Rams to hold private workout with Aaron Murray

[V3]

Can you please extrapolate as to his accuracy or lack there of because he completed 62.3% of his passes over his career for 13,166 yards and nearly three times as many touchdowns (121) as interceptions (41) in a pro-style offense.

I'm talking about his longer throws. In most of the videos I've watched of him, I haven't been impressed with his accuracy when he's thrown it around 15 yards or longer. That's why I don't like the comparisons to Drew Brees. Brees has incredible accuracy on his long throws. I don't see that with Murray.

To see if I was just seeing things, I looked for some stats on it and found this:

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46748/349/peshek-qb-metrics-20

It shows the accuracy when throwing certain distances. His accuracy was poor across the board compared to the average QB(at least according to this). I was expecting better accuracy on his shorter stuff but I guess not. I personally wouldn't take him till the 5th round(if at all) but when the Rams like someone, they tend to take them much earlier than expected which is why I'm predicting the 3rd round.

 

[Speeps]

This makes me happy, as I'm a huge Aaron Murray fan.

 

[jrry32]

Murray is a tough guy to grade. If there's one thing with him that I question, it's his mental toughness. Seems to me that the kid is either really good or really bad when I watch him. When he starts badly, he just can't get out of his funk.

 

[Ramhusker]

If he can stay healthy, he has that "it" factor and the Rams see it. He's as good as in horns if the draft falls right.

 

[jrry32]

There's no such thing as an "it" factor.
(sorry, pet peeve of mine)

 

[Ramhusker]

There's no such thing as an "it" factor.
(sorry, pet peeve of mine)

Ok, but he's got that thang.

 

[jrry32]

Ok, but he's got that thang.

Eh, I don't know about that. Then again, hard to know if he does or doesn't have something that doesn't exist. And when people reference it, it seems like the definition constantly changes.

 

[Ramhusker]

Eh, I don't know about that. Then again, hard to know if he does or doesn't have something that doesn't exist. And when people reference it, it seems like the definition constantly changes.

It does change because it's different with every guy. That's why you can't define it. And I know what people are usually talking about is the ability of a player to make plays when there is seemingly no play to be made, to make a play when your team needs it the most, to seize momentum out of thin air, or has the knack to rally his teammates in the face of adversity. And of course those things have names that are hard to actually define like, clutch, vision, leader, competitor, etc. it's just semantics in reality.

 

[jrry32]

It does change because it's different with every guy. That's why you can't define it. And I know what people are usually talking about is the ability of a player to make plays when there is seemingly no play to be made, to make a play when your team needs it the most, to seize momentum out of thin air, or has the knack to rally his teammates in the face of adversity. And of course those things have names that are hard to actually define like, clutch, vision, leader, competitor, etc. it's just semantics in reality.

My problem with it is if they have names and it changes with every player...why not just use the name you're referring to? Easier to understand.

 

[Ramhusker]

My problem with it is if they have names and it changes with every player...why not just use the name you're referring to? Easier to understand.

I understand but I guess when it is said that a player has "it" , people kinda mean he has most or all of those desirable traits. "Does it all", "complete package", "rare talent" and on and on. I suppose it's a lazy way of saying all of those things with a little word, "it".

 

[jrry32]

I understand but I guess when it is said that a player has "it" , people kinda mean he has most or all of those desirable traits. "Does it all", "complete package", "rare talent" and on and on. I suppose it's a lazy way of saying all of those things with a little word, "it".

Eh. You'd assume so but when I've disagreed with certain of those traits in the past, people have told me that's not what they meant. Which is where my distaste for the phrase comes from. But we're arguing semantics and now that I understand your stance on the issue(which is what is important here), it's easier for me to understand.

And with that understanding, I have to disagree. One of the things that struck me with Murray is that he had a tendency to shrink when in the big games at Georgia and often when he started poorly, he couldn't seize that momentum out of the air(as you put it) and turn things around. Things just spiraled for him.

 

[Ramhusker]

Eh. You'd assume so but when I've disagreed with certain of those traits in the past, people have told me that's not what they meant. Which is where my distaste for the phrase comes from. But we're arguing semantics and now that I understand your stance on the issue(which is what is important here), it's easier for me to understand.

And with that understanding, I have to disagree. One of the things that struck me with Murray is that he had a tendency to shrink when in the big games at Georgia and often when he started poorly, he couldn't seize that momentum out of the air(as you put it) and turn things around. Things just spiraled for him.

I guess, even though I live in Georgia, I haven't watched Murray enough because I haven't seen that in him. I've been impressed with him most times I've caught the Bulldogs playing.
So who do you like in the middle to late rounds (4th or later) that you think the Rams could develop for the future? McCarron? Fales? Shaw?

 

[den-the-coach]

Ramhusker and jrry I think I can clear this up the "It" is actually a word and the word is "moxy" some players have it and some players don't. It does not matter if it's a horse with no name or the names have been changed to protect the innocent. And according to jrry Murray has it when he's going good and Ramhusker believes he has it all of the time and great balls of fire, you have to be here to believe it.

 

[jrry32]

I guess, even though I live in Georgia, I haven't watched Murray enough because I haven't seen that in him. I've been impressed with him most times I've caught the Bulldogs playing.
So who do you like in the middle to late rounds (4th or later) that you think the Rams could develop for the future? McCarron? Fales? Shaw?

The best games I can think of are South Carolina in 2012 and LSU in 2011.

My personal preference is Brett Smith of Wyoming.

 

[Yamahopper]

Sure let's draft him. Give him a year to get up to speed. Then next year draft someone that actually projects to a starter to replace him.
Bradford in a leg cast is still a better QB than Murray will ever be.

 

[V3]

Sure let's draft him. Give him a year to get up to speed. Then next year draft someone that actually projects to a starter to replace him.
Bradford in a leg cast is still a better QB than Murray will ever be.

I'm not even a big Bradford guy and I agree with this. I feel drafting this guy is a waste of a draft pick. Unless there's one of the top qb prospects that falls, why waste a pick.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Ok, but he's got that thang.

Kurt Warner had " moxie". Does That count?

 

[Muleman]

I really haven't studied the QB's that much. Could someone tell me who's pro game Murray would match up with?

 

[Tron]

Jerry has the "it" factor.....