The Rams Need to Get A "Go To" WR More Than Any Other Position

[mr.stlouis]

Cutting or not you're giving up on someone if you draft Watkins, if they really do believe in Quick then they won't draft Watkins.

As for Long being healthy game 1 I pray that he is because if not there's going to be a whole forum of people over at the PD celebrating the end of the Bradford Era.

Yeah, if we can't protect Bradford than we're done. I dont really beleive in Quick. I think he's a nice compliment to an actual stud WR, same with Givens. Bailey is more of a #1 then both of them and that's sad.

As for the OT perspective, if Saffold resigns then case closed. We aren't drafting a high OT early and you know it. Because he hasn't signed it's still up in the air.

 

[RamsFan14]

This might sound a bit random... But if Watkins measures out at 6'2 or above, I wouldn't hesitate to pick him. I don't think most people thought Julio Jones was 6'3, it came as a surprise at the combine if I remember correctly. If the speedy Watkins measures at 6'2 or above, he's got the game film to show how good he's been. He looks like a very good outside the numbers playmaker. Put that with Tavon Austin in the slot, Givens or Quick at number 2, the offense could be interesting.

 

[jjab360]

This might sound a bit random... But if Watkins measures out at 6'2 or above, I wouldn't hesitate to pick him. I don't think most people thought Julio Jones was 6'3, it came as a surprise at the combine if I remember correctly. If the speedy Watkins measures at 6'2 or above, he's got the game film to show how good he's been. He looks like a very good outside the numbers playmaker. Put that with Tavon Austin in the slot, Givens or Quick at number 2, the offense could be interesting.

Arm length, wingspan, and standing reach are more important than height, imo, and Watkins seems to have pretty long arms for his size, so 6', 6'1, or 6'2 it doesn't really matter to me. He's a very good receiver prospect either way. The reason I'm not taking him over Clowney or Robinson is because they are some of the most physically dominant prospects at their respective positions I've ever seen, and Matthews seems about as can't miss as they come. Watkins is a very good prospect, but those guys are on another level, imo.

 

[RamsFan14]

Arm length, wingspan, and standing reach are more important than height, imo, and Watkins seems to have pretty long arms for his size, so 6', 6'1, or 6'2 it doesn't really matter to me. He's a very good receiver prospect either way. The reason I'm not taking him over Clowney or Robinson is because they are some of the most physically dominant prospects at their respective positions I've ever seen, and Matthews seems about as can't miss as they come. Watkins is a very good prospect, but those guys are on another level, imo.

All good points man, got a bit carried away with the idea we still need a #1 WR. Those players are very talented, can't argue with that too much, ironically tho I think Clowney and Robinson have a few share of big questions but from a talent aspect they are as good as you can get. If we do settle for a trade down to gain picks for the coming years, then the idea of drafting Watkins makes more and more sense a little farther you go down the board. We still have two picks, trade down with Cleveland and get one of those 3 players you named, then trade the 13th pick up to get a Watkins?! Kinda what we did last year.

 

[Tron]

Not a fan of Robinson, think he could end up being a bust at tackle. Just not sold on him. Easily rather have Watkins. He is a great run blocker, but not even average at pass protection. Could he develop into a great pass blocker? Maybe. But if I am taking a tackle that early, I don't want him to be half good/half a project. Grabbing Robinson and starting him at LT would be horrible for Sam. Just my opinion, try not to flame me to much.

 

[OnceARam]

@jjab360


I didn't agree with your earlier posts, and I almost said something... until I read this last post. Now I understand you bro. And I think you are right, absolutely right.

We can get a WR later in the draft.

I'm not saying Quick is not going to develop. But I am saying that we can't count on him developing. We must start winning some games. The WR position (as a group) is critical. I'm not saying we need a true #1 to do that. Seattle did it without. Many teams have. But Seattle's WR did not drop balls. And did make big catches - and clutch catches. That's just something we have NOT seen from our guys. Something must change.

That said I can see TA and Baily taking HUGE steps next year. It's always the first to second year that is important. Unfortunately we didn't see that with my boy Givens - or Quick. I still think Givens can be a solid #2 though. Maybe Baily, Givens and TA is enough. I don't know. The QB play is such a big factor - as is the OL play.

It's very, very hard to make the argument that we can afford to pass up on ELITE talent at the OL/DL position at the top of the draft.... (as you said)

 

[jjab360]

@jjab360


I didn't agree with your earlier posts, and I almost said something... until I read this last post. Now I understand you bro. And I think you are right, absolutely right.

