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

[blackbart]

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.

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.

Under any of those scenarios, the only two sensible solutions left IMO are draft an OT to play OG (hopefully not long term, and hopefully Matthews IMO in that scenario) or draft out of the top ten completely and stack up multiple hopefully very good players instead of one hopefully elite player.

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."

So since it isn't your position is is nonsense?? OK I see how you are now :double:

 

[Angry Ram]

Well, I won't get it because it's not accurate. The only games "down the stretch" where they performed badly were the second Seattle game...without Jake Long and Rodger Saffold forced to play LT and the Arizona game.

It's not enough to influence the outcome of the game? I disagree, I think it is. I think PRIME Troy Polamalu influenced the outcome of quite a few games over his career. Current Polamalu is no longer an elite or great safety. He's old and in decline.

Being able to win with a Harvey Dahl player over a Steve Hutchinson type doesn't mean jack. You can win with a lesser player at ANY position if you have a better team. So no, I don't get the point. It's flying well over my head. San Francisco has won more games with Colin Kaepernick and Alex Smith than New Orleans has won with Drew Brees over the past few years. And yet, I'd never consider the QB position to be one where having an elite player doesn't matter or doesn't influence the outcome of games.

Do you want another QB example? Joe Flacco's team has won more games than Tony Romo's team over the past few years as well.

Clearly you aren't. The OP was the difference b/w having an elite guard and a good guard. Harvey Dahl is a good guard. Steve Hutchinson is an elite guard. That's head to head. But in a game, does having Harvey over Steve really make that much difference? To me, nope. That's b/c a good player can get the job done just like the elite guy can.

It's not something like some UDFA over a player like Logan Mankins or Steve Hutchinson, yes clearly there's a difference in that case. Again it's good vs. elite.

BTW Troy is still a great safety, but he's been hurt more, and that's another topic entirely. I was merely bringing in an example for an elite safety vs. a good safety like Donte Whitner.

Oh and the OL was in shambles dude, especially when Scott Wells went on IR. It was bad. The defense played well and so did ST.

And why are you bringing in QBs? I said positions like guard, safety, OLB, not highly regarded ones like QB or a pass rusher.

 

[jjab360]

Clearly you aren't. The OP was the difference b/w having an elite guard and a good guard. Harvey Dahl is a good guard. Steve Hutchinson is an elite guard. That's head to head. But in a game, does having Harvey over Steve really make that much difference? To me, nope. That's b/c a good player can get the job done just like the elite guy can.

Your logic makes no sense. An elite player doesn't have a bigger impact than a good player? That is literally what seperates an elite player from a good player. They both do the job well, but the elite player makes the plays the good player doesn't. Pancakes a player leading to a long TD, stonewalls an elite defensive lineman all game long, or picks up a delayed blitz that a good player would have missed and gotten the QB sacked and injured. If you can't see how these plays make a difference I don't really know what else to say.

Oh and the OL was in shambles dude, especially when Scott Wells went on IR. It was bad. The defense played well and so did ST.

Sir, what are you talking about? Our OL was great, arguably even elite between weeks 8-16 excluding the games against SF and ARI. Our run blocking was superb and the pass protection was good as well. I watched every game multiple times, it was night and day from earlier in the season.

 

[Angry Ram]

Your logic makes no sense. An elite player doesn't have a bigger impact than a good player? That is literally what seperates an elite player from a good player. They both do the job well, but the elite player makes the plays the good player doesn't. Pancakes a player leading to a long TD, stonewalls an elite defensive lineman all game long, or picks up a delayed blitz that a good player would have missed and gotten the QB sacked and injured. If you can't see how these plays make a difference I don't really know what else to say.

Only b/c you aren't getting it. I've said multiple times in this thread, in terms of having a good vs. elite guy at a position like guard, it does not make much difference, especially through the course of a game. I've never said the elite guy doesn't have a bigger impact...it's again, through the course of a game. What difference is it when you win or lose with Harvey Dahl or Logan Mankins or Donte Whinter or Troy Polamalu?

Now, when jrry brought in the QB, that's a totally different animal. It's these positions that get replaced every few years or so. I.e. guard, safety, OLB. And again, it's the difference b/w having a good player vs. an elite player, NOT a bad player vs. elite player.

