Not Hard To Evaluate How Good Watkins Is And We Need Him

  • 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.

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I'm a little confused. Bruce is a HOF type WR because he was BOTH a consistent top-performing WR AND was a playmaker. I don't see Austin able to challenge the consistency numbers guys like Bruce and Holt produced every season but he obviously can contribute overall and still change a game with 1-2 plays even if he is quiet in a particular game. He is always dangerous.

I can see Tavon doing it in a few years, but he's gotta grow to get to that point....but he's also the only receiver on the roster who has shown he's worth a starting roster spot... I could see Tavon being a route runner with his acceleration and quickness - he's not a 1 trick pony or "just a guy in space".

Don't forget how Holt and Bruce complimented each other - you had to cover both, not just one... Same logic applies with getting a receiver to pair with Tavon, whether its Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans - cause there's nothing there now.
 

Ky Ram

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
1,918
Don't forget how Holt and Bruce complimented each other - you had to cover both, not just one... Same logic applies with getting a receiver to pair with Tavon, whether its Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans - cause there's nothing there now.
I think Watkins is the flashy pick and we as fans all want that impact guy, but think about it like this:
Sidney Rice, Golden Taint, Doug Baldwin and Percy Harvin for the last part of the year - that group went to the Superbowl and won it.
I just don't see how we can justify going WR #2 when we have other needs that are bigger priorities. Lots of teams get it done with WR by committee these days - Cook needs to be our #1 threat for what he's getting paid IMO. The other guys just have to develop into fully contributing "role" players.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I think Watkins is the flashy pick and we as fans all want that impact guy, but think about it like this:
Sidney Rice, Golden Taint, Doug Baldwin and Percy Harvin for the last part of the year - that group went to the Superbowl and won it.
I just don't see how we can justify going WR #2 when we have other needs that are bigger priorities. Lots of teams get it done with WR by committee these days - Cook needs to be our #1 threat for what he's getting paid IMO. The other guys just have to develop into fully contributing "role" players.

Top 5 running game, leagues best defense. Seahawks rushed almost 2200 yards as a team
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,798
Okay, so I was thinking about how hard it can be to evaluate players in the draft. But then I remembered DeAndre Hopkins, from last years draft. I thought about him and how good he actually was as a rookie:

52 catches for 802 yds and 2 tds.

Well anybody who follows college football knows Watkins was and is better than Hopkins. People were way more excited about Watkins coming out the next year at the time Hopkins was drafted. So we know for near fact Watkins is capable of producing better numbers as a rookie and having a better career.

A few things worth pointing out:
1. Hopkins played on an offense with Andre Johnson, Arian Foster and Owen Daniels...it's much easier to produce as a rookie when you're the #3 target in the passing game rather than the #1
2. Many will/would tell you that Hopkins was a more pro ready WR than Watkins...but doesn't have the same type of upside and athleticism
3. Technically Hopkins was better statistically his final year in college than Watkins was.

So no, we don't know anything for near fact. It sounds to me like you're making assumptions.

For example, Santana Moss was actually Miami's #1 WR his final 3 seasons over Reggie Wayne. And had more career receiving yards than Wayne and was drafted higher in the same class. Yet Reggie Wayne ended up being the better NFL WR.

I'm not predicting Hopkins will be better than Watkins, I'm only saying that it's not a near fact...it's an assumption...and not a terribly bad one to make...but it's very arguable.
 

DR RAM

Rams Lifer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
12,111
Name
Rambeau
I think Bailey is going to have a big impact next year, and Quick will be better too, hopefully a lot better. Bailey seems to be forgotten by some, he has everything it takes.
 

laramsoriginal

Starter
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
604
Rams sacks allowed - 7th best.

Rams leader in Receiving yards - Tight End.

Yea, which one is brutal again?

