LT OR WR With The First Pick

  • 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.

Robinson/Matthews OR Watkins With The First Pick


  • Total voters
    50

Ramifications

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #101
Jerry, I just thought of it as a robust debate. :)

Does Iced need to "chill"?

I find it bizarre that someone can't concede a basic, referenceable point of fact like weight or weight gain (which you agreed he was mistaken about), or hiding behind "what Demoff said".

I haven't called him stupid (I just think he is mistaken and being stubborn about it), and he hasn't called me stupid, so no cause for escalation that I can see?

If I mistakenly say Tavon Austin is 7'0" tall and 500 lbs., I'd expect to get checked on it. If than several people attempt to set me straight, and I could have easily referenced it myself, but keep insisting others are wrong because "Demoff said so", I'd expect to keep getting checked on it.

I just don't appreciate being misrepresented, and really don't like it when somebody says I misrepresented them, and I didn't, and they are misrepresenting me. But mild irritation would be a description of the level, intensity or magnitude of the feeling involved.

I have tried to meet things halfway in the process, attempted to clarify if I thought I contributed to a miscommunication (like if he didn't say anything bad about Jeffery, I acknowledged this and invited an attempt to clarify what he did think). I'm using quotes to avoid concern about "twisting words" since that was expressed.

But he has acknowledged or conceded exactly 0% from his side. The Jeffery weight thing could have been dealt with and put to rest many posts ago. Even in the face of being wrong after being presented with facts to the contrary of his position about weight (by you as well), he maintained the position based on Demoff saying so.
 

RobertWinn

UDFA
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
78
Name
David
I think the best scenario would be to trade down with Atlanta so they can grab Clowney and we can stockpile some more picks while taking Jake Matthews at 6. I'm in love with Clowney too and it would be awesome to get a Giant-like rotation at DE but we don't really have that luxury at the moment. Walt actually has us taking Clowney at 2 though in his latest mock and I can get behind that logic:

http://walterfootball.com/draft2014.php
 

PhxRam

Guest
I think the best scenario would be to trade down with Atlanta so they can grab Clowney and we can stockpile some more picks while taking Jake Matthews at 6. I'm in love with Clowney too and it would be awesome to get a Giant-like rotation at DE but we don't really have that luxury at the moment. Walt actually has us taking Clowney at 2 though in his latest mock and I can get behind that logic:

http://walterfootball.com/draft2014.php

Hey Dave..Why not step into the introduction thread and introduce yourself?
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Lmao. I'm pretty sure our WR core is bad on it's own and Bradford made that very apparent with the constant drops. You do understand the team was LEADING THE NFL in DROPS through the first 5-7 games - And ended up still ranking #7 overall with a run first mind set..a tight end lead the team in receiving...

Bradford was doing a lot more with a little - and he had a great 1/2 year. I'd love to see him with an actual weapon that defenses will actually respect.

The key to me is this iced...Bradford had 7 TDs to 1 Int(could have been 9 or 10 realistically) and a 110+ QB Rating over the 3 games before going down. What changed about our WRs? Nothing. Tavon and Stedman are no longer rookies and Tavon's drop problems in the first 4 weeks(5 of them) contributed heavily to that number. He didn't drop another ball all season...the drops were imo clearly because he didn't have the playbook down and was thinking instead of reacting on the field. Cook is not in the first year in a new offense either. Givens, Quick and Pettis are another year older as is Kendricks.

Our passing game had no issues over that period and Bradford played lights out football. Not because the WRs changed but because he had stellar protection and a strong running game to work off of. Bradford can do big things with the WRs we have now...if we protect him and we give him a running game to keep the defense honest. And the best way to do both is to build up the OL.

Adding another rookie WR does nothing for us if we can't protect our QB. If it comes down to WR vs. OL and they're ranked evenly in terms of talent, OL has to be the pick imo.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Am I the only one who views draft position as somewhat of a side story now? I realize that if there are certain players that are going to go to a certain team then you may want to trade up or down to get him. But if you are sitting there at 13 for example, and a guard projected to go 25th but fills your criteria is sitting there while your phone remains silent, do you let him go to another team because you simply don't want to reach for him? Personally, I don't care that LTs are supposedly worth more than a guard for example. If the crossroads of BPA and need meet - they meet. And look at the bright side. You just got the best guard you could get for your team and his cap hit won't be as big as a LT on his next contract unless he is a super stud.

Get the most impactful players for your team.
I agree with you. At the end of the day, if you think a kid is special, get him.

It's why I don't take criticism that "so and so was a reach" from Internet fans seriously. All it really means is that the people actually employed in football decision making took a guy before someone who is not, and is assuming ideal conditions would have. There's a reason why Mel Kiper has never been hired as a GM, and it's not that ESPN pays him more.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,812
Name
Stu
Jerry, I just thought of it as a robust debate. :)
Does Iced need to "chill"?
I find it bizarre that someone can't concede a basic, referenceable point of fact like weight or weight gain (which you agreed he was mistaken about), or hiding behind "what Demoff said".
I haven't called him ................

I suppose sometimes you just have to move on. My eyes glaze over when I see two people going at it for several posts in a row when the main gist seems to be simply a pissing match. And I'm not directing this at either you or Iced. I am only talking about what I do when I come across this. I sigh and go on to the next hopefully interesting post. No need to throw out the "agree to disagree" cliché either - just move on.

When you think about it, the argument is a little on the silly side and kind of a moot point anyway. I like reading opinions on everything Rams when they don't just circle the drain.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,812
Name
Stu
I agree with you. At the end of the day, if you think a kid is special, get him.

It's why I don't take criticism that "so and so was a reach" from Internet fans seriously. All it really means is that the people actually employed in football decision making took a guy before someone who is not, and is assuming ideal conditions would have. There's a reason why Mel Kiper has never been hired as a GM, and it's not that ESPN pays him more.
No doubt.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
The key to me is this iced...Bradford had 7 TDs to 1 Int(could have been 9 or 10 realistically) and a 110+ QB Rating over the 3 games before going down. What changed about our WRs? Nothing. Tavon and Stedman are no longer rookies and Tavon's drop problems in the first 4 weeks(5 of them) contributed heavily to that number. He didn't drop another ball all season...the drops were imo clearly because he didn't have the playbook down and was thinking instead of reacting on the field. Cook is not in the first year in a new offense either. Givens, Quick and Pettis are another year older as is Kendricks.

Our passing game had no issues over that period and Bradford played lights out football. Not because the WRs changed but because he had stellar protection and a strong running game to work off of. Bradford can do big things with the WRs we have now...if we protect him and we give him a running game to keep the defense honest. And the best way to do both is to build up the OL.

Adding another rookie WR does nothing for us if we can't protect our QB. If it comes down to WR vs. OL and they're ranked evenly in terms of talent, OL has to be the pick imo.
well, we were pretty effective at guarding the QB - Rams were 7th best in keeping QB's upright.

Reason I keep pounding the table for a #1 Receiver is because we're gonna need one in the NFC West. You build to beat your opponent right? Well, we gotta have someone to threaten Peterson and Sherman..we got brockers to help stuff the run (for gore and lynch), as well as signing langford to that big contract.. Same concept applies at WR. We don't have one that will give those guys fits. Atleast, I don't see it. And our passing game did have a few issues early on.

Of course when I go to the nfl.com site, I can't find any stats or game logs right now cause the NFL site is having website issues.... but keep in mind these are the same receivers who struggled throughout the whole season, and no one eclipsed even 600 yards.

BTW for comparison's sake - if you include the whole NFL, based on yardage, Jared Cook is our "best" Receiver ranking in at 59th. Chris Givens doesn't show up until 79th.

