Peter King: 2012 A rebuilding year for the St Louis Rams

  • 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.

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Peter King | Sports Illustrated

[flv]http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/big/video/nfl/2012/08/30/083012-st-louis-peter-king-nfl.SportsIllustrated.640x360.mp4[/flv]

I don't think I've ever heard of a team that had such a major roster turnover from one year to the next as the Rams from 2011 to 2012.

Exactly 60.4 percent of the roster is new: 32 of 53 men.

Exactly 60.4 percent of the roster is comprised of first-, second- or third-year players.

• That means of the Rams' 53-man opening day 2011 roster, 20 players are still on the team this morning ... while 24 are out of the league. (The 21st Ram on the roster both years wasn't on the roster opening day last year -- Justin Cole, a linebacker signed from the Chiefs' practice squad in November.) So apparently a very young team in 2011 was not very young and talented if one year later, 45 percent of the men on the opening day roster aren't in football a year later.

GM Les Snead and coach Jeff Fisher will have one honeymoon season and another season where progress must come quickly. And then Missourians will want results, and they'll want them now.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... z25SPrYL3j
 

Yamahopper

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,838
Exactly 60.4 percent of the roster is new: 32 of 53 men.

Wow!!! Think how much more of a turnover there could have been if we were rebuilding. :shock: :shock: :shock:
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
It's a rebuild but that doesn't mean we're not going to be more competive then last year and win more games 8-8 is my prediction
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
bluecoconuts said:
24 of our players from last year being out of the league now is shocking.
Some of that is understandable. We signed a bunch of players who were out of the league during the season, and we had to sign them just to plug holes, so they were always going to be released back into the wild after the season was over. And Al Harris was on his last leg before it got taken out too.

The rest is massive turnover though. I said this was going to look like a completely different team by 2013 (compared to 2011) but it's starting a little earlier than that. We do have the Fab 5 of Jackson, Bradford, Laurinaitis, Long & Quinn, and that's good enough to build around I suppose.
 

Anonymous

Guest
X said:
bluecoconuts said:
24 of our players from last year being out of the league now is shocking.
Some of that is understandable. We signed a bunch of players who were out of the league during the season, and we had to sign them just to plug holes, so they were always going to be released back into the wild after the season was over. And Al Harris was on his last leg before it got taken out too.

The rest is massive turnover though. I said this was going to look like a completely different team by 2013 (compared to 2011) but it's starting a little earlier than that. We do have the Fab 5 of Jackson, Bradford, Laurinaitis, Long & Quinn, and that's good enough to build around I suppose.

I really don't think it WILL look like a completely different team by 2013. In fact I am not sure why it would.

Let's say they can do what they want in 2013 with no restrictions. Given that, based on what we know now, when it comes to just the starters, they could replace 2 safeties, 1 OLB, 1 lineman, and add a receiver unless Quick steps up next year. Maybe if Jackson slows down, there's a different RB.

That's just not that much. Heck they could have done some of that this year if they hadn't instead spent resources swapping one good set of CBs for a different good set.

I think in 2013 this team will look pretty much exactly like it looks now.

You know what I think about the rebuild thing and why I sided with the most voters on this ( :cool: )...ie 2 boards combined.

It's not a rebuild unless you change the starters. They inherited a lot of young starters. Why would they change them. That would be pretty pointlessly self-defeating.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Okay then.
 

Iron Lion

Starter
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
565
Instead of a "rebuilding year" they should call it "punting the season away."
 

Anonymous

Guest
Bucky said:
This is the Rams 53 man roster from their first game of 2011. I counted 18 playes out of football, 20 if you want to count Josh Brown, cut last week, and Chris Chamberlain, on IR. 18 out would be 34%

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecente ... mebook.pdf

zn said:
Well done. I should have thought of playbook.(Duh.)

You can't count IR as out of football. So it's 19 cause yeah Brown was cut.

19 is 35.8.%

This is picky. Like nit-picky picky.

But it's 19 not 24. If you look at the roster.
 

Iron Lion

Starter
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
565
I guess it's a related topic since we are playing in week one... the Lions are returning 21 of 22 starters, and the same kicker and punter.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
zn said:
Bucky said:
This is the Rams 53 man roster from their first game of 2011. I counted 18 playes out of football, 20 if you want to count Josh Brown, cut last week, and Chris Chamberlain, on IR. 18 out would be 34%

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecente ... mebook.pdf

zn said:
Well done. I should have thought of playbook.(Duh.)

You can't count IR as out of football. So it's 19 cause yeah Brown was cut.

19 is 35.8.%

This is picky. Like nit-picky picky.

But it's 19 not 24. If you look at the roster.
That's the 46 man gameday roster. Not the 53 man roster.

And honestly... I don't know what the significance is anymore.
20, 24, 53, 46, 18, 11, 46%, 41.5%, 55%, whatever. It's just a whole lotta new players.
 