We can get a WR later in the draft.

I'm not saying Quick is not going to develop. But I am saying that we can't count on him developing. We must start winning some games. The WR position (as a group) is critical. I'm not saying we need a true #1 to do that. Seattle did it without. Many teams have. But Seattle's WR did not drop balls. And did make big catches - and clutch catches. That's just something we have NOT seen from our guys. Something must change.

That said I can see TA and Baily taking HUGE steps next year. It's always the first to second year that is important. Unfortunately we didn't see that with my boy Givens - or Quick. I still think Givens can be a solid #2 though. Maybe Baily, Givens and TA is enough. I don't know. The QB play is such a big factor - as is the OL play.

It's very, very hard to make the argument that we can afford to pass up on ELITE talent at the OL/DL position at the top of the draft.... (as you said)

Yeah, we see eye to eye pretty much. Unfortunately, I don't think Quick has receiver instincts, but Givens just seemed like he had a sophomore slump and never could quite hit his groove this year. Like you said, TA and Bailey are going to be PLAYERs, and then you have Givens redeeming himself and regaining his rookie form as a deep threat and Pettis as the always reliable no.4. We technically don't need to go receiver early, which is what I was trying to say with my earlier posts, in direct contrast to the title of this thread "The Rams Need to Get A 'Go To' WR More Than Any Other Position". However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't take one if the right value landed in our laps.

 

[Boffo97]

We can get a WR later in the draft.

If we're not getting Watkins, we might as well not take any other WR, because they won't be a #1. So we might as well give the current crew another year and see if anything gets better. If it doesn't, we're sunk though.

I have heard of Clowney being considered elite (although rumors of his having a bad attitude and taking plays off gives me concern), but we already have an elite DE and another very good DE. That's not the kind of advantage you throw away. As far as Robinson, I really haven't heard the Orlando Pace level stuff outside of here, but I don't follow college football that much.

Unless someone IS world beater level, Watkins seems to be the last piece we need to make our WR corps into something SCARY. To me, it comes down to Clowney not being that much of an upgrade (if at all) over Long, Robinson not being that much of an upgrade over the other Long, but Watkins potentially being a big upgrade at WR.

 

[OnceARam]

If we're not getting Watkins, we might as well not take any other WR, because they won't be a #1. So we might as well give the current crew another year and see if anything gets better. If it doesn't, we're sunk though.

I have heard of Clowney being considered elite (although rumors of his having a bad attitude and taking plays off gives me concern), but we already have an elite DE and another very good DE. That's not the kind of advantage you throw away. As far as Robinson, I really haven't heard the Orlando Pace level stuff outside of here, but I don't follow college football that much.

Unless someone IS world beater level, Watkins seems to be the last piece we need to make our WR corps into something SCARY. To me, it comes down to Clowney not being that much of an upgrade (if at all) over Long, Robinson not being that much of an upgrade over the other Long, but Watkins potentially being a big upgrade at WR.

Yeah, I think you make the best counter arguement I've read for Watkins. He's a "bigger" upgrade.

BUT BUT BUT

Long, the offense tackle, blew out his knee. So that means a LT is a bigger need, assuming he's not 100% (or 75%).

What we're touching on is the age old question between the two established schools of though; best play available vs. team needs.

Snead gets around the question by saying best player available at the biggest need.

But Snead is a good politician in this respect (as a good GM needs to be) so we really don't know on which side of the argument our FO comes down on.

If we look at the Tavon Austin pick I would say that we went for the biggest (perceived) need - so that would mean that we go with the biggest need.

However, if you look at a number of our other picks we've gone with the best player available.

So it really just depends.

If I'm the GM, I trade down as far as I can while still getting one of the top two offensive tackles and then draft a WR later. I would be interested in securing a round 1 pick in next years draft in case Bradford doesn't work out and we don't end up signing him long-term. As a hedge against risk. Not saying Bradford isn't going to work out. I'm just saying it's a possibility. We have enough talent at WR to see how well Bradford plays at this point.

Just my 2cents... not that you asked.

 

[OnceARam]

If we're not getting Watkins, we might as well not take any other WR, because they won't be a #1. So we might as well give the current crew another year and see if anything gets better. If it doesn't, we're sunk though.

