OL or WR? Looky here...

[iced]

Could have just as many chances at a quality receiver too.
2. Sammy Watkins
13. Mike Evans
44. Jordan Matthews/Brandin Cooks
75. Jared Abbrederis/Robert Herron/Donte Moncrief

Very true. Which is why I never argue "But you Can get position X at draft spot Y" - you can go throughout history and make an argument for every position with this logic.

Information came from PFF.

Removing Cook doesn't change it much.

Givens leading the team in snap counts doesn't make him the #1 WR. I don't think there's a soul on this board that considers him the #1 WR going into 2014. So it's a blatant misrepresentation to claim him as such.

But the fact that Givens leads the team in Snap counts shows me he is the #1, especially when he listed as it. People can argue against all day if they want but the fact remains that the coaching staff treated him, listed him, and used him as so. And when you say he was moved around, unless he lined up outside, then I don't see how that affects anything.

If anything, People can argue that we don't have a valid #2 - and I'll believe that judging by the way Givens was always on the field and THAT position was rotational.

And it's not like I'm exaggerating the snap count disparity either. If it were closer, I'd concede and agree with people.. But a 20% difference between #1 and #2? Come on.. They couldn't figure out #2, not #1.

And removing Cook does change it much - pretty much Givens led where you have Cook. (Atleast I saw #1 and #10)

Of course it's different, you have 5 guys in the draft instead of 1000+. The point is that the logic behind the picks REMAINS THE SAME. The team that uses the highest pick on the player gets him. That's true in any draft. If the Browns uses #4 in the regular draft and the Rams use #2, the Rams get the player. If the Rams use #2 in the Supplemental Draft and the Browns use #4, the Rams get the player. That doesn't change. Gordon was a second round pick in the Supplemental Draft. That's a fact and that's exactly what I said.

Again - its different. It's a bidding war, not a snake draft. It's completely different because of:
1)WAAAYYYY different Quality of players that enter the supplemental
2) The draft itself is done differently. Teams are grouped into 3 categories, and they submit their "bid" where they would draft said player...and not every team enters the supplemental draft.

 

[jrry32]

But the fact that Givens leads the team in Snap counts shows me he is the #1, especially when he listed as it. People can argue against all day if they want but the fact remains that the coaching staff treated him, listed him, and used him as so. And when you say he was moved around, unless he lined up outside, then I don't see how that affects anything.

If anything, People can argue that we don't have a valid #2 - and I'll believe that judging by the way Givens was always on the field and THAT position was rotational.

Over the final four games, rookie Stedman Bailey played 139 snaps to Givens's 150 snaps. Tavon Austin played more snaps than Givens did in each of his final 2 games before being injured.

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Austin and Bailey will surpass Givens on the depth chart since they'll no longer be rookies and will have had a full NFL off-season to prepare.

I don't think Givens is the #1 WR on this team. Claiming he is because of his snaps isn't a valid claim to me. Chris Williams played more snaps than Saffold. If Williams were still on this team, he would not have started over Saffold.

So no, I don't agree with you that Givens is our #1 WR moving forward. It wouldn't shock me if he went into next year as our #4 WR if he doesn't work hard on improving his game.

 

[iced]

Over the final four games, rookie Stedman Bailey played 139 snaps to Givens's 150 snaps. Tavon Austin played more snaps than Givens did in each of his final 2 games before being injured.

Which had to do with Tavon's injury.. I remember even reading as such that Stedman would be filling in for tavon's spot.

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Austin and Bailey will surpass Givens on the depth chart since they'll no longer be rookies and will have had a full NFL off-season to prepare.

I don't think Givens is the #1 WR on this team. Claiming he is because of his snaps isn't a valid claim to me. Chris Williams played more snaps than Saffold. If Williams were still on this team, he would not have started over Saffold.

So no, I don't agree with you that Givens is our #1 WR moving forward. It wouldn't shock me if he went into next year as our #4 WR if he doesn't work hard on improving his game.

