four guys we're considering, it is:
1. Clowney
2. Matthews
3. Watkins
4. Robinson

But Robinson and Watkins are about equal for me.

 

[Memphis Ram]

To me positions like guard, safety, LB...if you have a decent to good one, you're set. You don't really notice a huge difference b/w say, Logan Mankins and Harvey Dahl. Individually, yeah Logan Mankins owns Harvey, but through the course of a game it's not noticeable on a consistent basis.

When did Logan Mankins become an elite guard?? He gave up 8.5 sacks last year according to http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=7208

 

[Boffo97]

The goal-posts aren't moving. You were aware from the beginning that they were drafted to be the LT of the future and an OG in 2013. You just don't like that it eliminates your OG argument.

Please stop trying to declare what I like and don't like. Okay? Thank you.

It IS moving the goalposts because we're trying to address one argument at a time rather than go around in circles for the next two months.

Or they do think Watkins can be that and still think Robinson/Matthews are better talents. Which is why I didn't use that as a reason.

And I hope if they do that, it's because they see a significant talent difference that justifies the lesser Need that I see.

That would make a certain part of me go "boing". Robinson and Matthews could be our Walter Jones/Steve Hutchinson, Willie Roaf/Brian Waters, Art Shell/Gene Upshaw, etc.

When I said draft both, I meant *Watkins* and Robinson/Matthews.

As I said in another post, Robinson AND Matthews would hopefully fix the line, but other units would suffer as a result of too much draft capital being on that line. Plus when the time came to re-up contracts, if both lived up to hype, no way we keep both. So that would be a horrible call IMO.

Still, I think the best plan would be to trade down as much as we feel comfortable with and take whoever was left between Watkins, Robinson and Matthews and shore up the rest of the team with the extra picks rather than dead set focus on one.

 

[Boffo97]

When did Logan Mankins become an elite guard?? He gave up 8.5 sacks last year according to http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=7208

If we judge by pay, he's worth precisely 1 Saffold.

 

[jrry32]

Please stop trying to declare what I like and don't like. Okay? Thank you.

It IS moving the goalposts because we're trying to address one argument at a time rather than go around in circles for the next two months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from American football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

Nobody is moving the goalposts. You know from the beginning of the discussion that drafting Matthews/Robinson means playing them at OG AND THEN moving them to LT when Long leaves. It's out there. The goalposts are set from the beginning.

When I said draft both, I meant *Watkins* and Robinson/Matthews.

I'm down for that too.

As I said in another post, Robinson AND Matthews would hopefully fix the line, but other units would suffer as a result of too much draft capital being on that line. Plus when the time came to re-up contracts, if both lived up to hype, no way we keep both. So that would be a horrible call IMO.

I don't think other units would suffer. The HB position would be better off, the QB position would be better off, the TE position would be better off and hell, the WR position might even end up being better off if Sam has all day to throw.

And I think we could keep both.

 

[jrry32]

To me positions like guard, safety, LB...if you have a decent to good one, you're set. You don't really notice a huge difference b/w say, Logan Mankins and Harvey Dahl. Individually, yeah Logan Mankins owns Harvey, but through the course of a game it's not noticeable on a consistent basis.

I vehemently disagree, Angry. There's a monster difference in my eyes when I watch a guy like Earl Thomas play in comparison to a Donte Whitner or Dashon Goldson. I noticed a monster difference between Rodger Saffold and Harvey Dahl at RG. I notice a monster difference between Lavonte David and Brandon Spikes.

 

[Boffo97]

Nobody is moving the goalposts. You know from the beginning of the discussion that drafting Matthews/Robinson means playing them at OG AND THEN moving them to LT when Long leaves. It's out there. The goalposts are set from the beginning.

Yes, we knew the argument included both guard now and tackle later from the beginning.

But it is moving the goalposts because it's deliberately keeping the argument circular. In one argument, one can only address one of these factors at a time. Or do you really think it settles ANYTHING when concerns about drafting a guard this early are answered with "But he'll be a tackle later" and concerns about about drafting a tackle when we don't need one yet are answered with "But he can be a guard now" and we just stay in that loop forever and ever for two months?