Let that sink in for a moment - Terrance Williams, Jerome Simpson, Marvin Jones, even roddy white, jamaal charles, denarius moore,dwayne bowe, and jarrett boykin all had more receiving yards than jared Cook. That's your list from 51 to 58.

Seriously..our "best receiver" (givens) is sitting 79th in the NFL in yards, 131st in catches (Tied with Running back ben Taint).
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Jerry, I just thought of it as a robust debate. :)

Does Iced need to "chill"?

I find it bizarre that someone can't concede a basic, referenceable point of fact like weight or weight gain (which you agreed he was mistaken about), or hiding behind "what Demoff said".

I haven't called him stupid (I just think he is mistaken and being stubborn about it), and he hasn't called me stupid, so no cause for escalation that I can see?

If I mistakenly say Tavon Austin is 7'0" tall and 500 lbs., I'd expect to get checked on it. If than several people attempt to set me straight, and I could have easily referenced it myself, but keep insisting others are wrong because "Demoff said so", I'd expect to keep getting checked on it.

I just don't appreciate being misrepresented, and really don't like it when somebody says I misrepresented them, and I didn't, and they are misrepresenting me. But mild irritation would be a description of the level, intensity or magnitude of the feeling involved.

I have tried to meet things halfway in the process, attempted to clarify if I thought I contributed to a miscommunication (like if he didn't say anything bad about Jeffery, I acknowledged this and invited an attempt to clarify what he did think). I'm using quotes to avoid concern about "twisting words" since that was expressed.

But he has acknowledged or conceded exactly 0% from his side. The Jeffery weight thing could have been dealt with and put to rest many posts ago. Even in the face of being wrong after being presented with facts to the contrary of his position about weight (by you as well), he maintained the position based on Demoff saying so.

See if your tone toward me would have resembled anything like this message instead of what you sent, things would have been drastically different.

I can't remember which one said it - but that doesn't discount any of it from being untrue. I've given you links showing others having their own concerns over it Pre-draft..and as I said before, I was going off of what Demoff/Snead (whomever) said. Did I absolutely research the hell out of Jeffrey? Nope. But when Demoff or Snead says something about a prospect and that same concern is reiterated in different areas, well where there's smoke there's fire. And as jrry and I have eluded to, that is something that one of those 2 said. Now if one of those is wrong, then ok - but I have not heard contrary to otherwise except from you. If anything, I've only seen those opinions reinforced elsewhere.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
well, we were pretty effective at guarding the QB - Rams were 7th best in keeping QB's upright.

And we currently only have 2 of the starting 5 under contract. Although I wouldn't say we were as good as the 7th ranking implies. Especially early in the year.

Reason I keep pounding the table for a #1 Receiver is because we're gonna need one in the NFC West. You build to beat your opponent right? Well, we gotta have someone to threaten Peterson and Sherman..we got brockers to help stuff the run (for gore and lynch), as well as signing langford to that big contract.. Same concept applies at WR. We don't have one that will give those guys fits. Atleast, I don't see it. And our passing game did have a few issues early on.

If we're building to beat our opponent, why would we want to try to attack their greatest strength? Run it down their throats like we did in the first game against Seattle and use the play-action passing game.

Of course when I go to the nfl.com site, I can't find any stats or game logs right now cause the NFL site is having website issues.... but keep in mind these are the same receivers who struggled throughout the whole season, and no one eclipsed even 600 yards.

BTW for comparison's sake - if you include the whole NFL, based on yardage, Jared Cook is our "best" Receiver ranking in at 59th. Chris Givens doesn't show up until 79th.

Let that sink in for a moment - Terrance Williams, Jerome Simpson, Marvin Jones, even roddy white, jamaal charles, denarius moore,dwayne bowe, and jarrett boykin all had more receiving yards than jared Cook. That's your list from 51 to 58.

Seriously..our "best receiver" (givens) is sitting 79th in the NFL in yards, 131st in catches (Tied with Running back ben Taint).

