Rookie Wide Receivers

[jrry32]

Count me among the group not expecting Watkins or any rookie WR blowup the league in 2014.

But, you gotta break one in sometime. See 2013 Austin. He's officially house broken. Ready to step it up.

I'd gladly add a talent like Sammy to get the process started.

Personally, my guess would be that Watkins puts up production somewhere between Torrey Smith and DeSean Jackson. I think Jared Abbrederis of Wisconsin or Jordan Matthews of Vanderbilt are more likely, if they receive opportunities, to challenge the 1000 yard mark as rookies than Watkins. But they're more pro ready players so they should.

 

[iced]

Again, that doesn't answer my question. Harkey was used as a FB mainly in the 21 and 22 personnel sets we were running over that period of time. We barely ever used a FB in the first 4 weeks.

I don't remember Cook blocking much at all on passing downs. I remember him whiffing on that Int TD vs. Arizona on a boot-leg and he might have blocked on a few other boot-legs or roll-outs to sell it. But I don't recall the Rams keeping Cook in to pass block much at all.

I do - especially in the SF game, and at times during the Dallas game.

Also during this period you had Daryl Richardson as your starting tailback and 3rd down back (except for the Dallas game)

Cook was particularly ugly in run blocking too

 

[jrry32]

I do - especially in the SF game, and at times during the Dallas game.

Also during this period you had Daryl Richardson as your starting tailback and 3rd down back (except for the Dallas game)

Cook was particularly ugly in run blocking too

I don't have the time right now to verify this myself so I'll check PFF. PFF says that Cook pass blocked a total of 11 times over the first 4 weeks. The totals were:
Arizona - 4 plays in pass pro
Atlanta - 3 plays in pass pro
Dallas - 2 plays in pass pro
San Fran - 2 plays in pass pro

 

[Zaphod]

No doubt about it Cook was horrible in both pass and run blocking, so spread out, he was killing them. That and Richardson wasn't even an effective speed bump.

But to me a lot of the design fail was the actual depth of the routes they were using in their spread, meaning I think they were trying to stretch too much vertically as well.

 

[iced]

I don't have the time right now to verify this myself so I'll check PFF. PFF says that Cook pass blocked a total of 11 times over the first 4 weeks. The totals were:
Arizona - 4 plays in pass pro
Atlanta - 3 plays in pass pro
Dallas - 2 plays in pass pro
San Fran - 2 plays in pass pro

I don't have a PFF subscription - how many were in run blocking?

How many sacks allowed did the backs allow as well?

 

[iced]

No doubt about it Cook was horrible in both pass and run blocking, so spread out, he was killing them. That and Richardson wasn't even an effective speed bump.

But to me a lot of the design fail was the actual depth of the routes they were using in their spread, meaning I think they were trying to stretch too much vertically as well.

I don't think they had the talent out wide or in the back field to run the spread (at least early on).

But schotty did love his vertical attempts off of play action - did it a lot against carolina with some success

 

[jrry32]

I don't have a PFF subscription - how many were in run blocking?

How many sacks allowed did the backs allow as well?

67 snaps over the first four weeks.

The backs combined to allow 4 sacks over the season.

 

[Stranger]

Torry Holt put up 788yrds & 6 TDs in his rookie season.

 

[Angry Ram]

No skewing here. Who wouldn't take those performances? The point is that many people say that the Rams must draft Watkins because we don't have a #1 WR for the 2014 season. My point is that expecting Watkins to be that as a rookie is unrealistic.

I'm basing it off their rookie season because that's a big argument of why we need Watkins...what he offers in 2014.

No they are saying taking him will finally get that type of WR. His first year would, if he was drafted, show a lot of potential with a good first year. Also if you're trying to say that a rookie year like that is unrealistic based on the guys you listed...if anything shows the exact opposite. I would love if Sammy would get drafted and have even a 800 yard performance.