Long is coming off a major knee surgery
Saffold will probably leave via FA
Wells and Dhal might be cap casualties

Yet you believe the OL is fine as is? Wow. Sorry but I couldn't disagree with you any more. Rams don't have a true #1, we can all agree on that BUT the Rams don't have a solid OL. 7th best in sacks allowed when you're a run heavy team is expected.

As you wrote in a previous post, doesn't matter how open Watkins can get if Bradford is constantly getting pressured. In this division you better have a good OL. There is a reason why every "expert" says that the rams biggest need is at OL and not WR. Heck, Safety and CB are bigger needs than WR.
 

F. Mulder

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
773
I think Bailey is going to have a big impact next year, and Quick will be better too, hopefully a lot better. Bailey seems to be forgotten by some, he has everything it takes.
I think Bailey will effectively make Pettis redundant. Quick is like a bad habit to me. I can really see him breaking out and becoming a big-time player. I hope it is next year. If they decide to let him go I can see him flourishing elsewhere. Then again, maybe he is another long line of raw/talented players who never play to their ability. I'm pulling for him
 

DR RAM

Rams Lifer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
12,111
Name
Rambeau
I think Bailey will effectively make Pettis redundant. Quick is like a bad habit to me. I can really see him breaking out and becoming a big-time player. I hope it is next year. If they decide to let him go I can see him flourishing elsewhere. Then again, maybe he is another long line of raw/talented players who never play to their ability. I'm pulling for him
Yeah, agree. I'm not really expecting a breakout from him now, just hope that there is improvement. If not, we will have to find that niche somewhere else. We do need a player like he's supposed to be...know what I mean. I'm sure you do.
 

laramsoriginal

Starter
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
604
Quick made some progress last year. I think he has a good season. Baily Quick Austin form a good group if they improve on last year.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Long is coming off a major knee surgery
Saffold will probably leave via FA
Wells and Dhal might be cap casualties

Yet you believe the OL is fine as is? Wow. Sorry but I couldn't disagree with you any more. Rams don't have a true #1, we can all agree on that BUT the Rams don't have a solid OL. 7th best in sacks allowed when you're a run heavy team is expected.

As you wrote in a previous post, doesn't matter how open Watkins can get if Bradford is constantly getting pressured. In this division you better have a good OL. There is a reason why every "expert" says that the rams biggest need is at OL and not WR. Heck, Safety and CB are bigger needs than WR.
1) Long is young
2) You think suddenly 1 knee injury destroys a career or somethin? You realize you draft for long term, not short....

Every "expert" says our need is on the interior o-line - which is true.. Rams had less passing attempts, but so did the 4 other teams below us - who all gave up more sacks.

Anyway you wanna slice it - we protected the qb...Wonder how QB rushing skews those pass attempt numbers.

Long went down with an ACL tear - we get it. He'll be back, he's young. And fisher knows how to treat his veterans, can't say the same for dolphins can we?

Might I add an o-linemen coming back from an acl is not even the same thing as a qb or skill position
 

Faceplant

Still celebrating Superbowl LVI
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 ROD Pick'em Champion
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
9,619
What philosophy? Basic football? Cause last I checked we don't have any receivers that easily win man to man coverage - a Must for any starting receiver in the NFL...

There is no such thing as BASIC football in the NFL. If you don't understand that, you should stop trying to sound so authoritative on a fan forum. Also, if you don't see the difference between a Martz offensive philosophy and a Schottenheimer scheme, this argument may be lost on you.

Is it because you believe we're run first? Because we're not - we passed with bradford a hell lot more than ran it. Stacy only averaged 16 carries in those games with Bradford, which would put him in the middle of the league average.

And how did that work out for us? Do you really think the Rams are going to ignore the run next year like they did at the beginning of this year??? They were clearly changing their offensive scheme before Bradford even went down. Did you watch the games last year??