Which there in the lies the rub - I don't think Givens should be the #1 on this team. Was he last season? yea, without a doubt. The season before? He was the #2 w/ Gibson took the starting outside Gig. (which really should bother peeps even more, because his "big yardage" plays came against a corner, Greg Toller, who has no business starting in NFL And went to Indy to play for, you guessed it, one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL.)

And he shouldn't be our starting Wide Receiver going forward - but who knows? No one would have thought Pettis got nearly as many snaps as he did going into the season (he was lookin more like the #1 but his snaps declined quickly).

But the point is - just like people wanna make an argument for OL, to me it's even more glaring at receiver - there's a prospect that's an instant upgrade and a starter, while also a hell lot more talented (oh i'm sure people will disagree but that's just my opinion, and i call a spade a spade.. no sugar coating).

I just pray the 3 players we Draft are WR/OG/Safety , not necessarily in that order, come draft time..because I've seen enough of Givens to want to draft a replacement. Doesn't mean I'd cut Givens - give him a shot in camp and let him knock off pettis..but I haven't seen enough to inspire any confidence and I think going with the current crop of receivers is risk that's got boom or bust written all over it...

More importantly - I don't see us winning the division until the WR Corps is upgraded... San Fran just got a little weaker on the back end, but I expect to be routinely shutdown against Seattle until we get a receiver that's capable of threatening a defense.

 

[jrry32]

Which had to do with Tavon's injury.. I remember even reading as such that Stedman would be filling in for tavon's spot.

Except Stedman played as many snaps as Givens did against Arizona BEFORE Tavon got hurt.

In fact, I'd argue that had Tavon been healthy, Givens would have been the one who saw his snaps decrease.

Which there in the lies the rub - I don't think Givens should be the #1 on this team. Was he last season? yea, without a doubt. The season before? He was the #2 w/ Gibson took the starting outside Gig. (which really should bother peeps even more, because his "big yardage" plays came against a corner, Greg Toller, who has no business starting in NFL And went to Indy to play for, you guessed it, one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL.)

Givens also burnt Richard Sherman. I don't think either of those things bother me or give me confidence after watching him play in 2013.

And he shouldn't be our starting Wide Receiver going forward - but who knows? No one would have thought Pettis got nearly as many snaps as he did going into the season (he was lookin more like the #1 but his snaps declined quickly).

But the point is - just like people wanna make an argument for OL, to me it's even more glaring at receiver - there's a prospect that's an instant upgrade and a starter, while also a hell lot more talented (oh i'm sure people will disagree but that's just my opinion, and i call a spade a spade.. no sugar coating).

I just pray the 3 players we Draft are WR/OG/Safety , not necessarily in that order, come draft time..because I've seen enough of Givens to want to draft a replacement. Doesn't mean I'd cut Givens - give him a shot in camp and let him knock off pettis..but I haven't seen enough to inspire any confidence and I think going with the current crop of receivers is risk that's got boom or bust...

Well, that's the problem, I don't consider a guy we draft to be Givens's replacement. I see them as taking snaps away from Bailey or Austin.

I am not opposed to drafting a WR but I don't rate Watkins as highly as you do(especially if you're claiming him to be a hell of a lot more talented than Matthews and Robinson). And I don't think it's that glaring at WR. I saw Sam play quite well with what we had when he had protection and a running game.

IMO, his protection and having a rushing attack to keep the defense honest is more important to Sam's production than another WR. But if we can accomplish all three, by all means. However, I still think Matthews/Evans is a better pairing than Watkins/Lewan.

 

[iced]

Except Stedman played as many snaps as Givens did against Arizona BEFORE Tavon got hurt.

In fact, I'd argue that had Tavon been healthy, Givens would have been the one who saw his snaps decrease.

I could see that - but then again I think if they felt Stedman was better he would have gotten more snaps than Givens. Not the other way around (until week 17 of course)

Givens also burnt Richard Sherman. I don't think either of those things bother me or give me confidence after watching him play in 2013.