I *know* Robinson or Matthews would play guard now. And I *know* that hopefully sometime in the future, they'd be moved to tackle preventing a need there in the future. This is not new information. I *still* think that, unless there's a big talent disparity, we'd be better off taking the #1 WR we very likely don't have right now, and fixing our immediate guard problem later in the draft.

You disagree. And that's fine. I wouldn't smash my TV if the Rams agreed with you. You could even argue that we win either way unless whoever we choose busts out (which is a possibility for anyone in the League of course). I just don't see the sense of deliberately keeping us going in circles.

 

[Ramsey]

And...? 6 out of the top 10 QBs in Passer Rating in 2013 were drafted outside the first round. Should teams look for their franchise QB outside the first round?

It's wise for GM's to look for trends. In the stock market they say, " The trend is your friend."

The current trend in the NFL suggests you don't need to spend a first round pick to obtain an elite guard, much less a solid guard.
80% of recent All-Pro guards were found in rounds 3-4.
Me? Generally speaking, I would draft a QB, OT, or WR in the first round, before a guard or a running back.

I can play the QB passing rating game too.
8 of the top 14 QB's in Passer Rating in 2013 were drafted in the first round.

We could play another GM game. I'll draft my QB's in the first round, and guards in the 4th. You draft your QB's in the 6th round and your guards in the first round.

There are always exceptions to the rule. 6th round draft pick Tom Brady can be accounted for as a Black Swan Event. What is a Black Swan Event?

The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[jrry32]

Yes, we knew the argument included both guard now and tackle later from the beginning.

But it is moving the goalposts because it's deliberately keeping the argument circular. In one argument, one can only address one of these factors at a time. Or do you really think it settles ANYTHING when concerns about drafting a guard this early are answered with "But he'll be a tackle later" and concerns about about drafting a tackle when we don't need one yet are answered with "But he can be a guard now" and we just stay in that loop forever and ever for two months?

Honestly man, and I mean no offense by this, you're keeping the argument circular. Because the argument encompasses both premises. Basically, you can't make those arguments because they assume MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EVENTS.

He will be a guard now...filling an immediate need...and a tackle in the future. So trying to argue against him solely being a guard or a tackle CANNOT HAPPEN.

Which means that you're better off just finding another counter-point...such as arguing that Watkins is a better talent or that we need a #1 WR more than help on the OL or that #1 WRs are more valuable than OLs.

But no, you're right, you can't solely argue against drafting him because he's a tackle or a guard. Because he's BOTH.

 

[jrry32]

It's wise for GM's to look for trends. In the stock market they say, " The trend is your friend."

The current trend in the NFL suggests you don't need to spend a first round pick to obtain an elite guard, much less a solid guard.
80% of recent All-Pro guards were found in rounds 3-4.
Me? Generally speaking, I would draft a QB, OT, or WR in the first round, before a guard or a running back.

The current trend in the NFL also suggests you don't need to spend first round picks to obtain QBs or WRs or any other position.

And personally, I wouldn't call any of the OGs in the NFL right now elite. There is no Hutchinson. There is no Will Shields. There is no Larry Allen. There's a real dearth of talent at the position right now.

Generally speaking, the higher the pick, the better your chance at finding a quality player.

I can play the QB passing rating game too.
8 of the top 14 QB's in Passer Rating in 2013 were drafted in the first round. Or in 2013, 9 or the 14 top QB's in passer rating we're draft in the first round.

Can you? Because 14 is a completely arbitrary number. Typically, you look at the top 10 or top 5. And still, even with that arbitrary number, a third to nearly half were drafted outside the first round.

We could play another GM game. I'll draft my QB's in the first round, and guards in the 4th. You draft your QB's in the 6th round and your guards in the first round.

We could play my GM game. I draft the guys that I rank as top talents. You restrict yourself by refusing to draft certain positions. Yea, I'll be happy to compare results.

Because I never argued that you shouldn't draft QBs in the first. Only used it to argue your premise.

