OL or WR? Looky here...

  • 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.

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
It's not about having speed. It's about having a #1 type that can really make Sam shine. I think we can get one and still fix the OL giving him the time to find that #1. But that aside...

I can understand wanting one of the premium guards (Yankey/Su'a-Filo/Jackson or some combination thereof) But wanting one of them AND Robinson/Matthews doesn't make sense to me.

We have Saffold and Barksdale as well. Between them and Ya'a-Son and Robinhews, we have three positions they're going to play: Left Guard, Right Guard and Right Tackle. That means you're sending one of your proven players or high draft picks to the bench.

I'm with Burwell, we need "big nasties" to punch defenses in the mouth.

Watkins will be a rookie next year which means he'll have a lot to learn. He won't dominate like you think.

Givens had a down year last year. His rookie season he had 5 consecutive games with a 50+ yard gainer. I'm willing bank on him and Bailey. An incredible OL only helps them. Quick needs more reps, not less. Watkins doesn't help that cause.

In the end we are a run first team with multiple PM's to catch the ball. It makes WAY MORE sense to draft the nastiest OL'man in the draft rather than a WR. Rams taking a look at Britt seals it for me. Watkins will not be a Ram.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Ok. Sure. Your feelings weren't hurt over my discounting an analysis that you believe was common sense football and perhaps took you some time to complete.
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the huffy "And that analysis might mean something if blah blah blah blah blah" approach you chose to use instead of a more civil approach to disagreeing with the analysis' validity. But whatever. Let's move on.

And sorry again for simply not lumping in WRs to the QB, LT, Pass Rushers and CBs Block like you have here. I don't share that opinion, nor do I believe that NFL teams do by their actions.
WRs generally may not be AS important as those other positions, but it's a lot less unheard of for a WR to go #10 than a guard.

To me, common sense says that an elite lineman at any position makes far more of a difference than a a good lineman as he makes it much easier for the rest of his teammates to block for his running back and protect the guy responsible to get the football to a WR who may or may not get about 7-10 opportunities a game to make a play.

Peyton Manning had weapons all over the place in the last Super Bowl. But, his good Oline didn't give him enough time to get the ball to them.
I don't lump linemen together. I asked in another thread but was never answered... would you draft an "elite" center in the top 10? Or do you hold off, knowing that there are others who will contribute almost as much to the bottom line that you can get for far less draft capital?
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
I'm with Burwell, we need "big nasties" to punch defenses in the mouth.

Watkins will be a rookie next year which means he'll have a lot to learn. He won't dominate like you think.

Givens had a down year last year. His rookie season he had 5 consecutive games with a 50+ yard gainer. I'm willing bank on him and Bailey. An incredible OL only helps them. Quick needs more reps, not less. Watkins doesn't help that cause.

In the end we are a run first team with multiple PM's to catch the ball. It makes WAY MORE sense to draft the nastiest OL'man in the draft rather than a WR. Rams taking a look at Britt seals it for me. Watkins will not be a Ram.
That's a valid opinion... (although I highly disagree that even if they take Britt, who would certainly be on a cheap 1 year contract that it would close the door on Watkins, any more than taking another guard or a tackle now closes the door on Robinson/Matthews)

But you didn't address the main point of the post: If you take BOTH a top 10 G/T AND one of the better guards, who do you bench between them, Saffold and Barksdale? And is that a good idea?
 

Memphis Ram

Legend
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
6,579
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the huffy "And that analysis might mean something if blah blah blah blah blah" approach you chose to use instead of a more civil approach to disagreeing with the analysis' validity. But whatever. Let's move on.

WRs generally may not be AS important as those other positions, but it's a lot less unheard of for a WR to go #10 than a guard.

I don't lump linemen together. I asked in another thread but was never answered... would you draft an "elite" center in the top 10? Or do you hold off, knowing that there are others who will contribute almost as much to the bottom line that you can get for far less draft capital?

And as started before, the old CBA played a role in what has happened in the past when it comes to where Guards have been selected. That and how the game was in years past where most teams focused on the run, pass protection was less of an issue and fewer defenses ran those creative blitz packages. Back in the day a teams best pass rusher typically played RE and went against the LT. Today, these guys are lined up and rush from all over the place.