Am I a "no for Sammy Watkins"? You're quite off on that. I'm a no for Sammy Watkins at #2. But if he's the best value on the board in the top 10, I'm all for him. My point is that even if we draft Watkins, odds are that he's not going to give us #1 WR production as a rookie. If we're drafting him, we're doing so for what he'll give us beyond his rookie year.

It's quite clear what your draft position is. I know it...trade down, if not take JC. I obviously disagree.

While 750 yards and 3 TDs is good for a rookie WR...you can get the same sort of production from a guy like Brandon Gibson.

Brandon Gibson best season would get that production. Sammy Watkins (or any given rookie) his fist year getting that would be impressive and chances are would only get better after.

No, I do not believe the Rams can rely on a rookie WR to be their go to guy. That's the mistake they made last year.

IDK where your getting the "relying" part. No one is saying that. Again, it's getting a WR of his caliber. And for me it's not even that he's a "1" or a "2" or any other stupid label like that. It's his talent and production on the field that entices me. Including his 1st season.

 

[jrry32]

No they are saying taking him will finally get that type of WR. His first year would, if he was drafted, show a lot of potential with a good first year. Also if you're trying to say that a rookie year like that is unrealistic based on the guys you listed...if anything shows the exact opposite. I would love if Sammy would get drafted and have even a 800 yard performance.

How does it show the opposite? 800 yards is not #1 caliber numbers. Which was the point.

It's quite clear what your draft position is. I know it...trade down, if not take JC. I obviously disagree.

I would hope so, I've posted a lot about it.

My draft position is trade down, take Clowney if we're at #2 and then take Matthews in a trade down. If he's gone, take Watkins or Robinson. I don't have a strong preference between those two.

Brandon Gibson best season would get that production. Sammy Watkins (or any given rookie) his fist year getting that would be impressive and chances are would only get better after.

I wouldn't call it impressive. But it's certainly not poor either. And I would hope he'd get better. Frankly, though, I don't think Watkins will make or break 2014 as some(not you) claimed and I think there are other WRs in this draft that would contribute quite well to this team. So no...I wouldn't consider Watkins at #2.

IDK where your getting the "relying" part. No one is saying that. Again, it's getting a WR of his caliber. And for me it's not even that he's a "1" or a "2" or any other stupid label like that. It's his talent and production on the field that entices me. Including his 1st season.

That's simply not true. There are definitely people saying that.

He's a great prospect. But he's not elite. He's not Calvin or Fitz or AJ Green. I just don't think he's worth taking at #2. Nor do I think he immediately fixes our "issues" at WR.

 

[RamzFanz]

That put the game in Clemens hands ...

Correction: "That put the game in Clemens and Schotty's hands..."

 

[RamzFanz]

Torry Holt put up 788yrds & 6 TDs in his rookie season.

You are a wise man Stranger. Thank you for throwing a bucket of cold water on these humping dogs.

 

[Stranger]

You are a wise man Stranger. Thank you for throwing a bucket of cold water on these humping dogs.

And no long paragraphs from me. Short & Sweet baby

 

[Angry Ram]

How does it show the opposite? 800 yards is not #1 caliber numbers. Which was the point.

Huh? I thought your point (b/c you actually said it) was to expect Sammy Watkins to put up those types of numbers was unrealistic. But your post shows the opposite, listing a lot of players that had good rookie seasons and eventual great careers.

I would hope so, I've posted a lot about it.

My draft position is trade down, take Clowney if we're at #2 and then take Matthews in a trade down. If he's gone, take Watkins or Robinson. I don't have a strong preference between those two.

Yeah I'm Jake Matthews all the way, even @ #2. Sammy is my 2nd choice.

I wouldn't call it impressive. But it's certainly not poor either. And I would hope he'd get better. Frankly, though, I don't think Watkins will make or break 2014 as some(not you) claimed and I think there are other WRs in this draft that would contribute quite well to this team. So no...I wouldn't consider Watkins at #2.

It's impressive as a rookie. It would mean that he made a tremendous impact. Yeah I agree with the "make or break", no single player solves anything.