People say the QB needs time for the routes to develop - given how the Rams were 7th best at keeping the qb upright, evidence indicate otherwise...especially since our #1 WR couldn't even get a touchdown (all season) (only team in the league who's #1 couldn't do it) and our ROOKIE Wide Receiver led receivers in catches.... You can give Bradford all day back there with those receivers - still not going to teach them how to separate or get open

The Rams OL numbers were no doubt skewed by the type of offense we ran for the final NINE WEEKS OF THE SEASON!! KC did not run the same offense that Sam will be asked to run. Turn and hand it off was basically what KC was asked to do. Just look how many attempts per game he had. That said, the Rams OL DID do a better job in pass pro AND run support last year which no doubt helped us win 7 games with KC at the helm for most of them. Stop thinking that Watkins is going to come in here and light it up without a run game or QB protection. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Top 5 running game, leagues best defense. Seahawks rushed almost 2200 yards as a team

Exactly. Thanks for solidifying my point. THAT is the type of team I believe Fisher wants to build/emulate. You don't do that by ignoring the O and D lines.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
The Rams OL numbers were no doubt skewed by the type of offense we ran for the final NINE WEEKS OF THE SEASON!! KC did not run the same offense that Sam will be asked to run. Turn and hand it off was basically what KC was asked to do. Just look how many attempts per game he had. That said, the Rams OL DID do a better job in pass pro AND run support last year which no doubt helped us win 7 games with KC at the helm for most of them. Stop thinking that Watkins is going to come in here and light it up without a run game or QB protection. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

-sigh- look at the pass pro numbers with Bradford... They were much better, despite not having a running game the first 4 weeks. There was really only 3 bad games - Dallas and SF (Which you can forget blaming OL and blame the whole team, ESPECIALLY Tight ends in these 2 games), and 4 sacks allowed vs Panthers... But then again, we moved the ball at will against the Panthers. The biggest difference were what? Oh that's right - our WIDE RECEIVERS Dropping touchdowns and fumbling the ball


Exactly. Thanks for solidifying my point. THAT is the type of team I believe Fisher wants to build/emulate. You don't do that by ignoring the O and D lines.
remind me again - how many top 5 draft picks did the seahawks spend on their o-line? How many top premium draft picks?

Oh that's right - they're o-line isn't exactly known for its blocking prowess like the niners..in fact, seattle had a lot of injuries this year to the OL and are letting a couple guys go in free agency, RT and RG if I'm not mistaken..

That's on their running backs - that ain't the line
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,914
Name
Stu
remind me again - how many top 5 draft picks did the seahawks spend on their o-line? How many top premium draft picks?

Oh that's right - they're o-line isn't exactly known for its blocking prowess like the niners..in fact, seattle had a lot of injuries this year to the OL and are letting a couple guys go in free agency, RT and RG if I'm not mistaken..

That's on their running backs - that ain't the line

Like the niners. You mean the team that used BOTH their first rounders in 2010 on their O-line?

You bring up the point that the Rams were 7th best in sacks allowed. What I think you need to look at is how much time the O-line provided the QB and the kinds of pass plays designed. Everyone (including me) complains about the short passes, dump offs, short hooks and stops. Why do you think that is? And don't you think that contributes to a QB not getting sacked? How about big plays and scoring? It would appear to me that the Rams were scheming their offense around the fact that they needed to do the things that wouldn't get the QB killed and not what it would take to get the ball down field.

Now we face a situation where Long is injured. Say what you will about recovery rates now a days but the idea that a Tackle puts less stress on a knee than a skill player is a little ridiculous. Think about the Wells situation. Apparently he was fairly healthy when he was still sitting on the bench. But because he wasn't 100% - the coaches didn't want to hurry him back on the field - even though he was by far the most adept at calling the line adjustments than anyone else we could put in at center. Long will no doubt be the most heady player we could put at LT this coming year. But there is no guarantee that he will be ready by the beginning of the season - let alone 100%. We'll see about Saffold. But even if Saffold comes back, there really is no guarantee that he lasts the entire season. If history is any indication, there is more of a guarantee he won't. Dahl will likely be gone. We will likely resign Williams - meh. Barksdale performed pretty well for the first time in his career. Wells will likely be gone. We don't know what we have in Jones.