I have heard of Clowney being considered elite (although rumors of his having a bad attitude and taking plays off gives me concern), but we already have an elite DE and another very good DE. That's not the kind of advantage you throw away. As far as Robinson, I really haven't heard the Orlando Pace level stuff outside of here, but I don't follow college football that much.

Unless someone IS world beater level, Watkins seems to be the last piece we need to make our WR corps into something SCARY. To me, it comes down to Clowney not being that much of an upgrade (if at all) over Long, Robinson not being that much of an upgrade over the other Long, but Watkins potentially being a big upgrade at WR.

Just curious; What current NFL WR would you compare Watkins to?

 

[Boffo97]

Yeah, I think you make the best counter arguement I've read for Watkins. He's a "bigger" upgrade.

BUT BUT BUT

Long, the offense tackle, blew out his knee. So that means a LT is a bigger need, assuming he's not 100% (or 75%).

What we're touching on is the age old question between the two established schools of though; best play available vs. team needs.

Snead gets around the question by saying best player available at the biggest need.

But Snead is a good politician in this respect (as a good GM needs to be) so we really don't know on which side of the argument our FO comes down on.

If we look at the Tavon Austin pick I would say that we went for the biggest (perceived) need - so that would mean that we go with the biggest need.

However, if you look at a number of our other picks we've gone with the best player available.

So it really just depends.

If I'm the GM, I trade down as far as I can while still getting one of the top two offensive tackles and then draft a WR later. I would be interested in securing a round 1 pick in next years draft in case Bradford doesn't work out and we don't end up signing him long-term. As a hedge against risk. Not saying Bradford isn't going to work out. I'm just saying it's a possibility. We have enough talent at WR to see how well Bradford plays at this point.

Just my 2cents... not that you asked.

Everything I've seen says the Rams expect Long to be back Week 1 at 100%. If that's the case, drafting a tackle early becomes a redundancy because you'd be drafting the guy to play LT, and that spot is already taken. I'm not sure I buy the idea of playing him as a guard until the spot opens up for us.

We need to address holes we have rather than patching up already solid spots.

Now, if it turns out that Long isn't going to be good to go, this might change. But I have to think that would be the front office admitting a major whiff on the Long signing in the first place.

 

[Boffo97]

Just curious; What current NFL WR would you compare Watkins to?

I admit, I'm not a big college follower, so I'm only going off of what I've heard.... that Watkins could be that elusive #1 WR we've lacked for so long.

If this news I've heard is faulty, then my opinion will be as well.

 

[OnceARam]

Everything I've seen says the Rams expect Long to be back Week 1 at 100%. If that's the case, drafting a tackle early becomes a redundancy because you'd be drafting the guy to play LT, and that spot is already taken. I'm not sure I buy the idea of playing him as a guard until the spot opens up for us.

We need to address holes we have rather than patching up already solid spots.

Now, if it turns out that Long isn't going to be good to go, this might change. But I have to think that would be the front office admitting a major whiff on the Long signing in the first place.

I agree. It's all about Long's injury status at this point. That said, even if Long comes back he's an old, injury plagued guy. Might not be bad to have a LT in waiting playing guard, especially if Saffold doesn't stay.

So maybe Saffold is the the KEY to our draft.

I don't think that our FO will have to admit to an error though. It was a low risk move to sign Long. We didn't sign him to a big contract. They totally low balled him once it was apparent that Miami was happy with Johnathan Martin and Richi.

 

[iced]

I agree. It's all about Long's injury status at this point. That said, even if Long comes back he's an old, injury plagued guy. Might not be bad to have a LT in waiting playing guard, especially if Saffold doesn't stay.

So maybe Saffold is the the KEY to our draft.

I don't think that our FO will have to admit to an error though. It was a low risk move to sign Long. We didn't sign him to a big contract. They totally low balled him once it was apparent that Miami was happy with Johnathan Martin and Richi.

So it's better to draft a Guy where there is proven talent but we MIGHT need a replacement in the near future (Long at LT) , vs a position that lacks proven talent and whom we definitely need a replacement for in the near future (watkins and WR)

 

[OnceARam]

So it's better to draft a Guy where there is proven talent but we MIGHT need a replacement in the near future (Long at LT) , vs a position that lacks proven talent and whom we definitely need a replacement for in the near future (watkins and WR)

Well we definitely need help on the OL. And if Saffold leaves us for LT money (that he doesn't deserve) we have a BLEEDING hole at guard. That said, we don't need to spend a high draft pick on a guard.

