Poll: Assuming they get stuck at #2...

[BadCompany]

Matthews for me as well. Robinson may end up being the better player, but that doesn't mean Matthews won't be a good player in his own right. Plus, the negative reports on Robinson's pass protection concern me. Sure, he can be coached up, but that will take some time, and who is to say Matthews can't be coached up to be a better rush-blocker? Unless Robinson is a REALLY quick learner I would have more faith in Matthews providing better protection right out of the gate. Maybe in the long run Robinson will be as good if not better, but the long run will be of small consolation is Bradford is being carted off again in Week 3, or turns into David Carr v2.0.

 

[rhinobean]

Robinson at 2.

 

[max]

this franchise has wasted so many picks on the Oline that I am hesitant to choose to go that route


going with Watkins

Bad argument.

How many picks on the Oline has Fisher wasted in the top 3 rounds of his drafts in StL? Answer: Zero. Because he hasn't even USED one pick on the Oline in the top 3 rounds.

 

[max]

Matthews for me as well. Robinson may end up being the better player, but that doesn't mean Matthews won't be a good player in his own right. Plus, the negative reports on Robinson's pass protection concern me. Sure, he can be coached up, but that will take some time, and who is to say Matthews can't be coached up to be a better rush-blocker? Unless Robinson is a REALLY quick learner I would have more faith in Matthews providing better protection right out of the gate. Maybe in the long run Robinson will be as good if not better, but the long run will be of small consolation is Bradford is being carted off again in Week 3, or turns into David Carr v2.0.

This is a good argument.

The issue is that Snead and Demoff have repeatedly said they want 2 HOFers from this draft. And most people thing Robinson is the more likely HOFer.

 

[brokeu91]

I picked Robinson. It's really the only pick that makes sense. It is a total need meets BPA. They might trade down from there, at which point I doubt if he's available still, but I'd be surprised that they would not take him if he's there and Clowney is off the board

 

[RhodyRams]

Bad argument.

How many picks on the Oline has Fisher wasted in the top 3 rounds of his drafts in StL? Answer: Zero. Because he hasn't even USED one pick on the Oline in the top 3 rounds.

notice I said "this franchise" and not "this front office" or "this regime"

but as I have said in other threads, not much of a draft guy so I defer to the more knowledgeable

 

[RamEERS]

Robinson or Matthews.. The arguments for Watkins right now are pieces of work... its like the Rams have Aaron Rodgers at QB and are going to throw it 90% of plays.. heck, we're probably not going to throw it 60% of most our games... we establish the run first then throw... look at how awful our Schotty offense went through the first couple of games when we tried that.. if anybody think a ROOKIE WR is going to change that... they need to put down the controller and stop playing madden

 

[V3]

Can we go wrong?
Robinson is my quess.

Yes. Mack.

 

[V3]

Robinson or Matthews.. The arguments for Watkins right now are pieces of work... its like the Rams have Aaron Rodgers at QB and are going to throw it 90% of plays.. heck, we're probably not going to throw it 60% of most our games... we establish the run first then throw... look at how awful our Schotty offense went through the first couple of games when we tried that.. if anybody think a ROOKIE WR is going to change that... they need to put down the controller and stop playing madden

Well, if they took Watkins and still sucked, maybe they'd finally get rid of Schotty?

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

I actually picked Mack, I don't buy the "OLB come off the field on passing downs" thing... passing downs are where we'll utilize him the most. (imo)

1) Clowney
2) Mack
3) Matthews

Gotta say, I think if we pick at 2 it'll be one of those three.

 

[max]

I picked Robinson. It's really the only pick that makes sense. It is a total need meets BPA. They might trade down from there, at which point I doubt if he's available still, but I'd be surprised that they would not take him if he's there and Clowney is off the board

Yup. I've been through all the iterations a zillion times, and I keep coming back to Robinson. He best fits all the assumptions of constraints and criteria, to quote an old engineering term.

 

[max]

notice I said "this franchise" and not "this front office" or "this regime"

but as I have said in other threads, not much of a draft guy so I defer to the more knowledgeable

I understand that. But it doesn't make sense to hold a current regime to blame for the mistakes of a past regime.

 

[V3]

I actually picked Mack, I don't buy the "OLB come off the field on passing downs" thing... passing downs are where we'll utilize him the most. (imo)

1) Clowney
2) Mack
3) Matthews

Gotta say, I think if we pick at 2 it'll be one of those three.