Does this really sound like we have the O-line situated? We have virtually no depth. We have MAYBE three NFL caliber starters - two of which are either injured currently or have been several times in their past OR BOTH. And our RT is one year removed from being released by Oakland and has started all of 10 games in his career.

Sorry - I just don't see Watkins being a big addition if we can't give the QB time to allow him to do his thing. Maybe we can pick up some key O-line players in later rounds. That is certainly a possibility. I would just really like to see us put some studs along that line so that Stacy has some actual holes and Sam can have a fairly clean pocket in which to work. If that means putting a future T at guard for now - I'm good with that.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Like the niners. You mean the team that used BOTH their first rounders in 2010 on their O-line?

You bring up the point that the Rams were 7th best in sacks allowed. What I think you need to look at is how much time the O-line provided the QB and the kinds of pass plays designed. Everyone (including me) complains about the short passes, dump offs, short hooks and stops. Why do you think that is? And don't you think that contributes to a QB not getting sacked? How about big plays and scoring? It would appear to me that the Rams were scheming their offense around the fact that they needed to do the things that wouldn't get the QB killed and not what it would take to get the ball down field.

Reason for short passes? - Clemens Accuracy beyond 10 yards for one; the spread offense they attempted to run; or my personal favorite, *shocker* No one is open! Checkdown, checkdown...

Now we face a situation where Long is injured. Say what you will about recovery rates now a days but the idea that a Tackle puts less stress on a knee than a skill player is a little ridiculous. Think about the Wells situation. Apparently he was fairly healthy when he was still sitting on the bench. But because he wasn't 100% - the coaches didn't want to hurry him back on the field - even though he was by far the most adept at calling the line adjustments than anyone else we could put in at center. Long will no doubt be the most heady player we could put at LT this coming year. But there is no guarantee that he will be ready by the beginning of the season - let alone 100%. We'll see about Saffold. But even if Saffold comes back, there really is no guarantee that he lasts the entire season. If history is any indication, there is more of a guarantee he won't. Dahl will likely be gone. We will likely resign Williams - meh. Barksdale performed pretty well for the first time in his career. Wells will likely be gone. We don't know what we have in Jones.
Seriously? Wells is 33 and Jake Long is 28...that's a huge difference...

there's no guarantee we'll start the season with Long? So, you spend the #2 overall pick "Just in case" on a LT because you're afraid the starting LT that you handed a decent 4 year contract to last year "May or may not be back in time" (Which btw they fully expect him to be back) Another words, you're drafting a player because of injury.. that'd be a waste of a #2, unless we're cutting Long.

Does this really sound like we have the O-line situated? We have virtually no depth. We have MAYBE three NFL caliber starters - two of which are either injured currently or have been several times in their past OR BOTH. And our RT is one year removed from being released by Oakland and has started all of 10 games in his career.

Actually I think we have 2 starting tackles - an unknown in Jones, a RG if Saffold Stays, and we need to upgrade Left Guard. Center is an unknown to me since we don't know how Jones looks to Boudreau

Sorry - I just don't see Watkins being a big addition if we can't give the QB time to allow him to do his thing. Maybe we can pick up some key O-line players in later rounds. That is certainly a possibility. I would just really like to see us put some studs along that line so that Stacy has some actual holes and Sam can have a fairly clean pocket in which to work. If that means putting a future T at guard for now - I'm good with that.