And yet Bradford was on pace for 32 TDs and 9 Ints. Which is why I feel the way I do.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And we currently only have 2 of the starting 5 under contract. Although I wouldn't say we were as good as the 7th ranking implies. Especially early in the year.

That line consisted though of more than just those 2 guys though, we had some other guys that did their part or atleast showed some flashes.
If we're building to beat our opponent, why would we want to try to attack their greatest strength? Run it down their throats like we did in the first game against Seattle and use the play-action passing game.
You gotta open up the run game though; they got a stout run d too. When we played at home, their LB was out....I think you gotta threaten Seattle through the air, actually threaten them. They struggle with quicker receivers

And yet Bradford was on pace for 32 TDs and 9 Ints. Which is why I feel the way I do.

Yea but I'd rather see bradford with 40 tds - you surround yourself with playmakers and thats how you make an offense... GSOT - Look at Warner with them than with the Cardinals...pretty easy to tell which offense was more dangerous..Look at Bulger with and without GSOT.. Hell look at Peyton Manning, a great QB in his own right. You add another weapon, Wes Welker, and now he's rewriting history books. Look at what Josh Gordon did in Cleveland - he lit it up when he had Hoyer...and he still carried the other 2 QB's.

The One thing that we have over the other teams in the NFC West is the QB - the problem is everything around them favors the rest of the division. They all have better offensive lines or weapons for them to work with being the difference...
 

Rambitious1

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
4,446
Name
Tom
Yeah, I hear ya. The big question is, what if he reverts back to his previous 3 years or gets hurt again? Looking at his season he did well against the worst teams and defenses in the league. He had a 10-1 TD/int ratio against Dallas, Jacksonville, and Atlanta. who ranked 32nd and a tie for 27th respectively and Houston gave up 428 points. He didn't play Seattle at all either. He had 4 TD/ 3 ints against Arizona, Carolina, and San Fran. If I am St. Louis I either take a LT or QB at 2 and don't look back. You need to keep him healthy for a full 16 games this year to see what you have moving forward.

Reverts back to his previous three years...?
What is that supposed to mean?
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
That line consisted though of more than just those 2 guys though, we had some other guys that did their part or atleast showed some flashes.

You gotta open up the run game though; they got a stout run d too. When we played at home, their LB was out....I think you gotta threaten Seattle through the air, actually threaten them. They struggle with quicker receivers

And we have quick WRs. That line did consist of more than 2 guys. Which is the problem. Although now that I think about it, Wells is still technically under contract.

Regardless, the OL needs upgrades more than the WR corp and will imo have a bigger impact on our team's success.

And I think we can run on Seattle with a strong OL...especially with Bradford at QB.

Yea but I'd rather see bradford with 40 tds - you surround yourself with playmakers and thats how you make an offense... GSOT - Look at Warner with them than with the Cardinals...pretty easy to tell which offense was more dangerous..Look at Bulger with and without GSOT.. Hell look at Peyton Manning, a great QB in his own right. You add another weapon, Wes Welker, and now he's rewriting history books. Look at what Josh Gordon did in Cleveland - he lit it up when he had Hoyer...and he still carried the other 2 QB's.

The One thing that we have over the other teams in the NFC West is the QB - the problem is everything around them favors the rest of the division. They all have better offensive lines or weapons for them to work with being the difference...

And look at what happened to Manning when his OL crumbled. Look at how Cleveland did this year. And I'd rather see Bradford with his health because he didn't get battered behind the OL.

How much did the Broncos playmakers do in the Super Bowl when Manning had no time to throw? Weapons don't do anything if the QB can't get the ball to them. WRs are more reliant than any other position on their supporting cast. Jake Matthews will mean more to this team than Sammy Watkins.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Yeah, I hear ya. The big question is, what if he reverts back to his previous 3 years or gets hurt again? Looking at his season he did well against the worst teams and defenses in the league. He had a 10-1 TD/int ratio against Dallas, Jacksonville, and Atlanta. who ranked 32nd and a tie for 27th respectively and Houston gave up 428 points. He didn't play Seattle at all either. He had 4 TD/ 3 ints against Arizona, Carolina, and San Fran. If I am St. Louis I either take a LT or QB at 2 and don't look back. You need to keep him healthy for a full 16 games this year to see what you have moving forward.