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46981/349/peshek-edge-rushers-20

 

[max]

I think they take Matthews, though it wouldn't surprise me if they took Robinson or Mack.

I would be surprised and disappointed if they took Mack at #2.

I would not be disappointed with Matthews, Robinson, or Watkins at #2. Also, Clowney who I'd be very surprised is there at #2.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46981/349/peshek-edge-rushers-20

Nice charts, I suppose one could take alarm at Mack's lack of success vs. opposing LT's compared to his success vs RTs, in all honestly I'll admit that U of Buffalo football wasn't high on my watch list. I'm blindly taking the word of what's out there, funny how we cherry pick on these things, but this is a talk forum.

Two glaring weaknesses last year; (ehh perhaps more than 2 but these are my personal big 2)

1) Receivers - STOP DROPPING PASSES! (please)
2) Need a stud LB to compliment Ogletree, JL55 is nice but he's not necessarily considered the "scourge of the league"
You team up another top talent with Ogltree and we could have a LB corps to rival SF's. I don't think anyone would complain here IF in fact Mack plays as advertised.

Jason Smith taught us there is no sure thing picking at 2, I don't see them picking Williams (I see him as over- hyped) Clowney more than likely goes first, Watkins would really help but I realistically don't see Snisher going that direction (too much invested already in WR's) Matthews wouldn't be a bad pick (a safe conservative pick) Mack or you're looking at a trade down.

What the hell do I know, that poll above indicates shut the hell up and read only Mr Dumas. (talking about myself, of course)

 

[V3]

Nice charts, I suppose one could take alarm at Mack's lack of success vs. opposing LT's compared to his success vs RTs, in all honestly I'll admit that U of Buffalo football wasn't high on my watch list. I'm blindly taking the word of what's out there, funny how we cherry pick on these things, but this is a talk forum.

Two glaring weaknesses last year; (ehh perhaps more than 2 but these are my personal big 2)

1) Receivers - STOP DROPPING PASSES! (please)
2) Need a stud LB to compliment Ogletree, JL55 is nice but he's not necessarily considered the "scourge of the league"
You team up another top talent with Ogltree and we could have a LB corps to rival SF's. I don't think anyone would complain here IF in fact Mack plays as advertised.

Jason Smith taught us there is no sure thing picking at 2, I don't see them picking Williams (I see him as over- hyped) Clowney more than likely goes first, Watkins would really help but I realistically don't the Snisher going that direction(too much invested already in WR's) Matthews wouldn't be a bad pick (a safe conservative pick) Mack or you're looking at a trade down.

What the hell do I know, that poll above indicates shut the hell up and read only Mr Dumas.

I just don't think a SLB in a 4-3 is as important as LB's in a 3-4, thus why I have such a high aversion to drafting one with the 2nd pick in the draft(and he's undersized to play a 4-3 DE on passing downs. Who takes a 6-3 DE with the 2nd pick in the draft?). Add to this the fact that Mack played in a weak conference with most likely inferior coaching and only played against two decent teams and only looked good in one. That to me is HUGE, HUGE risk for the 2nd pick in the draft and I HATE risk with such a high pick.

 

[Cullen Bryant]

Robinson

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

I just don't think a SLB in a 4-3 is as important as LB's in a 3-4, thus why I have such a high aversion to drafting one with the 2nd pick in the draft(and he's undersized to play a 4-3 DE on passing downs. Who takes a 6-3 DE with the 2nd pick in the draft?). Add to this the fact that Mack played in a weak conference with most likely inferior coaching and only played against two decent teams and only looked good in one. That to me is HUGE, HUGE risk for the 2nd pick in the draft and I HATE risk with such a high pick.

As far as I'm concerned, with the possible exception of Matthews all of the top picks come with some risk involved.

Dammit TripleV, you almost have me talked out of this... you make good points, I guess mine would be we've never had that true quality SLB to find out how much he stays on the field if he's a stud, Mack comes in at 6'3" and around 255lbs or so, I'm pretty confident Gregg Williams will find a way to keep him on the field if they were to draft him.

I can't wait to see which way Snisher goes with this, not a bad position to be in.

 

[max]

Dan Shonka said if Mack goes earlier than #5 then somebody lost their mind.

 

[CGI_Ram]

This is an amazingly tight poll between the top 3.