Once like two years ago. I'd rather have a guy who can do it multiple times in one game

Well, that's the problem, I don't consider a guy we draft to be Givens's replacement. I see them as taking snaps away from Bailey or Austin.

I am not opposed to drafting a WR but I don't rate Watkins as highly as you do(especially if you're claiming him to be a hell of a lot more talented than Matthews and Robinson). And I don't think it's that glaring at WR. I saw Sam play quite well with what we had when he had protection and a running game.

IMO, his protection and having a rushing attack to keep the defense honest is more important to Sam's production than another WR. But if we can accomplish all three, by all means. However, I still think Matthews/Evans is a better pairing than Watkins/Lewan.

Actually I was claiming Watkins to be a hell lot more talented than what we have at receiver, not Matthews/Robinson. Matthews to me is a much safer pick than Robinson but Robinson is a project and reminds me too much of Jason Smith..and by that I mean relies a lot on strength but needs to work on his technique and relies on his athleticism.... Robinson is truly the one pick that scares the hell out of me.

I'm not on board with Matthews or any other OL with the first pick because unless we're closing the book on Jake Long relatively soon, I think it's waste.

I'd rather have Watkins/Pryor/Yankey if we're talking ideal draft

 

[RamFan503]

If you don't agree with me I'm not going to give you one of my brand new super duper pitchforks even if you do bring the beer for everyone. :fighting:

I only want one if it has barbs welded onto the tips so I can also use it for fishing.

 

[Alan]

iced with stuff:
Stuff.

You two guys are awesome!

Do you guys ever run out of energy? Even when I was young I didn't have that much energy. I think.

 

[Alan]

RamFan503 asking to be lied too:
I only want one if it has barbs welded onto the tips so I can also use it for fishing.

Completely customizable.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Boy. It really seems as if guys like Jordy Nelson, Vincent Jackson, Brian Hartline, Golden Taint, Steve Johnson, Riley Cooper, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Lloyd, Miles Austin, Derrick Mason, Donald Driver, Amani Toomer and the like would have been shown the door quickly for not being instant standouts with some here.

 

[jrry32]

I could see that - but then again I think if they felt Stedman was better he would have gotten more snaps than Givens. Not the other way around (until week 17 of course)

I don't know. Stedman was still a rookie and if we put Quick or Pettis on the field, Givens's speed made more sense as a complement. Which is why, imo, if Tavon hadn't gotten hurt, Givens would have lost snaps. Because Tavon was overtaking the speed WR role.

Once like two years ago. I'd rather have a guy who can do it multiple times in one game

You brought up two years ago. I was just pointing out that what Givens did then doesn't have much effect on my opinion after how badly he played in 2013.

Actually I was claiming Watkins to be a hell lot more talented than what we have at receiver, not Matthews/Robinson. Matthews to me is a much safer pick than Robinson but Robinson is a project and reminds me too much of Jason Smith..and by that I mean relies a lot on strength but needs to work on his technique and relies on his athleticism.... Robinson is truly the one pick that scares the hell out of me.

I'm not on board with Matthews or any other OL with the first pick because unless we're closing the book on Jake Long relatively soon, I think it's waste.

I'd rather have Watkins/Pryor/Yankey if we're talking ideal draft

My mistake. Misunderstood you.

As I've said in the past, don't agree with the bold but would rather not hash that one out again.

If we're talking ideal draft, give me Matthews/Donald/Matthews(or Cooks)/Joyner.

 

[iced]

You brought up two years ago. I was just pointing out that what Givens did then doesn't have much effect on my opinion after how badly he played in 2013.

What he's done in the past 4 games is more to relevant to than the 2 games before that.

My mistake. Misunderstood you.

As I've said in the past, don't agree with the bold but would rather not hash that one out again.

If we're talking ideal draft, give me Matthews/Donald/Matthews(or Cooks)/Joyner.

According to JT, apparently Donald is not on our radar and they like Langford... I also want Joyner as well, but thats about what I will agree with lol.. Wouldn't mind donald though, that'd be a nasty front 4

 

[jrry32]

What he's done in the past 4 games is more to relevant to than the 2 games before that.