Would I take an elite Center in the top ten? Under the new CBA, if he were the BPA on my draft board, I'd do it all day long and twice on draft day if I could. I'd want as many elite players on the team as possible.

And again, most of the WRs taken in the top 10 where rare physical freaks. And that is not Watkins.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
And as started before, the old CBA played a role in what has happened in the past when it comes to where Guards have been selected. That and how the game was in years past where most teams focused on the run, pass protection was less of an issue and fewer defenses ran those creative blitz packages. Back in the day a teams best pass rusher typically played RE and went against the LT. Today, these guys are lined up and rush from all over the place.

Would I take an elite Center in the top ten? Under the new CBA, if he were the BPA on my draft board, I'd do it all day long and twice on draft day if I could. I'd want as many elite players on the team as possible.

And again, most of the WRs taken in the top 10 where rare physical freaks. And that is not Watkins.
And I think we've reached the point where it's come down to just opinion vs. opinion.

We'll see what the Rams do... but man, I wish it were next month and not May. ;)
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
ROF freaking L... there's just no arguing with you ICE man.

Look at drafting like it's $$$$. Take objective opinion out of it. Why? Because they guys that get all the scouting reports know more than we do.
so because I point out the factors around Ty Hilton like Reggie Wayne tearing his acl, you respond with this?


We have a finite amount of $$, right? I think we can agree on that.

So if we spend our finite amount of $$$ on a WR, or mulitple WR's, then we have an asset.

If we have an asset, then in order to make that asset pay us on a weekly basis we have to provide the right environment for said asset.

Now, considering we've spent a lot of draft capital on the WR position (or $$$) we must have something in said position.

So, is the answer to spend more $$$ on said position? Or is the answer to spend more $$$ around said position?

By drafting some freaking OL?

Well actually they've invested a lot more in the o-line when you think of jason brown, jacob bell, jake long, jason smith, scott wells....

I've yet to see a fat contract go to a receiver since drew bennett... the only thing we've done recently is add an all around playmaker in tavon (which was needed).

But if your argument is about spending money at the receiver position, you're just flat out wrong... not a single guy is out of their rookie contract and only 1 is a first round pick
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Is Givens allergic to the endzone or has he not been targeted in the endzone/redzone? As stated before, in the endzone/redzone the go to targets have been the slot guys, the TEs, and the bigger WRs.

I don't know - whats his target red zone target percentage? can't find them
How many sure TD passes has Givens dropped? You can't score 'em if you ain't getting the opportunity.

can't catch em either if you can't get open

I know he's dropped atleast one pass that should have went for 6... I'm sure every fan here remembers that drop
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Peyton Manning had weapons all over the place in the last Super Bowl. But, his good Oline didn't give him enough time to get the ball to them to make a bit of difference in the game. But, I wonder what would have happened if he had an elite Olineman or two blocking for him. Hmmm...
Ryan Clady isn't an elite LT? I'm pretty sure he's considered one of the best at his position... their center was pretty dam good too, despite being like their 5th one

Mike Evans is a far better fit there.

Ahhh - therein lies the rub :D
 
Last edited:

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
22,889
Name
mojo
BTW, as probably stated in this thread or in others, the majority of WRs that typically go very high in the draft are the ones that are rare physical freaks. And, IMO, Watkins simply doesn't fit that category. Mike Evans is a far better fit there.
We already have a tall,speedy pass catching TE :sneaky:
I'll bet Evans is a better blocker though.
 

Memphis Ram

Legend
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
6,579
Ryan Clady isn't an elite LT? I'm pretty sure he's considered one of the best at his position... their center was pretty dam good too, despite being like their 5th one

Sorry, but wasn't the starting LT a good Chris Clark? I thought elite Ryan Clady was placed in IR during the season. Don't know anything about their center. Never heard of him. But, there RG Vasquez is pretty good.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Sorry, but wasn't the starting LT a good Chris Clark? I thought elite Ryan Clady was placed in IR during the season. Don't know anything about their center. Never heard of him. But, there RG Vasquez is pretty good.

You are correct sir - Clady only played two games. Forgot about that.... late night :D

but their centers all played well..

must have a dam good oline coach

and peyton was kept relatively clean most of the year - then again, the AFC is pretty much weak compared the NFC, especially the NFC West.