 

[Boffo97]

Honestly man, and I mean no offense by this, you're keeping the argument circular. Because the argument encompasses both premises. Basically, you can't make those arguments because they assume MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EVENTS.

He will be a guard now...filling an immediate need...and a tackle in the future. So trying to argue against him solely being a guard or a tackle CANNOT HAPPEN.

Which means that you're better off just finding another counter-point...such as arguing that Watkins is a better talent or that we need a #1 WR more than help on the OL or that #1 WRs are more valuable than OLs.

But no, you're right, you can't solely argue against drafting him because he's a tackle or a guard. Because he's BOTH.

Sorry, but no. I'm not the one making the argument circular. I fully admit that either tackle has the potential of both. But any ONE argument can only argue ONE thing at ONE time. Answering arguments against a guard picked that early with "But he'll be a tackle!" and arguments against taking a tackle we don't need yet with "But he'll be a guard right now" when you know that we all know this is what keeps arguments circular.

I know Robinson or Matthews would play guard in the short term. Maybe 1 year. Maybe 3 years. Maybe forever (but hopefully not). And I know that the plan would be that they would eventually play tackle. I know that makes them more valuable than just a guard or just a guy that would play tackle later (and thus the whole thing about how I'm supposedly making mutually exclusive arguments is nonsense). I still think a #1 WR with OL help drafted later (I did notice you tried to sneak in the false dilemma of drafting Watkins equating to ignoring the OL again) is a better plan for the Rams now, and in the future. So do others. Others agree with you. There's no point in keeping the argument circular.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I didn't know it was all in blue font. I thought I added gold trim!

I do know the round the 2013 class of all-pro guards were drafted in...

Louis Vasquez - 3rd round
Evan Mathis- 3rd round
Jahri Evans- 4th round
Logan Mankins- 1st round-32pick
Josh Sitton -4th round

I'm sorry, but with the possible exception Jahri Evans, how are any of these guys considered elite????? They couldn't tie the shoes of Steve Hutchinson, Larry Allen, Alan Faneca, and the like.

Also here's a tidbit I'm not sure anyone noticed. Josh Sitton, didn't start as a rookie. neither did Evan Mathis. In fact, Mathis has only started 22 games in his first 6 years in the NFL.

 

[NJRamsFan]

We could play my GM game. I draft the guys that I rank as top talents. You restrict yourself by refusing to draft certain positions. Yea, I'll be happy to compare results.

THIS right here!!!

 

[NJRamsFan]

Sorry, but no. I'm not the one making the argument circular. I fully admit that either tackle has the potential of both. But any ONE argument can only argue ONE thing at ONE time. Answering arguments against a guard picked that early with "But he'll be a tackle!" and arguments against taking a tackle we don't need yet with "But he'll be a guard right now" when you know that we all know this is what keeps arguments circular.

I know Robinson or Matthews would play guard in the short term. Maybe 1 year. Maybe 3 years. Maybe forever (but hopefully not). And I know that the plan would be that they would eventually play tackle. I know that makes them more valuable than just a guard or just a guy that would play tackle later (and thus the whole thing about how I'm supposedly making mutually exclusive arguments is nonsense). I still think a #1 WR with OL help drafted later (I did notice you tried to sneak in the false dilemma of drafting Watkins equating to ignoring the OL again) is a better plan for the Rams now, and in the future. So do others. Others agree with you. There's no point in keeping the argument circular.

What it comes down to is who is better not their value because of position. When picking this high in the draft AND having 2 first round picks you need to take the guy you think will be a star...period

 

[RamFan503]

I look at the capital we have spent on receiving weapons on this team and can't get my brain around how one more receiver - even a good (maybe elite but doubtful) one will make the difference here. Virtually all anyone did last year was complain about how poorly utilized all this new weaponry was. Another receiver - evena very good one is going to be utilized in a fashion that he's now the game changer? I don't see it.

We signed Wells, he broke. We signed Dahl. He played fairly well but was already nearly done and he started breaking. We drafted Saffold in the second and it was extremely obvious to me when he was on the field. Unfortunately, he was injured too much of the time here so we never really got much value out of him. But as I said, when he was on the field, he was obviously a level above most anyone else out there - INCLUDING Barks. Now last year we sign Long - a former #1 overall pick and even though he is not quite where he used to be, it was very obvious when he was on the field. Unfortunately, he went down at the end of the season with an ACL. But that's ok - he's young and ACLs aren't as serious as they used to be. Certainly not for a 320 lb lineman that has other 300+ linemen falling all around him every play and has to plant on that knee to hold back other 300Lb defensive players. But still - if he comes back, he is a MAJOR difference at LT than anyone else we could have hoped to land in FA.

Now we have the opportunity to land some elite level talent on the O-line and the reason not to do it is because they may have to play Guard for a couple years? If it is so obvious when you have a very good to elite lineman in the game, why wouldn't you go after that player? That's moving the goal posts? No. That's getting the best players you can get to be difference makers in BOTH the running game and the passing game AND help keep your main investment safe. If they play Guard - OK. If you have designs on them taking over at LT but they are a huge asset at Guard? OK. But you look at where players go these days and the idea that a Guard is somehow a 2nd tier position is just not keeping up with reality. As I said before, there used to be a time when RBs were always considered top five must haves. Not anymore. Guards may have been considered 2nd day options in the past. Now - most of those considered the best Guards go in the first round and generally early.

Sure you can point to great Guards and any other position that have gone later. But what we are talking about here is PROJECTIONS. These are players that have never taken an NFL snap. Just because Watkins is projected to be the best WR in this class, doesn't make him that. Same with Matthews and Robinson. So the projection has to be based on what helps your team more. And IMO - it matters not right now if your top pick has to play Guard for a couple years - or even his entire career. When I see how big of a difference true talent has made on THIS team in terms of linemen, I want more of them.

So people may say that just because you take Watkins, it doesn't mean you are disregarding the O-line. I think it does frankly. At minimum as much as not taking Watkins is disregarding the #1 receiver need. But that #1 receiver MAY have his number called 10 times. These hogs on your line are hopefully there for every snap.

You may be able to get good talent in later rounds and Bou might be a great line coach. But for Pete's sake. What could he do with some REAL talent?

 

[jrry32]

Sorry, but no. I'm not the one making the argument circular. I fully admit that either tackle has the potential of both. But any ONE argument can only argue ONE thing at ONE time. Answering arguments against a guard picked that early with "But he'll be a tackle!" and arguments against taking a tackle we don't need yet with "But he'll be a guard right now" when you know that we all know this is what keeps arguments circular.

That's the issue. The argument is, "we should draft Matthews/Robinson". The two things you're describing are premises which are used as evidence towards that argument.

 

[Boffo97]

What it comes down to is who is better not their value because of position. When picking this high in the draft AND having 2 first round picks you need to take the guy you think will be a star...period

Even if it means having to bench or trade someone on your team who is very good instead of addressing weaknesses?

I can see the validity of the philosophy. I just have a slightly different one. That said, if I had to choose one, I'd choose your (apparently) pure BPA philosophy over a pure Need philosophy any day.

 

[Boffo97]

I look at the capital we have spent on receiving weapons on this team and can't get my brain around how one more receiver - even a good (maybe elite but doubtful) one will make the difference here. Virtually all anyone did last year was complain about how poorly utilized all this new weaponry was. Another receiver - evena very good one is going to be utilized in a fashion that he's now the game changer? I don't see it.

The only capital we've spent on someone we projected to be a #1 WR was Quick.

In the meantime, while I agree we haven't drafted OL high, we have spent a lot of free agency dollars there.

Now, once we get outside the #1 range, THEN I agree with you. If we're not drafting a #1 WR, we don't need any more non #1s.

That's the issue. The argument is, "we should draft Matthews/Robinson". The two things you're describing are premises which are used as evidence towards that argument.

But when we're trying to discuss the premises individually, just answering an argument against one with another is deliberately creating a circular argument

Do you or do you not accept that those who want Watkins already know that the tackle plan is to have Robinson/Matthews as guard now and tackle later?