According to JT, apparently Donald is not on our radar and they like Langford... I also want Joyner as well, but thats about what I will agree with lol.. Wouldn't mind donald though, that'd be a nasty front 4

I don't care who's on their radar. Ideal doesn't mean realistic.

 

[OnceARam]

Seriously guys... You like Bradford, but Givens somehow gets thrown under the bus...

Let's wait and see what Givens does when he has a big league arm like Bradford's to throw him the ball.

 

[iced]

Seriously guys... You like Bradford, but Givens somehow gets thrown under the bus...

Let's wait and see what Givens does when he has a big league arm like Bradford's to throw him the ball.

A question I've asked but yet to see answers for...

Givens last 12 games with Bradford (this season and last):
-zero touchdowns
-10 out of 12 games he had less than 60 yards, half of those games(6 of 12) he had less than 30 yards

Givens hasn't scored in 22 games...averaged 35 yards a game in 2013..

Just sayin'...

 

[OnceARam]

I could see that - but then again I think if they felt Stedman was better he would have gotten more snaps than Givens. Not the other way around (until week 17 of course)



Once like two years ago. I'd rather have a guy who can do it multiple times in one game



Actually I was claiming Watkins to be a hell lot more talented than what we have at receiver, not Matthews/Robinson. Matthews to me is a much safer pick than Robinson but Robinson is a project and reminds me too much of Jason Smith..and by that I mean relies a lot on strength but needs to work on his technique and relies on his athleticism.... Robinson is truly the one pick that scares the hell out of me.

I'm not on board with Matthews or any other OL with the first pick because unless we're closing the book on Jake Long relatively soon, I think it's waste.

I'd rather have Watkins/Pryor/Yankey if we're talking ideal draft

Watkins. Watkins. Watkins...

 

[OnceARam]

A question I've asked but yet to see answers for...


Givens hasn't scored in 22 games...averaged 35 yards a game in 2013..

Just sayin'...

Is that a Givens thing or a Bradford thing? Look.. have you hear of a guy named TY Hilton. Yeah. He did pretty good when the ball was thrown to him.

 

[iced]

Is that a Givens thing or a Bradford thing? Look.. have you hear of a guy named TY Hilton. Yeah. He did pretty good when the ball was thrown to him.

He did pretty good when Reggie Wayne went out and he became the focus...

But Givens is no TY Hilton - Hilton isn't allergic to the endzone

 

[OnceARam]

He did pretty good when Reggie Wayne went out and he became the focus...

But Givens is no TY Hilton - Hilton isn't allergic to the endzone

ROF fucking 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.

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 fucking OL?

 

[Boffo97]

Here's some analysis. I looked the Pro Bowl appearances of Wide Receivers and Guards in the 5 games this decade and the number those picks were each drafted at. For UDFA's, I assumed the number 260, since drafts are over in the 250's. For WR Josh Gordon of Cleveland, I assumed the #39 pick that Cleveland gave up in 2013 for picking Gordon in the supplemental draft. I counted someone whether they were originally picked or a substitution, regardless of whether or not they played in the game.

The average pick of a Pro Bowl WR was #69. The average pick of a Pro Bowl G was #90.

When broken down to number of appearances in each range, there were 48 appearances of WRs and 35 apperances by Gs in the 2010 Pro Bowls.

The Top 10 draft picks account for 15/48 Pro Bowl appearances at WR (31.25%). The same range accounts for 1/35 (2.86%) appearance at G (and that one should be considered a fluke, as it's Leonard Davis, who was originally drafted to play tackle.)

The rest of the 1st round (picks 11-32) accounts for 9/48 apperances at WR (18.75%) and 12/35 appearances at G (34.29%). It should be noted here that none of these guards were drafted above #17 (Steve Hutchinson and Mike Iupati) and Logan Mankins at #32 accounts for 5 appearances.