Anonymous

Guest
X said:
zn said:
Bucky said:
This is the Rams 53 man roster from their first game of 2011. I counted 18 playes out of football, 20 if you want to count Josh Brown, cut last week, and Chris Chamberlain, on IR. 18 out would be 34%

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecente ... mebook.pdf

zn said:
Well done. I should have thought of playbook.(Duh.)

You can't count IR as out of football. So it's 19 cause yeah Brown was cut.

19 is 35.8.%

This is picky. Like nit-picky picky.

But it's 19 not 24. If you look at the roster.
That's the 46 man gameday roster. Not the 53 man roster.

And honestly... I don't know what the significance is anymore.
20, 24, 53, 46, 18, 11, 46%, 41.5%, 55%, whatever. It's just a whole lotta new players.

No, it includes the inactives. It's the 53.

Numbers? There's nothing wrong with accuracy in numbers. I just think it';s impressive someone bothered to check, rather than just take P. "published famous reporter" King's word for it.

The difference between 45% and 36%? I dunno. I didn't remark on that cause I couldn't think of a difference.

But I think it's fun that someone actually looked. I like stuff like that.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Iron Lion said:
I guess it's a related topic since we are playing in week one... the Lions are returning 21 of 22 starters, and the same kicker and punter.
So which guy are you rebuilding?
 

Warner4Prez

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,265
Name
Benny
X said:
Iron Lion said:
I guess it's a related topic since we are playing in week one... the Lions are returning 21 of 22 starters, and the same kicker and punter.
So which guy are you rebuilding?

Wishing they could rebuild Jahvid Best, I'm assuming.

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing there will be a pretty good churn again next year. Like ZN said, new batch of safties, likely a couple new bookends on offense, at least two new wide outs, tight end, a few new bodies at CB. Step one is mold it in your image and step two is churn from the bottom up.
 

Anonymous

Guest
Warner4Prez said:
X said:
Iron Lion said:
I guess it's a related topic since we are playing in week one... the Lions are returning 21 of 22 starters, and the same kicker and punter.
So which guy are you rebuilding?

Wishing they could rebuild Jahvid Best, I'm assuming.

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing there will be a pretty good churn again next year. Like ZN said, new batch of safties, likely a couple new bookends on offense, at least two new wide outs, tight end, a few new bodies at CB. Step one is mold it in your image and step two is churn from the bottom up.

I actually think it will probably be far less than that.

I mean who can say cause we haven't even seen day 1 yet.

But, at this point, now, I would say that on paper anyway they could use a couple of safeties, an outside LB, and a right tackle. Add a receiver to the batch they already have.

For depth? Another DT, another OT.

I don't see it as being that much. 7 guys. Depends who else falls to em.

They probably churn up the bottom of the roster. But you know, not much else.

Just one guy's miserably abjectly wretchedly humble opinion. N stuff.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
zn said:
X said:
bluecoconuts said:
24 of our players from last year being out of the league now is shocking.
Some of that is understandable. We signed a bunch of players who were out of the league during the season, and we had to sign them just to plug holes, so they were always going to be released back into the wild after the season was over. And Al Harris was on his last leg before it got taken out too.

The rest is massive turnover though. I said this was going to look like a completely different team by 2013 (compared to 2011) but it's starting a little earlier than that. We do have the Fab 5 of Jackson, Bradford, Laurinaitis, Long & Quinn, and that's good enough to build around I suppose.

I really don't think it WILL look like a completely different team by 2013. In fact I am not sure why it would.

Let's say they can do what they want in 2013 with no restrictions. Given that, based on what we know now, when it comes to just the starters, they could replace 2 safeties, 1 OLB, 1 lineman, and add a receiver unless Quick steps up next year. Maybe if Jackson slows down, there's a different RB.

That's just not that much. Heck they could have done some of that this year if they hadn't instead spent resources swapping one good set of CBs for a different good set.

I think in 2013 this team will look pretty much exactly like it looks now.

You know what I think about the rebuild thing and why I sided with the most voters on this ( :cool: )...ie 2 boards combined.

It's not a rebuild unless you change the starters. They inherited a lot of young starters. Why would they change them. That would be pretty pointlessly self-defeating.
I said (previously) that by 2013, the team would look way different than it did in 2010; not 2012. And I still think that way. And maybe King got the '24 guys out of the league' thing wrong, but I haven't bothered to check who's still on a NFL roster right now out of those 53 guys on opening day 2011. That's just too much research at this point. Did Bucky enumerate them? Because I didn't see that.

The larger point was that there are 32 new guys on the roster out of the 53, and that's a 60% turnover. However anyone wants to classify that, it's a lot of players and it already looks markedly different than opening day 2010. By 2013 ... who knows who else is left other than the few I mentioned earlier.

2008 to 2009 was obviously worse, but at least they kept 11 starters. The following year (2 years later), it looked even MORE different. And by 2011, it looked nothing like 2008. That's really the only thing I'm trying to communicate here. Along that same vein, Fisher is going to have a whole bunch of different players than he "inherited" from the 2011 season.