Sir, what are you talking about? Our OL was great, arguably even elite between weeks 8-16 excluding the games against SF and ARI. Our run blocking was superb and the pass protection was good as well. I watched every game multiple times, it was night and day from earlier in the season.

When Jake Long and Scott Wells went down, as well as Rodger Saffold, the line was terrible from what I could tell. Hell, that's why this thread even exists, needing a guard and possibly a tackle in the draft.

 

[Angry Ram]

...as opposed to "merely" a good guard?

Let's leave the discussion of whether Robinson/Matthews would make elite guards (or elite tackles) for other threads. I've seen a lot of questioning of whether a #1 WR helps your offense... not much on the question of whether an elite guard really helps your offense more than just a good guard does.

Edit: This question is NOT about whether elite is better than good. That's obvious by definition. It's about whether an elite guard is such a huge advantage in winning games over a good guard as to justify picking an elite guard with a premium pick.

This is the point.

 

[nighttrain]

This is the point.

and a very fine point at that, i's say an elite guard is terrific, but any team, and most do, win with just plain ol good guards, Elite is scarce
train

 

[jjab360]

Only b/c you aren't getting it. I've said multiple times in this thread, in terms of having a good vs. elite guy at a position like guard, it does not make much difference, especially through the course of a game. I've never said the elite guy doesn't have a bigger impact...it's again, through the course of a game. What difference is it when you win or lose with Harvey Dahl or Logan Mankins or Donte Whinter or Troy Polamalu?

Now, when jrry brought in the QB, that's a totally different animal. It's these positions that get replaced every few years or so. I.e. guard, safety, OLB. And again, it's the difference b/w having a good player vs. an elite player, NOT a bad player vs. elite player.

Wtf are you even saying?? "What difference is it when you win or lose with Harvey Dahl or Logan Mankins or Donte Whinter or Troy Polamalu?" What difference is it when you win or lose with or without any elite, good, bad, terrible player?? Teams win games, players make teams, better players make better teams, one player doesn't make a team, etc., etc. This is common sense stuff, man. OF COURSE having a better OG makes a difference, I don't feel like and/or know if I could communicate the importance of winning in the trenches to you, but it all starts at the LOS.

When Jake Long and Scott Wells went down, as well as Rodger Saffold, the line was terrible from what I could tell. Hell, that's why this thread even exists, needing a guard and possibly a tackle in the draft.

Yeah, after Long went down before the last game of the season and we had to move Saffold to LT where he is just above average, it was basically like losing our two best linemen with one injury and our O-line was pretty bad. For one game against the Seahawks in week 17. Up until that point, they were pretty damn good, and far from the "shambles" you claim.

 

[jjab360]

and a very fine point at that, i's say an elite guard is terrific, but any team, and most do, win with just plain ol good guards, Elite is scarce
train

You could say this exact same thing, word for word precisely, about any position in the NFL. So... what is the point exactly?

 

[nighttrain]

You could say this exact same thing, word for word precisely, about any position in the NFL. So... what is the point exactly?

Its a team game, one where you seldom have very many elite players on any team, winner or loser
train

 

[RamFan503]

Ram's OL was crap down the stretcher. You aren't getting it w/ anything I post. Whether it be draft or this or anything.

I SAID INDIVIDUALLY PLAYER X CAN BE BETTER THAN PLAYER Y, BUT NOT THROUGH THE COURSE OF A GAME, IT IS NOT NOTICEABLE ENOUGH TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF A GAME THROUGH 60 MINUTES.

Especially at positions like guard, safety OLB, you can have a win with say a Harvey Dahl player over a Steve Hutchinson type. Or Donte Whinter over Troy Polamalu. Who's better Troy or Donte? Troy, duh. But SF has won more games w/ Donte over Troy. See my point now? Which is the idea of the OP..what's the difference b/w an elite guy and a good player. There is little to none for difference b/w wins or losses.

THAT is all I am saying.

Huh? Gotta say Angry - Your logic really escapes me here. Why would we EVER want to have a first or second round draft pick then?

 

[jrry32]

Clearly you aren't. The OP was the difference b/w having an elite guard and a good guard. Harvey Dahl is a good guard. Steve Hutchinson is an elite guard. That's head to head. But in a game, does having Harvey over Steve really make that much difference? To me, nope. That's b/c a good player can get the job done just like the elite guy can.

