Our OL looks good on paper but...

[Alan]

Sum1BTRthnU with this answer:
Well, I wasn't making a case for Saffold against Jones. I was only speaking specifically of Saffold. I have no reason to believe Jones couldn't play LG or RG.

You asked why people are projecting Saffold to LG...I explained why. Don't assume what I haven't said.

1. Shane Gray STL Rams ‏@ShaneGmoSTLRams 13h
   #Rams went from very thin to a win-win in adding Saffold back, which opens up the draft. Insurance at tackle, locked in at right guar
2. Howard Balzer ‏@HBalzer721 13h
   @ShaneGmoSTLRams Rams see him as a left guard.

Howard Balzer ‏@HBalzer721 12h
Word is the Raiders plan was to play Rodger Saffold at left guard and have Menelik Watson at left tackle. Saffold will be LG for Rams


No typo.

I think you are worrying over something minor. Saffold has played on the left side of the line most of his career. I don't see a problem just because he will be playing guard.

I wasn't assuming anything SUM, I only mentioned Jones because I thought he might be part of the response you just made, not because you mentioned him originally. My bad if you took it that way. I was just anticipating a possible answer. Moving on to the next point.

I did see that tweet and it doesn't say that the RAMS are planning to move him to LOG. "Word is", especially when we're talking about another team means nothing to me because it's basically just an unverified rumor. The PD has an article, written by either Thomas, Gordon or Bernie that says it is unclear where the Raiders planned to use him. So yeah, no typo but it has a huge lack of believability too. At least for me. Which is what I said. I never doubted for a second that there was a tweet that said that. Not when you said there was.

I'm not worrying about it SUM, I just don't understand why anyone has him penciled in at LOG instead of ROG. It still makes no sense. As for you not seeing a problem with him playing LOG, again I will direct you to the conversation we had about this subject earlier and Saffold's own words concerning where he wants to play.

Look what Shane has to say cuase it says it all for me:
Shane Gray STL Rams ‏@ShaneGmoSTLRams 13h
#Rams went from very thin to a win-win in adding Saffold back, which opens up the draft. Insurance at tackle, locked in at right guar

 

[Alan]

jjab360 with this:
If you're implying that the only good offensive tackles in any draft are the ones at the top, you're wrong. Plain and simple. There are good offensive tackles that can be found later if you know what you're looking for, same as any other position. I could look up countless examples, but I wouldn't even think that necessary, and I'm still not sure if that's what you were trying to say.

Sure there are bro. What are the odds though? I'm implying that the chances of hitting on any pick are greater the higher the pick. Are you disagreeing with that? This shouldn't even be a bone of contention jjab. Otherwise why not just trade your high picks for a bunch of low picks and trust that your people "know what you're looking for".

Your drafting strategy could be the way to go but I think I'll pass.

 

[nighttrain]

I thought that Saffold's agent said that he wanted to play right guard before FA started, but I could be wrong.

I may be the only who who thinks this, but I'd almost rather the Rams target a center like Weston Richburg or Marcus Martin in rounds 3-4 and draft guard depth a bit later. I don't know that Wells has much left, Barnes was ok, and who knows what Jones is going to be. Bringing in a quality young center makes sense (to me at least).

That is exactly what Barrett Jones is supposed to be.
train

 

[nighttrain]

Why do so many posters project Saffold at a position he's never played before? He's a ROG guys unless he makes a change.

ya it backwards Alan, Saffold has played more at left guard according to Shane Gray, who really knows his stuff
train

 

[nighttrain]

When has the Ram OL been healthy?

you have to admit that we are really due for a bit of luck on this issue
train

 

[Alan]

nighttrain thinking I'm mistaking a locomotive for a caboose:
ya it backwards Alan, Saffold has played more at left guard according to Shane Gray, who really knows his stuff
I'm not sure where you're getting that train because he played ROG last year when he wasn't playing Tackle. Perhaps it was just a typo. Here's something from Shane that Sum just posted.

