1. 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.

OL or WR? Looky here...

Discussion in 'RAMS - NFL TALK' started by RFIP, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    and yet the starting receiver has 1 Touchdown in his last 22 games.

    600 yards should not be the acceptable bench mark either - the bar should be 1,000. Not 600..

    If our Running backs were getting 600 rushing yards a year vs a 1,000 over 16 games, I'd bet you the "draft a runningback" line would be a mile a long
     
    #41
  2. jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    6,651
    Likes Received:
    3,362
    Not if we had 3 HBs doing it.

    600 yards was just the benchmark you used. I agree, it's not good enough. But I think if Sam is healthy in 2014, we'll have at least one surpass 800+ yards(assuming our WRs don't get hurt...Amendola would have had 1000+ in 2012 were he healthy).

    And that's regardless of whether we draft Watkins/Evans.
     
    #42
    Memphis Ram likes this.
  3. blackbart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    731
    Blue font man where is your blue font.

    Stats prove nothing
     
    #43
  4. blackbart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    731

    Does any one really give two shits about how many yards our receivers get:wtf:

    Is that what is important now? We don't care a bout wins and losses so just give me a guy with individual stats for window dressing??????:bueller:
     
    #44
  5. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    Yea but whens the last time the Rams had 3 or 4 RB Sets :D

    uhh yea it's about production...and our corps is by far one of the most under producing corps in the league. Of course if we had more production, we'd probably have more wins too
     
    #45
  6. Ramsey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    99
    Thank You! I wish I had more that one LIKE to give to this article Your ideas and philosophy dovetail perfectly into what I believe equals WINS. It's bloody blaming obvious!
    It's a no brainer that Sammy Watkins would improve Sam Bradford's 34th ranking in YDS/A more that a Left Tackle!

    Mark Staffford was the only quarterback, out of the top 15 QB's in YDS/A in 2013, who had a losing record!
     
    #46
  7. blackbart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    731
    It is not about production it is about wins and losses.

    Check Bradfords's stats Houston vs Atlanta. Big stats don't always mean big wins
     
    #47
  8. Memphis Ram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    TEs are brought up because they are receiving targets who have gotten the ball instead of WRs. And this can happen quite a bit in an offense that uses a lot of two TE sets. Besides, while he's listed as a TE, Jared Cook is basically a slot WR listed as a TE (671 yards, 5 TDs) which appears to be totally ignored for some reason.

    No matter how you slice it. If the ball is being spread around evenly to more targets like the Rams did (didn't even include Stacy's 26 receptions) and the team is attempting fewer passes than the vast majority of the league, it's going to be difficult for a team to have many players with 600 or more yards.

    I'm not understanding how that it so difficult to comprehend.o_O
     
    #48
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014
    Alan likes this.
  9. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    So you're telling me if the Rams were winning yet they allowed the league high most sacks, that would be irrelevant?

    Why do I find that hard to believe.....
     
    #49
  10. blackbart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    731
    I would hate Sam taking a beating but as long as they are winning and he is answering the bell I don't care as much as if he is throwing for 400 a game and they are losing. And yes the sack would be irrelevant
     
    #50
  11. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    Me either - trying to figure out how people are acting like this is the first year that we haven't had a subpar receiving season - when the reality is that The Rams haven't had a 700+ yard receiver in 5 or 6 years (since Torry Holt)... Most certainly weren't attempting the fewest passes in the league the past few years.

    Unless our tight end is named Jimmy Graham, Tony Gonzalez, Juluian Thomas, or Gronkowski - he shouldn't be leading the team in Receiving yards.. especially Jared Cook since they stopped asking him to block

    And No Ram receiver has hit 1,000 yards since the 2006 season - 7 years, without a 1,000 yard receiver...How difficult is that to comprehend?

    Interesting - there's 70 receivers who eclipsed 600 yards...



    Let's look at teams Passing attempts shall we?

    Rams were 28th
    Jets - 29th
    Panthers - 30
    Seahawks - 31
    Niners - 32

    Only team without a 600+ receiver are the jets... The Seahawks have 2,Niners have 1 (2 if you include vernon davis), Panthers had 2 (3 if you include greg olsen)...

    Obviously this isn't true. Other teams with less attempts managed to get more than one receiver above 600, we couldn't get a single one.

    And the sad thing is - in reality the barometer is actually 1,000.
     
    #51
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014
  12. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    Well I don't believe that. People are hounding for the o-line as it is, its just sack numbers don't correlate for their arguments
     
    #52
  13. Memphis Ram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    iced,

    I said "If the ball is being spread around evenly to more targets like the Rams did (didn't even include Stacy's 26 receptions) AND the team is attempting fewer passes than the vast majority of the league."

    And now 600 yards has jumped up to 700 yards. Is that because if you go back just one season, Givens, Amendola, and Gibson had 698, 666, 691 yards, respectively? And Amendola did it starting only 8 games (Givens missed one too & really didn't get going until his 3rd NFL game). You don't think he would have cracked 1,000 yards if he stayed healthy?? Brandon Lloyd got 683 yards in only 10 games with the Rams the year before? You don't think he would have cracked 1,000 with a full training camp and season? Why are you ignoring these circumstances??

