I Just don't think taking Watkins or any other top WR makes much difference if we don't solidify our O line.
That is where I'm at increasingly.
Wouldn't it be nice, for a change, for the next decade, instead of being a laughing stock, to be able to use the words/phrases, SEA & SF defense, gashed and blowed up in the same sentence.
This isn't a one year deal, we are trying to build a team that can compete with SEA and SF in the toughest division in the NFL. If we get Robinson this year, are we more likely to get a WR as good as Watkins in 2015, or conversely, if take Watkikns, a LT of the future and guard of the present as good as Robinson next season? Watkins is a stud, but Jeffery went in the mid-second and Patterson late first, and they both look like Pro Bowl caliber players to me. I don't see an OL as good as Robinson avail there? So that kind of answers the question for me.
The STL OL is old in spots (not Saffold, but most likely to leave, Barksdale is young, but free agent in 2015, Jones could start, but an unknown we have no idea if we can count on, can he stay healthy, he isn't battle tested let alone proven). Wells and Dahl are about 33, Long approaching 30 and returning from an ACL/MCL tear.
Maybe we are, in an ADD-ridden, instant gratification society, expecting too much, too soon from our young WRs. It is understandable, given the long sufferening STL fans as Martz, Linehan and Spags nosedived the personnel straight into the ground (and even subterranean realms). But realistically, it took us a long time to get bad, we won't get good overnight. Fisher and Snead have made mistakes (notably Quick and Pead), they do suffer in the comparison with SEA (but doesn't everybody who hasn't turned a team completely over in three years and built a dynasty - should we fire 31 other HCs?
), and they don't get an indefinite pass. But we do seem to be on an ascendant arc and trajectory, and it is important to remember the Rams were a historically bad 15-65. Millen's DET stint was something like .275 over seven years, the third worst in NFL history. We were sub-.200 for five years, for perspective, HAS to be one of the worst such stretches ever, probably in the history of all professional sports, not just pro football.
But I digress. I think Austin and Bailey will be a dynamic duo and future studs, and replicate their duelling receiving exploits from WV. Austin was misused, lost TDs from penalties of a young team's growing pains that is maturing around him, some uncharacteristic drops and scheme misuse. Not to mention Bradford missing more than half the season, and even most of the time WITH Bradford it was the now unrecognizable pre-Stacy and run-centric offense. In the consecutive games against IND and CHI, Austin's four 50+ yard TDs equaled something previously done only by two legendary Hall of Famers, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers, not bad company. Bailey is a cross between Hines Ward/Derrick Mason/Greg Jennings, and can average 4-6 receptions a game (65-90+) in his sleep, but he has deceptive short area burst and explosiveness (Brian Westbrook was ostensibly "slow", probably a 4.6 guy, but had one of the quickest first steps in the league... football isn't played in track shorts and in straight lines, and when he was stopping and starting, juking defenders out of their jocks, they were in his world) and can also be a deep threat, as well as underrated strength, toughness and RAC ability (see his ST prowess, and the reverse he ran in for a TD in one of his two starts?). His 25 TDs in 2012 were the third most in NCAA history, and beat Michael Westbrook's conference record. Austin, Bailey, Westbrook and Wes Welker were all groomed as a position coach, OC or HC by Dana Holgorsen, architect of the "Air Raid" passing attack. If we are going to throw, we can throw to these guys. Add in Cook, while flawed and not without his limitations and not a complete blocking TE, he could have been better used as a receiving weapon (we paid enough for him). He quietly set the franchise record for receiving at the TE position, and can improve with more reps to gain chemistry, timing and rapport with Bradford.
If we aren't going to throw for scheme reasons, getting Watkins to catch 3-4 balls a game isn't as helpful as Robinson blowing holes through SEA and SF like the Luftwaffe through the Polish cavalry for every offensive play! Acknowledged Watkins is a pure WR1 unlike Austin, and could command more receptions, but my contention is that Austin can do more than perhaps our collective imagination is accounting for, and there is a risk STL may not revert to GSOT form as much as some of us may like. Fisher likes to pound the ball. One of the first things he did as a HC was get Eddie George, and coupled with a good but not necessarily great QB in the late McNair (did have the great season in which he might have been co-MVP with Manning?), that was a recipe for success he rode to the Super Bowl (hi Kevin Dyson!
). He didn't draft OL in the first, but who would or need to when you inherit all time greats like Matthews and Munchak?
More potential, latent, untapped WR talent already on the roster as it is currently comprised are Quick and Givens. We don't need to count on them with Austin, Bailey and Cook, they should fill WR3/WR4 roles, maybe situational deep threat, red zone/boundary weapon roles. If they do hit, it is gravy and on the bonus plan. While it seems unlikely, what if Quick could be more Vincent Jackson than Jerome Simpson, and we never found out because we killed his reps opps one year too early. What if Givens can regain the form he flashed as a rookie, and 2013 was just a soph slump, and he can be a poor man's (OK destitute man's) Mike Wallace?
* It would be *NICE* to have Watkins (and maybe we can get Robinson and Watkins if we play our cards right?), but Fisher and Snead's predecessors ran the talent base down too far and too long, they inherited too many holes, sadly, sometimes you can't always get what you want (but as Mick Jagger said, you get what you need), we have to make some hard decisions.