1. Shane Gray STL Rams ‏@ShaneGmoSTLRams 13h
   #Rams went from very thin to a win-win in adding Saffold back, which opens up the draft. Insurance at tackle, locked in at right guar

I'm pretty sure there's a d after that guar.

 

[Sum1]

I wasn't assuming anything SUM, I only mentioned Jones because I thought he might be part of the response you just made, not because you mentioned him originally. My bad if you took it that way. I was just anticipating a possible answer. Moving on to the next point.

I did see that tweet and it doesn't say that the RAMS are planning to move him to LOG. "Word is", especially when we're talking about another team means nothing to me because it's basically just an unverified rumor. The PD has an article, written by either Thomas, Gordon or Bernie that says it is unclear where the Raiders planned to use him. So yeah, no typo but it has a huge lack of believability too. At least for me. Which is what I said. I never doubted for a second that there was a tweet that said that. Not when you said there was.

I'm not worrying about it SUM, I just don't understand why anyone has him penciled in at LOG instead of ROG. It still makes no sense. As for you not seeing a problem with him playing LOG, again I will direct you to the conversation we had about this subject earlier and Saffold's own words concerning where he wants to play.

Look what Shane has to say cuase it says it all for me:
Shane Gray STL Rams ‏@ShaneGmoSTLRams 13h
#Rams went from very thin to a win-win in adding Saffold back, which opens up the draft. Insurance at tackle, locked in at right guar

The "word is" was only in relation to the Raiders. Howard seems pretty certain that the Rams plan on him playing LG. He must have gotten that info from somewhere...most likely that somewhere is Rams Park.

That's all I'm saying...


Also...generally the difference between a LG and RG is that the LG is usually your most athletic lineman...Rodger does fit that, take it for what it's worth.

 

[Sum1]

DP

 

[MerlinJones]

That is exactly what Barrett Jones is supposed to be.
train

Just like Rokevious Watkins was supposed to be the future at guard?

 

[Sum1]

The "word is" was only in relation to the Raiders. Howard seems pretty certain that the Rams plan on him playing LG. He must have gotten that info from somewhere...most likely that somewhere is Rams Park.

That's all I'm saying...


Also...generally the difference between a LG and RG is that the LG is usually your most athletic lineman...Rodger does fit that, take it for what it's worth.

Oh, I'd also like to say that Howard has been wrong in the past...but the question was why is everyone assuming Rodger will play LG...and this is why. End of story...not really anything to argue.

 

[nighttrain]

Just like Rokevious Watkins was supposed to be the future at guard?

the rock was just that and dumb as one. Jones played all five positions on a very good Bama team. also reported to be very smart and a great student of the game. What I've heard
train

 

[Alan]

Sum1BTRthnU pointing out that he's answered my question:
Oh, I'd also like to say that Howard has been wrong in the past...but the question was why is everyone assuming Rodger will play LG...and this is why. End of story...not really anything to argue.

Sorry Sum, my bad eyes missed this completely.

1. Howard Balzer ‏@HBalzer721 13h
   @ShaneGmoSTLRams Rams see him as a left guard.

You're right about the question I asked being answered by you. I was just exploring the topic a little further. Shane pops up twice in your post and says two different contradictory things. No wonder I'm confused.

 

[MerlinJones]

the rock was just that and dumb as one. Jones played all five positions on a very good Bama team. also reported to be very smart and a great student of the game. What I've heard
train

I agree totally.
Everything I've read indicates that he SHOULD be a great pro, but since he's had trouble getting healthy I don't know that it's a terrible idea to consider other options in the draft at center.
Also, nothing to say that Jones can't play guard instead of center.

 

[nighttrain]

I agree totally.
Everything I've read indicates that he SHOULD be a great pro, but since he's had trouble getting healthy I don't know that it's a terrible idea to consider other options in the draft at center.
Also, nothing to say that Jones can't play guard instead of center.

agreed, and Barnes proved capable last season, at least I thot so
train

 

[MerlinJones]

agreed, and Barnes proved capable last season, at least I thot so
train

I agree that Barnes was adequate, but if you could cheaply upgrade I think you'd have to do that.