You're way off here. Bradford was unbelievable against Carolina and Arizona. He had better games against Carolina and Arizona than he did against Dallas and Atlanta. Should have had 6 TDs to 2 Ints against Arizona and Carolina but Cook fumbled the ball right before he was about to score, Long got called for tripping on a 63 yard TD to Tavon(had no effect on the play) and Quick dropped a ball in the end-zone that hit him over the shoulder in stride. Bradford was awesome in those two games.

He did not play well against Dallas or San Francisco. But neither did anyone else on offense. Our running game was non-existent, our WRs/TEs played poorly and our OL was massacred. Those two games led us to dumping our spread offense and going to traditional smashmouth I offense with Stacy being inserted as the starter.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And we have quick WRs. That line did consist of more than 2 guys. Which is the problem. Although now that I think about it, Wells is still technically under contract.

Regardless, the OL needs upgrades more than the WR corp and will imo have a bigger impact on our team's success.

And I think we can run on Seattle with a strong OL...especially with Bradford at QB.



And look at what happened to Manning when his OL crumbled. Look at how Cleveland did this year. And I'd rather see Bradford with his health because he didn't get battered behind the OL.

How much did the Broncos playmakers do in the Super Bowl when Manning had no time to throw? Weapons don't do anything if the QB can't get the ball to them. WRs are more reliant than any other position on their supporting cast. Jake Matthews will mean more to this team than Sammy Watkins.

Of course - that's what happens when your o-line fails you...for the most part, our O-line was good in comparison to the rest of the league.. I do agree it needs to be addressed - but I'm prayin for one of those top guards in the draft in the 2nd round or late 1st if we trade back that far
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Of course - that's what happens when your o-line fails you...for the most part, our O-line was good in comparison to the rest of the league.. I do agree it needs to be addressed - but I'm prayin for one of those top guards in the draft in the 2nd round or late 1st if we trade back that far

Regardless, you don't fight fire with fire. You fight fire with water. Don't try to out-talent the DBs of our opponents. Build up a dominating OL. If we run the ball down Seattle's throats and have an OL that gives Bradford time, I don't care how good their DBs are...we'll be able to throw the ball on them.

I'd love a dominant WR. But if it comes down to the choice between two equal talents at WR or on the OL, it's an easy choice for me. I'd love it if we went overkill on the OL. Would love a dominant starting 5 with some depth. The pieces are there on this team. We're not far away. With a dominant OL, we can be a very good offense. And we're 1-2 pieces at most from a top 10 defense.
 

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
21,605
The key to me is this iced...Bradford had 7 TDs to 1 Int(could have been 9 or 10 realistically) and a 110+ QB Rating over the 3 games before going down. What changed about our WRs? Nothing. Tavon and Stedman are no longer rookies and Tavon's drop problems in the first 4 weeks(5 of them) contributed heavily to that number. He didn't drop another ball all season...the drops were imo clearly because he didn't have the playbook down and was thinking instead of reacting on the field. Cook is not in the first year in a new offense either. Givens, Quick and Pettis are another year older as is Kendricks.

Our passing game had no issues over that period and Bradford played lights out football. Not because the WRs changed but because he had stellar protection and a strong running game to work off of. Bradford can do big things with the WRs we have now...if we protect him and we give him a running game to keep the defense honest. And the best way to do both is to build up the OL.

Adding another rookie WR does nothing for us if we can't protect our QB. If it comes down to WR vs. OL and they're ranked evenly in terms of talent, OL has to be the pick imo.


We are definitely on the same page with this thinking Jrry. It feels kind of strange because we most often disagreed about the draft in the past.