2008_______________________2009
1615405daeeb4d85a2f3e74.png
94c8f063aa07448283ef7b5.png
 

Anonymous

Guest
I said (previously) that by 2013, the team would look way different than it did in 2010; not 2012.

But. Wasn't that going to happen anyway?

Or a lot of it?

I mean let's say Spags is still here. Okay with the injuries they would add a corner, I think. The safeties might be fine because maybe they suited his system better. They would still need a linebacker and at least one DT. They would have to at least get a center and maybe more on the OL, depending on Bell, who sounded done. If Smith got demoted under Fisher because the injuries did him in emotionally, then, that's an issue in imaginary spags world too. They would still need a 2nd TE and a WR plus depth at RB. Add all that up along with what they already did and it;s significantly different from the opening day 2010 roster.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
zn said:
I said (previously) that by 2013, the team would look way different than it did in 2010; not 2012.

But. Wasn't that going to happen anyway?

Or a lot of it?

I mean let's say Spags is still here. Okay with the injuries they would add a corner, I think. The safeties might be fine because maybe they suited his system better. They would still need a linebacker and at least one DT. They would have to at least get a center and maybe more on the OL, depending on Bell, who sounded done. If Smith got demoted under Fisher because the injuries did him in emotionally, then, that's an issue in imaginary spags world too. They would still need a 2nd TE and a WR plus depth at RB. Add all that up along with what they already did and it;s significantly different from the opening day 2010 roster.
That's a lot of supposition. I don't know what Spags would have done, or how Devaney would have approached the draft. I don't think any of us do. This is easy enough to do though ... following my train of thought and all. Fisher is putting his stamp on this team and it looks (to me) like a rebuild.

Actually, a rebuild would signify that they were done building. They weren't. So whether it's a continuation of a rebuild, a straight up rebuild, or just a regular build. Doesn't matter. I think we WANT this HC to make radical changes in an attempt to put the past few years in the rear-view mirror. If you don't want to agree with my opinion of this situation, that's fine. But I don't think you'll be successful in PROVING that my opinion is wrong. It is, after all, my opinion.

60% turnover in 8 months - regardless of how or why - is already radical. Next year's roster, compared to last year's roster, will likely look even more radically different.

And ... I'm encouraged by that. :idk:
 

Anonymous

Guest
X said:
zn said:
I said (previously) that by 2013, the team would look way different than it did in 2010; not 2012.

But. Wasn't that going to happen anyway?

Or a lot of it?

I mean let's say Spags is still here. Okay with the injuries they would add a corner, I think. The safeties might be fine because maybe they suited his system better. They would still need a linebacker and at least one DT. They would have to at least get a center and maybe more on the OL, depending on Bell, who sounded done. If Smith got demoted under Fisher because the injuries did him in emotionally, then, that's an issue in imaginary spags world too. They would still need a 2nd TE and a WR plus depth at RB. Add all that up along with what they already did and it;s significantly different from the opening day 2010 roster.
That's a lot of supposition. I don't know what Spags would have done, or how Devaney would have approached the draft. I don't think any of us do. This is easy enough to do though ... following my train of thought and all. Fisher is putting his stamp on this team and it looks (to me) like a rebuild.

Actually, a rebuild would signify that they were done building. They weren't. So whether it's a continuation of a rebuild, a straight up rebuild, or just a regular build. Doesn't matter. I think we WANT this HC to make radical changes in an attempt to put the past few years in the rear-view mirror. If you don't want to agree with my opinion of this situation, that's fine. But I don't think you'll be successful in PROVING that my opinion is wrong. It is, after all, my opinion.

60% turnover in 8 months - regardless of how or why - is already radical. Next year's roster, compared to last year's roster, will likely look even more radically different.

And ... I'm encouraged by that. :idk:


I was just looking at the roster. They had no OLB, Robbins was done, Brown and Bell tanked and/or left, if Smith was emotionally dinged under Fisher why not under spags, we know they needed a receiver. On top of it in 2011 they had already added Mikell, Stewart as a starter, Chamberlain as a starter. Quinn, Bannan, Dahl, Miller, and Kendricks.

So it just looks to me to be a lot no matter who did it. All that Fisher added to that "to do" list, really, was trading in their good CBs for his good CBs.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I would be surprised next year if we didn't have a new starting OL (OT, either LT and Saffold is moved to the right, or a RT) probably a rookie, a new S (or two) a new OLB, and a new TE (for depth) and a new WR or two.

So at least three new starters (OT, S, OLB) on the team, possibly three or four if we get two safeties and two OLB. Maybe even five if we get a new WR.

So in terms of 2012 to 2013 there might not be a huge change. But in terms of 2011 to 2013? Not even close to being the same team.

*edit* we'll probably get a new CB too. I would be shocked if Gibson and Fletcher are suiting up for the Rams next year (as in 2013). Smith and Pettis could be out too depending on their impact this year.