I just don't see Long being healthy. I don't think it's a question of IF he goes down, but WHEN he goes down.

So I don't see it as a MIGHT. I think we need a long-term solution at LT.

Here's the thing; if Jason Smith (or whatever his name was) didn't fuck us we wouldn't be having this conversation.

These mistakes prior to Fischer/Snead are STILL HURTING US.

It's frustrating.

 

[iced]

Well we definitely need help on the OL. And if Saffold leaves us for LT money (that he doesn't deserve) we have a BLEEDING hole at guard. That said, we don't need to spend a high draft pick on a guard.

I just don't see Long being healthy. I don't think it's a question of IF he goes down, but WHEN he goes down.

So I don't see it as a MIGHT. I think we need a long-term solution at LT.

Here's the thing; if Jason Smith (or whatever his name was) didn't freak us we wouldn't be having this conversation.

These mistakes prior to Fischer/Snead are STILL HURTING US.

It's frustrating.

And I don't see anyone at wide receiver that's reminiscent of anything that's not just "good", but atleast viable option against patrick peterson or sherman.. Jake Long can do that with aldon smith, daryl washington, or cliff avril...different story for receivers..

Rams were 7th best in keeping the QB upright - but yet no receiver over 700 yards...

Rams top 3 receivers:Givens (569), Austin (418), Pettis (399).... over 16 games....

BTW - In 4 games Justin Blackmon had 415 yards... with who at qb and on what terrible team?

yea..

 

[Rabid Ram]

I still don't and why people think a "#1" WR is so important in the NFL, and PARTICULARLY for a Jeff Fisher coached team. When has he ever deployed a high octane, vertical offense? It seems to me that he values tough, possession WRs that can make catches in traffic and move the chains. He has made no secret that he wants to establish dominance at the LOS (on both sides) and win in the trenches, beginning with the ground game. Not saying I agree, just saying that it is how his teams typically roll. I love Watkins, but I think we have a very good, young WR nucleus already and they are going to be sufficient for this offense. Just my opinion. I would like to see us build a young, deep DOMINANT OL. I think that is how we win in this division.

And with that said show me all those 1st round oline players Fisher has selected in his tenure

 

[Ram Quixote]

Everything I've seen says the Rams expect Long to be back Week 1 at 100%. If that's the case, drafting a tackle early becomes a redundancy because you'd be drafting the guy to play LT, and that spot is already taken. I'm not sure I buy the idea of playing him as a guard until the spot opens up for us.

We need to address holes we have rather than patching up already solid spots.

Now, if it turns out that Long isn't going to be good to go, this might change. But I have to think that would be the front office admitting a major whiff on the Long signing in the first place.

However, drafting an OT high is leverage against the future, in case Barksdale leaves after 2014 or Long is injured again. Keep in mind, Long's contract is for just 3 more years. For that matter, the drafted OT could be an upgrade over Barksdale.

 

[OnceARam]

And I don't see anyone at wide receiver that's reminiscent of anything that's not just "good", but atleast viable option against patrick peterson or sherman.. Jake Long can do that with aldon smith, daryl washington, or cliff avril...different story for receivers..

Rams were 7th best in keeping the QB upright - but yet no receiver over 700 yards...

Rams top 3 receivers:Givens (569), Austin (418), Pettis (399).... over 16 games....

BTW - In 4 games Justin Blackmon had 415 yards... with who at qb and on what terrible team?

yea..

Yeah man. It's a good point. But what happens when Long goes down again (or doesn't make it come week 1).

We're going to lose Staffold because someone will overpay him in free agency. We know that.

So then what do you do? Bradford will get killed if he doesn't have a competent LT (as any pocket passer would).

If Long goes down, and you don't have a competent backup, it just doesn't matter who you have running routes.

That said, I love Watkins.

But here's a question for you; IF you take Watkins first and both LT's are gone by #13, when/how do you address the OL - because I'm assuming you draft a T at some point, right?

 

[OnceARam]

However, drafting an OT high is leverage against the future, in case Barksdale leaves after 2014 or Long is injured again. Keep in mind, Long's contract is for just 3 more years. For that matter, the drafted OT could be an upgrade over Barksdale.

That's a good point. Everything we've said assumes Barksdale is the answer / or that RT isn't that important of a position.

I really don't know enough about Barksdale to make an intelligence argument on his level of production. I'm sure there are guys on this forum that do though. My perception was that he was a surprise and played well.

At some point we need some GOOD surprises!!!!!