Rounds 2 and 3 (selections 33-97 by last year's standards) gives us 12/48 appearances at WR (25%) and 10/35 appearances at G (28.57%).

Rounds 4 and 5 (selections 98-168 by last year's standards) gives us 5/48 appearances at WR (10.42%), 4 of which are Brandon Marshall, and 7/35 (20%) appearances at G.

Rounds 6 and 7 (selections 169-254 by last year's standards) gives 1/48 appearance at WR (2.08%) and 0 appearances at G.

Undrafted picks made 6/48 appearances at WR (12.5%) and 5/35 appearances at G (14.29%)

Note that percentages may not add up exactly 100% due to rounding.

Now, what this tells me that obviously, as pointed out, the success rate does peter out the longer you go... but while the Pro Bowl WRs have their biggest representation in the Top 10, Gs have their big representation in the late 1st and 2nd/3rd rounds. Thus, to me, this data backs my assertion all along that great guards can and often are picked later than great wide receivers.

Now left tackles are a different story obviously. But this discussion did not involve left tackles, but only whether it was easier to find elite WRs or elite Gs outside the top 10.

But on the other hand, once someone makes a spreadsheet, the argument has probably gotten too silly to continue.

If you want to check my data, you can download the spreadsheet here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31822673/WR vs G.xls

 

[Memphis Ram]

Here's some analysis. I looked the Pro Bowl appearances of Wide Receivers and Guards in the 5 games this decade and the number those picks were each drafted at. For UDFA's, I assumed the number 260, since drafts are over in the 250's. For WR Josh Gordon of Cleveland, I assumed the #39 pick that Cleveland gave up in 2013 for picking Gordon in the supplemental draft. I counted someone whether they were originally picked or a substitution, regardless of whether or not they played in the game.

The average pick of a Pro Bowl WR was #69. The average pick of a Pro Bowl G was #90.

When broken down to number of appearances in each range, there were 48 appearances of WRs and 35 apperances by Gs in the 2010 Pro Bowls.

The Top 10 draft picks account for 15/48 Pro Bowl appearances at WR (31.25%). The same range accounts for 1/35 (2.86%) appearance at G (and that one should be considered a fluke, as it's Leonard Davis, who was originally drafted to play tackle.)

The rest of the 1st round (picks 11-32) accounts for 9/48 apperances at WR (18.75%) and 12/35 appearances at G (34.29%). It should be noted here that none of these guards were drafted above #17 (Steve Hutchinson and Mike Iupati) and Logan Mankins at #32 accounts for 5 appearances.

Rounds 2 and 3 (selections 33-97 by last year's standards) gives us 12/48 appearances at WR (25%) and 10/35 appearances at G (28.57%).

Rounds 4 and 5 (selections 98-168 by last year's standards) gives us 5/48 appearances at WR (10.42%), 4 of which are Brandon Marshall, and 7/35 (20%) appearances at G.

Rounds 6 and 7 (selections 169-254 by last year's standards) gives 1/48 appearance at WR (2.08%) and 0 appearances at G.

Undrafted picks made 6/48 appearances at WR (12.5%) and 5/35 appearances at G (14.29%)

Note that percentages may not add up exactly 100% due to rounding.

Now, what this tells me that obviously, as pointed out, the success rate does peter out the longer you go... but while the Pro Bowl WRs have their biggest representation in the Top 10, Gs have their big representation in the late 1st and 2nd/3rd rounds. Thus, to me, this data backs my assertion all along that great guards can and often are picked later than great wide receivers.

Now left tackles are a different story obviously. But this discussion did not involve left tackles, but only whether it was easier to find elite WRs or elite Gs outside the top 10.

But on the other hand, once someone makes a spreadsheet, the argument has probably gotten too silly to continue.

If you want to check my data, you can download the spreadsheet here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31822673/WR vs G.xls

This analysis might mean something if the league were under the old CBA and the Pro Bowl wasn't merely a popularity contest. Under the new CBA we saw guards selected #7 & #10 overall last year.