Yes. I think it makes a world of difference. Watching Steve Hutchinson blow open holes back in the day, it was a major difference. Hell, Rodger Saffold, who isn't Steve Hutchinson, made a VERY noticeable difference in comparison to Harvey Dahl.

A good player can get the job done...but getting the job done isn't enough. Elite players change games. They impact games in meaningful ways.

Oh and the OL was in shambles dude, especially when Scott Wells went on IR. It was bad. The defense played well and so did ST.

In shambles? We had one of the NFL's best running games during that stretch of 6 games with Saffold at RG. Our offense did quite well. The OL was not in shambles. That's revisionist history.

And why are you bringing in QBs? I said positions like guard, safety, OLB, not highly regarded ones like QB or a pass rusher.

Pointing out the flaws in the "wins" argument.

 

[Username]

An elite player anywhere on your team is a good thing. Considering the direction our offense is moving, having elite players on the line is a good thing.

 

[Username]

Saffolds one of the best pulling linemen in the league btw. Idk if that fit into this discussion, just thought I'd throw that in there. Zack Stacys a happy man.

 

[RamFan503]

Its a team game, one where you seldom have very many elite players on any team, winner or loser
train

True but you are IMO really not saying what you mean. I could be wrong but what I think you are saying is that you wouldn't look for an elite Guard because you feel the position doesn't warrant it. If so, ok but I would still disagree with that. If elite is available at any position, you have to weigh the impact that player makes for your team. I really think that is at the core of the Watkins v Matthews/Robinson debate.

But any time you can get an elite player on a team, it is ALWAYS better and will result in a better outcome for your team as long as that elite player lives up to the status.

 

[Boffo97]

So since it isn't your position is is nonsense?? OK I see how you are now :double:

Since there's no way to tell what "it" is in your message I can only presume that this is an attempt to flame rather than discuss.

Fellow Rams fans who simply have a different opinion than you aren't the enemy, you know.

 

[Boffo97]

and a very fine point at that, i's say an elite guard is terrific, but any team, and most do, win with just plain ol good guards, Elite is scarce
train

But the question was whether said elite guard makes an amount of difference as to whether or not a team is successful over a good guard to be worth making a huge investment in one, or if because of the nature of the position, there will be minimal value over that of a simply a good guard on the bottom line.

You only get so many draft choices and so many salary cap dollars. A GM has to decide what areas to spend that capital to get elite talent in in order to achieve the best results.

 

[jrry32]

But the question was whether said elite guard makes an amount of difference as to whether or not a team is successful over a good guard to be worth making a huge investment in one, or if because of the nature of the position, there will be minimal value over that of a simply a good guard on the bottom line.

You only get so many draft choices and so many salary cap dollars. A GM has to decide what areas to spend that capital to get elite talent in in order to achieve the best results.

Elite players are rare. They're worth the resources necessary.

 

[Boffo97]

Elite players are rare. They're worth the resources necessary.

So back when Oakland selected Sebastian Janikowski with a 1st round pick, do you feel they were correct to do so as they obviously felt Janikowski was elite?

 

[jrry32]

So back when Oakland selected Sebastian Janikowski with a 1st round pick, do you feel they were correct to do so as they obviously felt Janikowski was elite?

No because he's not elite nor is he a full time starter. It's apples to oranges. Guards play every offensive snap. Janikowski plays 5-13 snaps a game.

Part time players are a horse of a different color. We're talking about full-time starters...which rules out specialists and fullbacks.

 

[Boffo97]

No because he's not elite nor is he a full time starter. It's apples to oranges. Guards play every offensive snap. Janikowski plays 5-13 snaps a game.

Part time players are a horse of a different color. We're talking about full-time starters...which rules out specialists and fullbacks.

But they thought Janikowski was elite. And the "full time starter" bit is new, but we'll go with it. Does this mean you're also against the picks of Mack and Barr since they wouldn't be three-down players for us? Just wondering.

But even though we disagree on whether different positions are on different tiers (apparently), I will say that if the Rams believe Robinson or Matthews are elite, and Watkins is not, they should take Robinson or Matthews. Very good or worse is a different story though.