 

[jrry32]

Great value there if that happens. I'll just have to see it to believe that one.

Well, I mean if you look at some of the other OLs, all these guys are slated to go in the same range or earlier:
Jake Matthews OT
Greg Robinson OT
Zack Martin OT
Taylor Lewan OT
Morgan Moses OT
Antonio Richardson OT
Jack Mewhort OT
Cyrus Kouandjio OT
Billy Turner OT
David Yankey OG
Xavier Su'a-Filo OG
Gabe Jackson OG
Brandon Thomas OG
Dakota Dozier OG
Marcus Martin C
Weston Richburg C
Travis Swanson C

That's 17 OLs projected to go in the first 100 picks(18 if you count Bitonio). Him being available in that range is more due to the depth than his talent level.

 

[jrry32]

Good to know that jjab but whose question is that answering? There will be OTs and WRS available as UDFAs soon too. So? I did say premier tackle right? I just woke up and my brain is still a little fuzzy but I don't get your point. Are you saying we can confidently wait until all the top Ts are gone a draft a franchise RT? That would be...an innovative approach that no other GM in the NFL is currently using. Take a look at the last 5 drafts. I looked at last years draft just a few days ago and no tackle was drafted after the #19 pick that didn't have a sucky year.

But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself and that wasn't what you meant. Let me know if you would.

Those are also rookies. Take Duane Brown, for example, struggle mightily as a rookie for Houston and then developed into one of the NFL's best LTs. Not really fair to judge guys solely off their rookie year.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 adding this:
Those are also rookies. Take Duane Brown, for example, struggle mightily as a rookie for Houston and then developed into one of the NFL's best LTs. Not really fair to judge guys solely off their rookie year.

That's true jrry, so that's why I said look at the last 5 years.
I did the work on lasts years crop. (with X's help with PFF because I don't pay for theiir services and I have lots of trouble reading their site. If I didn't have vision problems I'd do the work for the other 4 years. You've probably already researched this so give us your facts that refutes what I said. I can take it.

Tackles drafted in each round and where in the round.
Tackle grades as per PFF for each year for each draftee.
Average PFF grade for each tackle over their whole career.

I'm using PFF grades but if you know of another site that does the same thing use that. I just want to eliminate the subjective views of people like me and you. Yes I know PFF grades are subjective too but they don't have a dog in this fight so they're objective in this situation.

Are you actually trying to argue with my main point (success is better the higher in the draft you are)? Because if you are, I can find stats to refute that. That's already been done by me and thousands of others.

 

[shaunpinney]

Sorry guys, it's late over here and I've not had chance to read the whole thread, but I like the look of our o-line this coming year - if it can stay clean and healthy

LT: Big Jake
LG: Barrett Jones
C: Wells
RG: Saffold
RT: Barksdale

If they can all stay healthy and work together as a unit, were ok I think (& hope)

Then again, you never know who we'll pick up in the draft...

 

[jrry32]

That's true jrry, so that's why I said look at the last 5 years.
I did the work on lasts years crop. (with X's help with PFF because I don't pay for theiir services and I have lots of trouble reading their site. If I didn't have vision problems I'd do the work for the other 4 years. You've probably already researched this so give us your facts that refutes what I said. I can take it.

Tackles drafted in each round and where in the round.
Tackle grades as per PFF for each year for each draftee.
Average PFF grade for each tackle over their whole career.

I'm using PFF grades but if you know of another site that does the same thing use that. I just want to eliminate the subjective views of people like me and you. Yes I know PFF grades are subjective too but they don't have a dog in this fight so they're objective in this situation.

Are you actually trying to argue with my main point (success is better the higher in the draft you are)? Because if you are, I can find stats to refute that. That's already been done by me and thousands of others.

I actually have no idea what you guys are arguing about. Just noticed the comment and felt the need to butt in. I'll butt out now. But I also have access to PFF if you need certain rankings, just give me the players names and I can let you know.