Wasn't there some crazy record about teams losing the week after playing an nfc west team?
 

nighttrain

Legend
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
9,216
from Iced;
"Because apparently our starting #1 Receiver hasn't seen a touchdown in 22 Games, but yet that's some how supposed to be all on Clemens and the OL? So was that Clemens fault last year that Given's last touchdown was against Arizona (week 11)? Or are we just going to chalk it up to "rookie" year and move on."


personally I don't think givens is our #1 unless he starts catching passes underneath, and then maybe, just maybe, he may be our #1 or #2. As of now he's a receiver with very decent rookie year that did nothing in year 2
train
 

nighttrain

Legend
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
9,216
lmao yes he was.

Not only was he listed on the depth chart as #1, he also had the most snaps (Which has already been covered).

please do some homework before throwing out an accusation
most snaps means nothing if the player does nothing
train
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
from Iced;
"Because apparently our starting #1 Receiver hasn't seen a touchdown in 22 Games, but yet that's some how supposed to be all on Clemens and the OL? So was that Clemens fault last year that Given's last touchdown was against Arizona (week 11)? Or are we just going to chalk it up to "rookie" year and move on."


personally I don't think givens is our #1 unless he starts catching passes underneath, and then maybe, just maybe, he may be our #1 or #2. As of now he's a receiver with very decent rookie year that did nothing in year 2
train

He hasn't done in anything in the last 12 games with bradford.

10 games he had less than 60 yards, 6 of them he had less than 30 yards (a couple were in the teens).

zero touchdowns

That excuse just doesn't fly with me - he is what people thought he was, a one trick pony with questionable hands.. definitely not the route runner he was cracked up to be last training camp

Tavon Austin tied with Austin Pettis for the most touchdowns amongst receivers, so the height excuse doesn't work for me... and a lot of Ap's td's were in garbage time, and if i recall correctly, they were routes that required just getting open, not "using your size"
 

VARAMS

UDFA
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
65
Name
Dano
Post from NFL.Com - it sums it up from my perspective:

Analysis: Rodger Saffold's return will plug one hole on the offensive line and his versatility means the Rams could address either tackle or guard in a strong OL draft. They have drafted several wide receivers in the last few years, but they still need a true No. 1 wide receiver. Tavon Austin has a bright future in the slot, but they still need a go-to-guy on the outside.
 

Ram_of_Old

Guest
I have thought hard about it, and while I would love to see Watkins in horns, our major concern should be to keep Bradford upright. Robinson is my pick...
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
That's a valid opinion... (although I highly disagree that even if they take Britt, who would certainly be on a cheap 1 year contract that it would close the door on Watkins, any more than taking another guard or a tackle now closes the door on Robinson/Matthews)

But you didn't address the main point of the post: If you take BOTH a top 10 G/T AND one of the better guards, who do you bench between them, Saffold and Barksdale? And is that a good idea?

For the sake of Bradford, I think having a bunch of studs to pick and choose from when Long or Saffold go down is exactly what we need. Who thinks they're gonna be healthy for 19-20 games? If they ARE healthy for that long, we win the Super Bowl. So let's say we draft Robinson and Gabe Jackson. I'll give you a plethora of scenarios, buddy.

1.You sit Barrette Jones and Gabe Jackson.

Long-Robinson-Wells-Saffold-Barks

2. Long goes down

Saffold-Jackson-Wells-Robinson-Barks

3. Saffold fills in for Long, goes down in the first quarter. He's out for 4 games.

Robinson-Jones-Wells-Jackson-Barks

3. Long Returns the next week, Wells is out.

Long-Jackson-Jones-Robinson-Barks

You can't go wrong, here, man. The running game stays dominant, Sam stays clean, and the Rams continue their thunderous assault on the rest of the NFL. What we can't have is a lack of depth at OL of which screws us over every year. We block for Stacy and Bradford, great things will happen. Sam will pick apart any defense with the weapons we have. Teams CONNOT sit back in "prevent/give up the check down pass" defense because Stacy will murder them at the LOS behind our OL. They HAVE to cheat up because our running game will DOMINATE them if they don't. This is where our speed will kill them, too.

It's the way to go, bro. A completely balanced attack with the capability to do anything and the depth to withstand the rigors of the NFL season.

CHAMPIONSHIP!!!