    And what law passed saying that Jared Cook couldn't or shouldn't lead the team in receiving yards??? With all the money he's being paid, he really should do it every year, IMO.
     
    #53
    Faceplant likes this.
  14. blackbart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    731
    The question you asked me has nothing to do with the current situation it was totally hypothetical.

    If I am the GM the Oline is the main focus of this off season. Protecting Bradford is the number one most important thing for this team in the real world.


    Don't ask a fantasy question and then equate the answer to real world situations
     
    #54
  15. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    Again - those teams really spread the ball out as well. You made an assumption and tried to pass it off as a fact but it's not accurate. Those teams in the bottom 3 Spread the ball out too - the difference is, they have more talent at the WR corps. Period.

    600, 700 yards? It really doesn't matter as much when the barometer is 1,000 yards... 600-700? That's still setting the bar low.

    And Jared Cook really should not be leading in receiving. He's not a Franchise TE. Yea, he should be up there in yards, but leading the wide receiver position? no way.

    Rams have had one of the worst under producing WR corps and it's constantly been mentioned about Bradford that we need to surround him with weapons - yet people are actually defending this ineptitude. Mention we don't have a receiver over 700 yards in the past 6 years, and now they're trying to split hairs... come on, really? Especially in a passing league.
     
    #55
  16. Memphis Ram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    C'mon iced. Sure the other teams spread the ball around. But, not like the Rams did last year. Not one of them had 5 targets with 30+ receptions last year (Stacy had 26). Not ONE. Period. Take away one or two of the targets to match the other teams and give those receptions to the remaining group and chances are your yards criteria gets met.

    And yet again, a 1,000 yard barometer is going to be difficult to attain when a team's receptions are spread out like the Rams receptions were with fewer passing attempts than most teams. And that doesn't even account for having a QB that struggles with accuracy on passes down the field starting half the games (Clemons).

    Jared Cook is not a franchise TE? Because you say so?? He's sure being paid like one.

    And it doesn't matter if it's a passing league, if the head coach wants to run the ball in a balanced offense. Again, the two teams with the fewest passing attempts by a long shot (San Francisco & Seattle) are considered by many to have been the best two teams in the NFL last year.

    There's nothing wrong with having an opinion that Bradford needs to be surrounded with more weapons. Some might agree. Some might not. But, your yards argument totally ignores how youth, injuries (Amendola), late additions (Lloyd), the offense's use of it weapons, and even Bradford being out, factored into those numbers.
     
    #56
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014
  17. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    You lose me with Passing Attempts because they were out produced. Whether you like it or not those teams still spread the ball, especially the chiefs. The other kicker is that while you're talking about passing attempts, you're also forgetting how many drops the corps also had. Prior to bradford going out, they were near the top of the league. Despite switching to the run first attack, they still managed to squeek out a top 10 in drops. (Believe it was 7th?).. You can't tell me its because of passing attempts they didn't crack 800 when they squandered so many opportunities. I'd also argue that it's not so much the Rams "spreading the ball around" as much as trying to figure out who really deserves to start.

    Yep, and both had receivers that were much more productive than the Rams receivers.


    Only the Giants and Rams who's starting receiver (#1 on depth chart) that failed to record a touchdown..And Givens is the only "#1" Receiver who started 16 games that failed to eclipse 600 yards..

    Worst production in the league - hard to defend "being the worst" when you're literally at/near the bottom of the league in touchdowns and yardage.
     
    #57
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014
  18. Memphis Ram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Sure the targets could have made more of their opportunities, but lower passing attempts still equal fewer opportunities doesn't it?

    And I said that the others spread the ball out. BUT THEIR RECEPTIONS WEREN'T SPREAD IT OUT AS MUCH AS THE RAMS LAST YEAR. Not even Kansas City.

    And spreading the ball around, no matter the reason, is why the numbers don't meet your criteria.
     
    #58
  19. iced Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    967
    What??

    Charles - 70 catches
    Bowe - 57 catches
    Mccluster - 53 catches
    Avery - 40 catches
    Mcgrath - 26
    Fasano - 23
    Sherman - 18
    Hemingway - 13
    Davis - 11

    total - 311


    Cook - 51
    tavon - 40
    AP - 38
    givens - 34
    kendricks - 32
    Stacy - 26
    Quick - 18
    Stedman - 17
    Drich - 14

    total - 270


    Uhh looks to me the chiefs spread the ball around much better...3 of their top 4 receptions are by receivers.. yea, they spread the ball out way more than the Rams.

    Sorry man, but you're way off. KC also isn't juggling their WR corps like the Rams were, which will account for your "spread" so far out.

    Either way - the Chiefs had 41 more catches, and even their #3 Receiver out produced our "#1"
     
    #59
  20. jrry32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    6,651
    Likes Received:
    3,362
    Interestingly enough, Cook's production was almost identical to Dwayne Bowe's.
     
    #60