Player poll.

  • 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.

Which Player Would You Rather Have On Your Team?

  • Michael Sam

    Votes: 34 69.4%

  • Richie Incognito

    Votes: 15 30.6%
  • Total voters
    49

PhxRam

Guest
Both will be bringing the media circus to town.

What say you?
 
rhinobean

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
Which one brings the most to the team? Off hand, I'd say numbskull/Incognito. Need o line help, right?
 
den-the-coach

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,472
Name
Dennis
Incognito is an idiot and past his prime whereas Sam offers so much more and many different areas....Sorry the Rams and every other team should avoid Incognito like the Bubonic plague!
 
rhinobean

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
I don't disagree! As a Mizzou fan, I like the idea. Question is who helps the team most. Sign Roger and forget about knucklehead!
 
Thordaddy

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
I'm surprised anyone votes for Richie,freak the media and freak their circus, Incognito wore his welcome out here before
and I wouldn't want him back if no one knew about Johnny crybaby. If I could vote fifty times I'd do it ,the Sams kid every time.
 
ReddingRam

ReddingRam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,459
Well do I HAVE to choose one? Because really... I don't want either. Neither guy is a fit for this team. MS's personal status has nothing to do with it either. It's the fact that he really would only be a situational player and wouldn't be able to even back anyone up. His skills are pass rush only, IMHO. RI's issues (other than being bad for a locker room) are the facts that 1) he is OLD and 2) he is a penalty machine. We need to eliminate, not increase our odds of moving the offense backwards.
 
Angry Ram

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,863
Michael Sam.

Richie Incognito already took a dump on the fans a few years back. Plus he's not some superstar player. Journeyman.
 

PhxRam

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
ReddingRam said:
Well do I HAVE to choose one? Because really... I don't want either. Neither guy is a fit for this team. MS's personal status has nothing to do with it either. It's the fact that he really would only be a situational player and wouldn't be able to even back anyone up. His skills are pass rush only, IMHO. RI's issues (other than being bad for a locker room) are the facts that 1) he is OLD and 2) he is a penalty machine. We need to eliminate, not increase our odds of moving the offense backwards.
Click to expand...

you dont HAVE to vote on anything. Just curious as to which player fans would choose if the decision was forced on them.
 
MTRamsFan

MTRamsFan

Montana is God's Country
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
4,048
Name
Greg
Agree with Angry. Sam would be a difference maker, while Richie could be a possible starter for a couple years and then a backup. Sam would be long-term and Incognito would be short term.
 
ReddingRam

ReddingRam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,459
PhxRam said:
you dont HAVE to vote on anything. Just curious as to which player fans would choose if the decision was forced on them.
Click to expand...
Well in the question you just posed then we DO have to. If it was forced upon us. I guess I would go with MS ... but it would be a LATE rd. pick. I just don't see him even being active every game. I don't see hie "media circus" being as bad as RI's.

But I give him the edge to RI .... our OL is too damn old as it is. And bonehead penalties moving the offense backwards. Add in the constant "Richie Watch" from the media and there is no value in signing him.
 

PhxRam

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
ReddingRam said:
Well in the question you just posed then we DO have to. If it was forced upon us. I guess I would go with MS ... but it would be a LATE rd. pick. I just don't see him even being active every game. I don't see hie "media circus" being as bad as RI's.

But I give him the edge to RI .... our OL is too damn old as it is. And bonehead penalties moving the offense backwards. Add in the constant "Richie Watch" from the media and there is no value in signing him.
Click to expand...

okay.. You DO have to vote :D
 
MTRamsFan

MTRamsFan

Montana is God's Country
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
4,048
Name
Greg
ReddingRam said:
our OL is too damn old as it is.
Click to expand...

Long - Age 28 (6 yrs.)
Williams - Age 28 (6 yrs.)
Barnes - Age 25 (2 yrs.)
Saffold - Age 26 (4 yrs.)
Barksdale - Age 26 (3 yrs.)

Assuming that Long completely recovers from his injury, we re-sign Saffold and cut loose both Wells and Dahl, the average age of the O-Line will be on average 27 years old with 21 years combined experience. Not to sure how you figure its "old" even if you add back Wells and Dahl the average age jumps to 29 and 32 years combined experience. That is getting up there, but still not what I would consider old. My two cents.
 
ReddingRam

ReddingRam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,459
MTRamsFan said:
Long - Age 28 (6 yrs.)
Williams - Age 28 (6 yrs.)
Barnes - Age 25 (2 yrs.)
Saffold - Age 26 (4 yrs.)
Barksdale - Age 26 (3 yrs.)

Assuming that Long completely recovers from his injury, we re-sign Saffold and cut loose both Wells and Dahl, the average age of the O-Line will be on average 27 years old with 21 years combined experience. Not to sure how you figure its "old" even if you add back Wells and Dahl the average age jumps to 29 and 32 years combined experience. That is getting up there, but still not what I would consider old. My two cents.
Click to expand...
I was factoring in Wells and Dahl. My point is that we need to get away from aging vets. The best OL's in the league are ones with long term stablility. Signing guys in their 30's only means you are more likely to have to replace that guy soon. And most of the time, over pay for said vet FA. I would rather get a guy who has upside, but coming off his first contract (3-4 yr vet) and coach him up.
 
Mojo Ram

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
22,906
Name
mojo
MTRamsFan said:
Long - Age 28 (6 yrs.)
Williams - Age 28 (6 yrs.)
Barnes - Age 25 (2 yrs.)
Saffold - Age 26 (4 yrs.)
Barksdale - Age 26 (3 yrs.)

Assuming that Long completely recovers from his injury, we re-sign Saffold and cut loose both Wells and Dahl, the average age of the O-Line will be on average 27 years old with 21 years combined experience. Not to sure how you figure its "old" even if you add back Wells and Dahl the average age jumps to 29 and 32 years combined experience. That is getting up there, but still not what I would consider old. My two cents.
Click to expand...
Old or not,its brittle as fuck.
 
CGI_Ram

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,152
Name
Burger man
Cogs.

He might be an idiot. But that's more common in football than you think.

Plus we need help at OG.
 
Boffo97

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
I wouldn't pick either.

For Sam, the only knock beyond the media circus thing is that we're set at DE... but I'm not sure I heard anyone talking about him before the coming out.

Incognito, we knew what he was on field before we knew what he was off field. A Pro Bowl appearance does nothing to convince me he's not a knucklehead. As I said, not even on veteran minimum. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom