Strauss: Rams are taking a chance on receivers/PD

[Boffo97]

Fisher said he never had to draft a OL in the first. As farr as Watkins when u have the #2 pick you visit with all of the top 5 prospects even if you have no intentions of drafting them. Me personally i dont know how anybody would have thought we were drafting Watkins after we drafted 4 receivers the past 2 years and gave uppicks to get Austin. at some point you have to let what you have develop.

Before the draft, it was said repeatedly that drafting Watkins would be about trying to find that #1 guy. And of those four receivers, only Quick was looked at as a potential #1. Austin is a specialized weapon. Bailey's a 3rd rounder, and Givens is a 4th rounder. Both might still develop, especially Bailey, but even had we taken Watkins, that'd be a great thing.

So there was a logic there in being interested in Watkins even though the Rams chose to go another direction.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I did some edits before I saw you replied, but they're minor.


Fair enough. I personally feel everything, perhaps even during the season itself, said by a GM has to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially that his statement wasn't just that they wouldn't DRAFT another receiver, it was "we cannot have another receiver around here". That statement was in an article posted on January 16th. Britt was signed on April 8th.

Now, certainly the Rams' investment in Britt is a LOT less than it would be in a top 5 draft pick, but it is having another receiver around here... so is the T.J. Moe signing. Although I don't know enough about Moe to accurately predict his odds of making the final roster.

The article may have posted on January 16th, but the comments referenced were from the prior week (before the underclassman deadline). Britt may have signed on April 8th, but he talked with the Rams long before and Fisher seemed to be certain that he would sign before he actually joined the team.

In the end, Britt is a veteran on a 1 year deal with little guaranteed money while Moe is another cheap competitor. If they make it great. But, unlike a high draft choice, neither represents a roster guarantee that a high draft choice would and thus perhaps automatically force out a young, still developing player at the position.

It may have been a deep class, but I do question how many of them had #1 potential. If they didn't, we didn't need them. That doesn't mean they're bums, but just not an upgrade over what the Rams had. I don't know. It just seems like outside those first two guys (who were only a factor with the first pick), we agree. Maybe I'm reading wrong.

I, like the Rams, seem to question the need for this so-called a #1 WR. Especially, in a run-first but balanced attack.

 

[Pancake]

Sure, but as those pushing for an offensive lineman noted when it was mentioned that the 2nd overall pick was too high for a guard, you don't just draft for 1 year.

A coach has to look ahead to keep his team competitive but on the other hand when said coach is in year three and not had a winning season yet he better not plan to far ahead. I just don't see a WR coming to the Rams as a rookie and lifting the team the way a rookie DT or OL could. I didn't see passing on WR as a risky move at all given the team needs in other areas. I thought it was low risk and smart drafting that will payoff from day one. But then again I've pretty much been wrong about every single thing Rams related for the last ten years in a row.

 

[Boffo97]

Article may have posted on January 16th, but the comments referenced were from the prior week (before the underclassman deadline). Britt was officially signed on April 8th, but he talked with the Rams long before and Fisher seemed to be certain that he would sign before he actually joined the team.

In the end, Britt is a veteran on a 1 year deal with little guaranteed money while Moe is another cheap competitor. If they make it great. But, unlike a high draft choice, neither represents a roster guarantee that a high draft choice would and thus perhaps automatically force out one of the younger developing talents.



I, like the Rams, seem to question the need for this so-called a #1 WR. Especially, in a run-first but balanced attack.

Britt still might force someone out (most likely Quick if we're talking receivers who can still develop but might be on the bubble). But if Britt does live up to the hype, feel free to mark it on your calendar to come rub my face in it later.

And yes, a #1 WR isn't an absolute requirement, and some teams have #1 (or #1s) and still don't get the job done. But they certainly help. Especially with a #1 overall QB who I hope doesn't get cast into the role of game manager when I think he can be so much more. And doubly especially if we get behind in a game and our running attack is useless. I still remember Chuck Knox's 2nd era and draw plays on 3rd and 25....ugh.... Ground Chuck...

 

[lockdnram21]

Before the draft, it was said repeatedly that drafting Watkins would be about trying to find that #1 guy. And of those four receivers, only Quick was looked at as a potential #1. Austin is a specialized weapon. Bailey's a 3rd rounder, and Givens is a 4th rounder. Both might still develop, especially Bailey, but even had we taken Watkins, that'd be a great thing.

So there was a logic there in being interested in Watkins even though the Rams chose to go another direction.

not really if you listened if you listened to fish and snead. every time theynwere asked about Watkins or evans the first thing they said was there going to be good receivers but we have receivers that we want to let develop. who said that drafting Watkins would be about getting the guy? i heard people that mean nothing say that but never fish or snead. They always said that they wanted to spread the ball out and not depend on one guy

 

[Boffo97]

not really if you listened if you listened to fish and snead. every time theynwere asked about Watkins or evans the first thing they said was there going to be good receivers but we have receivers that we want to let develop. who said that drafting Watkins would be about getting the guy? i heard people that mean nothing say that but never fish or snead. They always said that they wanted to spread the ball out and not depend on one guy

I'm not sure I ever read them specifically denying interest in Watkins. But it wouldn't have been smart if they had. It would have lowered the potential trade down value of the #2 pick.

Snead was quoted as saying "Sammy is going to be a difference-maker in this league," (http://msn.foxsports.com/midwest/st...th-rams-gm-les-snead-to-talk-nfl-draft-042114) and attended Watkins' Pro Day (http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2014/3/6/5477846/2014-nfl-draft-sammy-watkins-clemson-pro-day-scouts). There's due diligence, and there's checking out a guy you're considering.

The Rams went with Robinson. And that's fine. There's plenty of arguments for that pick, and good posters here helped convince me of them. I just don't buy the ideas that the Rams had no interest or that a #1 WR couldn't help this offense.

Oddly enough, Googling for "Fisher Watkins" only brought up a funeral home. So maybe that was jinxed to begin with.

 

[lockdnram21]

I'm not sure I ever read them specifically denying interest in Watkins. But it wouldn't have been smart if they had. It would have lowered the potential trade down value of the #2 pick.

Snead was quoted as saying "Sammy is going to be a difference-maker in this league," (http://msn.foxsports.com/midwest/st...th-rams-gm-les-snead-to-talk-nfl-draft-042114) and attended Watkins' Pro Day (http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2014/3/6/5477846/2014-nfl-draft-sammy-watkins-clemson-pro-day-scouts). There's due diligence, and there's checking out a guy you're considering.

The Rams went with Robinson. And that's fine. There's plenty of arguments for that pick, and good posters here helped convince me of them. I just don't buy the ideas that the Rams had no interest or that a #1 WR couldn't help this offense.

Oddly enough, Googling for "Fisher Watkins" only brought up a funeral home. So maybe that was jinxed to begin with.

snead and him both were on tv and said it. they didnt say they werent going to draft him but they let it be known that they wanted to let our receivers develop. By them saying that it could have also been a smokescreen. I also think they never intended on making a trade. but hey we will never know

 

[ChrisW]

Photo in this article shows Austin highpointing the ball nicely.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Fisher said he never had to draft a OL in the first. As farr as Watkins when u have the #2 pick you visit with all of the top 5 prospects even if you have no intentions of drafting them. Me personally i dont know how anybody would have thought we were drafting Watkins after we drafted 4 receivers the past 2 years and gave uppicks to get Austin. at some point you have to let what you have develop.

I agree. Fisher didn't have the need to draft high for Olinemen when in TN.

And, although it's never clear when anyone in the organization is telling the truth before the draft, it was logical that they wouldn't take another WR. In a sense, it'd be like they were admitting what they had done for the past two years wasn't working at WR. Few head coaches and GMs do that this soon. Got to stick to the plan.

So, at least to me, it came down to either Robinson... or Matthews... or trade down.

I liked Matthews because I believed he was more pro-ready immediately... but Robinson is a specimen and should - over time - be better than Matthews (maybe not by a lot, though).

 

[Rmfnlt]

Even with the improved OL, Stacy *could* suffer from a sophomore slump. He wouldn't be the first or last.

But Mason has enough potential that I'm actually not too worried about that.

Over time, I think Mason will pass Stacy on the depth chart.

 

[LesBaker]

snead and him both were on tv and said it. they didnt say they werent going to draft him but they let it be known that they wanted to let our receivers develop. By them saying that it could have also been a smokescreen. I also think they never intended on making a trade. but hey we will never know

Fisher's exact words were "Anyone who thinks we aren't fine at WR doesn't know what they are talking about".

He was very clear.....

 

[lockdnram21]

Fisher's exact words were "Anyone who thinks we aren't fine at WR doesn't know what they are talking about".

He was very clear.....

im not talking about that interview im talking about one that was before the draft. ipretty sure it was snead and not fisher .

 

[Boffo97]

Regarding the after the draft "Anybody that would reference the receiver position as being a need for us, doesn't know what they're talking about," statement, I'll just say it would have had a different meaning before the draft. After, even if the group we have is just okay, he still could be seen as right.

That said, I absolutely want him to be right and me to be wrong on the WRs. And I still think those who wanted Robinson all along have a much better argument if they stick to the idea that he was just seen as BPA. There's pretty strong evidence there.