That's simply not true. There are definitely people saying that.

Well if it's true, I haven't seen that on this board. Aside from a certain fan living in Pittsburgh.

He's a great prospect. But he's not elite. He's not Calvin or Fitz or AJ Green. I just don't think he's worth taking at #2. Nor do I think he immediately fixes our "issues" at WR.

We don't know that. No one does. If you're gonna make that claim based on the careers of already proven guys, then of course he's not worth it. But the potential to be those guys is there, that's all.

 

[jrry32]

Huh? I thought your point (b/c you actually said it) was to expect Sammy Watkins to put up those types of numbers was unrealistic. But your post shows the opposite, listing a lot of players that had good rookie seasons and eventual great careers.

No. My point was that #1 caliber numbers are typically in the 1200 to 1400+ yard range. With 1000 to 1200 yards being fringe #1 WR numbers...and it seems very improbable just for Watkins to get the fringe #1 WR numbers...much less 1200+ yards as a rookie.

Putting up 800 to 950ish type yards seems like a more realistic expectation.

We don't know that. No one does. If you're gonna make that claim based on the careers of already proven guys, then of course he's not worth it. But the potential to be those guys is there, that's all.

I'm making the claim based on how I rated them as a prospects. I don't see that sort of ability or potential in him.

 

[LesBaker]

Which Bradford are you talking about? The Bradford who was able to avoid a sack in the first 2 games of the season, or the Bradford who got pummeled in Dallas and at home on that dreadful Thursday night? And are you seriously giving credit to an Oline protecting a backup that barely threw the ball in wins and often bailed out of the pocket during losses?

The key to protection is the time allowed to make the pass, not the QBs ability to avoid a persistent pass rush. How much tiime, typically, did Bradford or Clemens have to make a pass? 2 seconds? 3? I recall a tremendous pass Bradford made to Cook, but that cost him a big hit.

Abysmal receiving corps? Or lack of chemistry with Clemens? Clemens, who did not trust his arm enough to make the intermediate to deep passes with any regularity.

I'm only posting this to make a point about the "ground and pound" that so many people think the Rams turned into.

SB had 262 passing attempts and KC had 242. Yes there is a difference, but it isn't all that significant. It works out to about 4 passes per game. So the Rams didn't really turn into a running team like a lot of people think.

 

[jrry32]

I'm only posting this to make a point about the "ground and pound" that so many people think the Rams turned into.

SB had 262 passing attempts and KC had 242. Yes there is a difference, but it isn't all that significant. It works out to about 4 passes per game. So the Rams didn't really turn into a running team like a lot of people think.

Les, your math is off.

Bradford had 262 attempts in 7 starts. That's 37.4 attempts per game. Kellen Clemens had 238 attempts in 9 starts(removing the Carolina game), that's 26.4 attempts per game. Which is the difference of 11 attempts per game.

 

[iced]

I'm only posting this to make a point about the "ground and pound" that so many people think the Rams turned into.

SB had 262 passing attempts and KC had 242. Yes there is a difference, but it isn't all that significant. It works out to about 4 passes per game. So the Rams didn't really turn into a running team like a lot of people think.

Yea but look at the play calling before the game is on the line - it's a higher pass ratio... and actually even when they were up by a lot they still passed - until the 4th quarter.

Even in blowouts they weren't doing 50/50 balance - they still chose to air it with sammy - and yea, I mean after the "scheme change"

 

[Stranger]

sorry guys, but I gotta UnFollow this thread. I'm getting dizzy :seizure:

 

[Ram Quixote]

Yea but look at the play calling before the game is on the line - it's a higher pass ratio... and actually even when they were up by a lot they still passed - until the 4th quarter.

Even in blowouts they weren't doing 50/50 balance - they still chose to air it with sammy - and yea, I mean after the "scheme change"

Not quite. Against Houston, Bradford was 16 of 20. But then, 21 of those points came from defense and ST. After their first possession of the 3rd quarter, Bradford didn't throw a pass.