I think it works both ways - like Martz said,if you got a receiver who can get open and separate, you don't need to protect as long. Conversely, if you don't have a receiver that can, you're going to have to have to block longer and the QB is going to have to hold the ball. I personally want to see a balanced o-line, and I know this is not going to be some "run dominant" offense that everyone keeps hoping it will be because of how the scheme changed with Clemens became the starter (what'd you expect with a QB who's dreadful past 10 yards)

I'll pass on spending a top 5 pick on a LT to play Guard for 3 or 4 years. If ain't broken don't fix it - Long was one of the best Left Tackles in the Game, and he's still young.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,914
Name
Stu
Reason for short passes? - Clemens Accuracy beyond 10 yards for one; the spread offense they attempted to run; or my personal favorite, *shocker* No one is open! Checkdown, checkdown....
This has been on-going. Not just with Clemens and not just when they attempted the spread - which BTW they couldn't block effectively for either.


Seriously? Wells is 33 and Jake Long is 28...that's a huge difference... .
Different players heal at different rates. We simply don't know that he will be ready. They also said Wells would be ready to participate in training camp and pre-season. How did that work out?

there's no guarantee we'll start the season with Long? So, you spend the #2 overall pick "Just in case" on a LT because you're afraid the starting LT that you handed a decent 4 year contract to last year "May or may not be back in time" (Which btw they fully expect him to be back) Another words, you're drafting a player because of injury.. that'd be a waste of a #2, unless we're cutting Long. .
No you don't pick anyone in the top of the draft "just in case". You take your next stud LT and then have him play a couple years at LG where he can also give you a huge push in your running game to that side if Long IS ready to start the season.



Actually I think we have 2 starting tackles - an unknown in Jones, a RG if Saffold Stays, and we need to upgrade Left Guard. Center is an unknown to me since we don't know how Jones looks to Boudreau .
Guess we'll see in regards to Saffold and Jones. Still big unknowns - not that Saffold will be reliable for an entire season regardless.



I think it works both ways - like Martz said,if you got a receiver who can get open and separate, you don't need to protect as long. Conversely, if you don't have a receiver that can, you're going to have to have to block longer and the QB is going to have to hold the ball. I personally want to see a balanced o-line, and I know this is not going to be some "run dominant" offense that everyone keeps hoping it will be because of how the scheme changed with Clemens became the starter (what'd you expect with a QB who's dreadful past 10 yards)

I'll pass on spending a top 5 pick on a LT to play Guard for 3 or 4 years. If ain't broken don't fix it - Long was one of the best Left Tackles in the Game, and he's still young.

Martz could get away with it with the GSOT weapons ONLY. He couldn't get away with it anywhere else he went. He also got Warner and Bulger killed back there and almost destroyed the careers of both QBs.

You don't have to go run dominant in this argument. I think they will try to be balanced and exploit defenses in any way they can. But you still have to protect the QB and open up holes regardless which type of offense you run on a given week. Our O-line with mostly the parts you say we can rely on, were still woefully incapable of doing that week in and week out. Oh - with the exception of potentially three of the best players along it in Wells, Dahl, and Saffold (who apparently isn't biting on any of the Rams offers thus far).

In the mean time, you take a 6'1" 200 lb receiver who IMO isn't of the elite make-up when you have spent pretty fair resources at that position already and aside from a big FA acquisition and a 2nd rounder a few years ago (that is likely to pack his bags), you have inserted pieces off practice squads and other teams' reject pile.

And we wonder why we can't score from the two or are constantly having an aspect of our offense completely shut down - rendering us one dimensional. You really think with no running game, Watkins will or any receiver without true elite skills is going to get open on any kind of regular basis in 2-3 seconds? I don't.
 

OnceARam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
3,354
I'm still upset we didn't draft DeAndre Hopkins. To me it was an obvious pick up, especially considering he wouldn't cost a first round pick.
 

laramsoriginal

Starter
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
604
A good OL will give the WR's more time to get open.
A good OL will give Bradford more confidence in going through his progressions
A good OL will open up the holes in the running game. In turn, open up the passing game.

I don't understand how anyone feels confident about the OL or how a #1 WR will solve any of the OL issues.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,798
I'm still upset we didn't draft DeAndre Hopkins. To me it was an obvious pick up, especially considering he wouldn't cost a first round pick.

He was drafted in the first round? :cautious: