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

[NJRamsFan]

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.

its not pure BPA but when picking this high in the draft you're looking for franchise altering players. it just so happens all of the top guys are a need with the exception of Clowney, but you can never have enough pass rushers, and I'm only suggesting him if we feel he's the once in a generation talent some people think he is.

 

[RamFan503]

Another thing is that what would help out our current receivers more? Having a TE have to stay in to block as we saw all too much last year and the year before? Or having another receiving threat on the field making coverages far more difficult? Watkins replaces another receiving threat. He doesn't replace the blocking TE.

 

[Boffo97]

its not pure BPA but when picking this high in the draft you're looking for franchise altering players. it just so happens all of the top guys are a need with the exception of Clowney, but you can never have enough pass rushers, and I'm only suggesting him if we feel he's the once in a generation talent some people think he is.

Then we're in complete agreement on Clowney, presuming you're also taking his red flags into account. Thank you for clarification on your philosophy and I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.

I then go a step farther and say that you should only take the Tackles if their talent is significantly higher than Watkins'. But from what I've seen, even those who disagree with such a stance think that Robinson/Matthews ARE more talented anyway.

If the Rams agree, then I have no problem with the Rams going the tackle route.

 

[Ramsey]

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.

There is something to take note of here on this list. 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.

These guys are all pro. I used the word suggests when referring to elite. I do not wish to enter into a discussion on the meaning of the word elite as pertains to guards. I've read way too many posts arguing elite QB's, and I don't aim to start a trend arguing elite guards.

All the guards I mentions still play in the NFL and all of them are Associated Press All Pros ( For what that's worth). I didn't bring up first round draft pick guards like Tom Mack. God knows I loved Tom Mack. It's my fault, I didn't explain my point entirely. Maybe I should trod all the way around the mulberry bush, instead of just half way round. But I figured if I pointed out that 80% of the current crop of all pro guards were drafted in rounds 3 thru 4, than the reader would extrapolate under their own mental power, that a solid starting guard can easily be found in rounds 2, 3 and 4. There I spelled it out. I'm not talking about Hall OF Fame Guards. That's hindsight, The draft is all about foresight. Sure it would be nice to draft a hall of fame guard. I'd love to, but I would rather draft an hall of fame QB, WR. OT, DE, RB, CB, and linebacker than a hall of fame guard. I'll be happy if the Rams draft two solid guards who start every game for 5 strait years.

 

[Ramsey]

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.



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 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.

I agree with your theory that the higher a player is drafted, the better that said player's chance is to succeed. Why don't you publish your earth shattering theory. It's genus in it's simplicity.

 

[NJRamsFan]

Then we're in complete agreement on Clowney, presuming you're also taking his red flags into account. Thank you for clarification on your philosophy and I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.

I then go a step farther and say that you should only take the Tackles if their talent is significantly higher than Watkins'. But from what I've seen, even those who disagree with such a stance think that Robinson/Matthews ARE more talented anyway.

If the Rams agree, then I have no problem with the Rams going the tackle route.

yeah that coincides with what I've been saying. I haven't been lobbying for either position or any player if you recall. I agree we should only take matthews/robinson if they're significantly better than watkins and visa versa. And Clowney only enters the equation if he is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest.

To me, arguing positional value, or greater need is a moot point especially when we have 2 first round picks....we can still get a top 20 tackle/receiver so no need to pass on a guy we think will be a pro bowler (whomever that may be) for any reason

 

[BonifayRam]

Tom Mack
Dennis Harrah
Mike Kent
Tom Newberry
Adam Timmerman

 

[Boffo97]

yeah that coincides with what I've been saying. I haven't been lobbying for either position or any player if you recall. I agree we should only take matthews/robinson if they're significantly better than watkins and visa versa. And Clowney only enters the equation if he is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest.

To me, arguing positional value, or greater need is a moot point especially when we have 2 first round picks....we can still get a top 20 tackle/receiver so no need to pass on a guy we think will be a pro bowler (whomever that may be) for any reason

Well, I guess we agree too much to argue further then!

My Watkins love has, from day one, had the caveat of "If talent levels are roughly equal".

 

[NJRamsFan]

Well, I guess we agree too much to argue further then!

My Watkins love has, from day one, had the caveat of "If talent levels are roughly equal".

Yeah I'm starting to think your argument has gotten misrepresented and misunderstood. Because from what I read earlier it was more of we need a number one WR more so ignore the talent levels of the other guys because its easier to find an o lineman later on. Just food for thought I think you should just stick to "I think Sammy Watkins is that good we shouldn't pass on him" that leaves very little room for arguing.

its all good either way man haha these things tend to get intense but at the end of the day we all just want a damn winning season

 

[RamFan503]

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.

True that we used the 1st pick of the second round on a potential #1 receiver. But we have used a high amount of capital on SIX other receiving threats - all of which are still here. How many of them are on the field at any given time? Meanwhile, we signed a FA LT that was only available at that low cost because of a well known injury history. We signed a very good 30 year old Center that we have received very little playing time from, we took a very good RT in the second that is no longer here and was a huge upgrade when we stuck him in at RG. We spent some decent money on Dahl four years ago when he was already 28. We whiffed on JS obviously. We pulled Barks off waivers. And that is for a unit where FIVE of them are on the field for every snap.

So of that big investment on the O-line, what do we have? Hopefully a very good LT, a maybe 2nd year Guard, a 33 year old Center, and a RT that played fairly well considering his 4 year absence from meaningful playing time. Did I miss someone?

 

[VARAMS]

Is a new LEXUS SUV better than a new Ford SUV?
Is a 5 star restaurant better than a 3 star restaurant?
Was Godfather I better than Casino?
etc...

 

[RamFan503]

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.

The problem as I see it is that you are saying - get a Tackle later. When? When we are picking in the bottom half of the draft? We can get an elite Tackle now that can fill an immediate need at Guard and then an elite Guard potentially later in the draft in a year or two when we are picking later. The same as your argument on the #1WR debate. The best Guards have been going in the first round but still generally a little lower than the best Tackles. So it is quite feasible to get a top Guard in picks 15 - 32 but highly unlikely when you are talking about Tackles.

 

[Boffo97]

The problem as I see it is that you are saying - get a Tackle later. When? When we are picking in the bottom half of the draft? We can get an elite Tackle now that can fill an immediate need at Guard and then an elite Guard potentially later in the draft in a year or two when we are picking later. The same as your argument on the #1WR debate. The best Guards have been going in the first round but still generally a little lower than the best Tackles. So it is quite feasible to get a top Guard in picks 15 - 32 but highly unlikely when you are talking about Tackles.

I'm saying get a Guard now, get a Tackle in a later year when Long leaves. When that day comes, we don't know what tackles will be available (both in FA and the draft) when that happens. Just to clear that up.

I admit that filling the Guard hole and having an LT in the wings is a good thing... I just think having a #1 WR is a better thing.

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah I'm starting to think your argument has gotten misrepresented and misunderstood. Because from what I read earlier it was more of we need a number one WR more so ignore the talent levels of the other guys because its easier to find an o lineman later on. Just food for thought I think you should just stick to "I think Sammy Watkins is that good we shouldn't pass on him" that leaves very little room for arguing.

its all good either way man haha these things tend to get intense but at the end of the day we all just want CHAMPIONSHIPS

Fixed it for you.

 

[NJRamsFan]

Fixed it for you.

Touche'

 

[RamFan503]

I'm saying get a Guard now, get a Tackle in a later year when Long leaves. When that day comes, we don't know what tackles will be available (both in FA and the draft) when that happens. Just to clear that up.

I admit that filling the Guard hole and having an LT in the wings is a good thing... I just think having a #1 WR is a better thing.

I understand the last sentence and that's all cool. I just don't see how you get that top tackle in the future if we are picking 32nd. Apparently you are not greedy enough for me.

 

[jrry32]

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.


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?

Of course. Which means you can't argue that we shouldn't draft a tackle highly because we don't need one when guard is acknowledged as a major need or draft a guard highly when both players are considered to be tackles.

 

[jrry32]

I agree with your theory that the higher a player is drafted, the better that said player's chance is to succeed. Why don't you publish your earth shattering theory. It's genus in it's simplicity.

Is it? That's good to know. Then maybe people will stop arguing that you shouldn't draft a guard early because you can find them later.

 

[Memphis Ram]

These guys are all pro. I used the word suggests when referring to elite. I do not wish to enter into a discussion on the meaning of the word elite as pertains to guards. I've read way too many posts arguing elite QB's, and I don't aim to start a trend arguing elite guards.

All the guards I mentions still play in the NFL and all of them are Associated Press All Pros ( For what that's worth). I didn't bring up first round draft pick guards like Tom Mack. God knows I loved Tom Mack. It's my fault, I didn't explain my point entirely. Maybe I should trod all the way around the mulberry bush, instead of just half way round. But I figured if I pointed out that 80% of the current crop of all pro guards were drafted in rounds 3 thru 4, than the reader would extrapolate under their own mental power, that a solid starting guard can easily be found in rounds 2, 3 and 4. There I spelled it out. I'm not talking about Hall OF Fame Guards. That's hindsight, The draft is all about foresight. Sure it would be nice to draft a hall of fame guard. I'd love to, but I would rather draft an hall of fame QB, WR. OT, DE, RB, CB, and linebacker than a hall of fame guard. I'll be happy if the Rams draft two solid guards who start every game for 5 strait years.

Yeah, the "You get a elite guard in the 3rd or 4th round," comment through me off.

OK. A solid starting guard being easily found in rounds 2, 3, & 4 pretty much goes without saying. At the same time, there have been some draft classes where that hasn't turned out to be the case.

 

[Boffo97]

Of course. Which means you can't argue that we shouldn't draft a tackle highly because we don't need one when guard is acknowledged as a major need or draft a guard highly when both players are considered to be tackles.

My argument is as follows:

* We shouldn't draft a tackle highly because we already have one (unless the talent differential between Watkins and [Robinson and/or Matthews] is massive.)

* We shouldn't draft a guard highly because even though it's a major need, it's a lower tier position that teams can and often do find great people for later. (I know you disagree vehemently with that one.) My viewpoint on this may change if BOTH guard positions are still not settled going into the draft.

* If talent is anything approaching equal between the picks in question, we should pick Watkins because #1 WR is something we don't have right now and something you can't get later barring getting really lucky.