When you say" Rams are set @ OT" what does that mean?

[BonifayRam]

I have come across & read often from many of ROD'mers that proclaim hard & quick that the Rams are are set @ OT. I have sat back an let these type statements float on by with out too much prying by me on that statement. Things have slowed down now till the combine so I was thinking I could get some insight from my fellow posters. Normally this statement is but not always associated with ROD'mers who are sharing & conveying of ideal on why we should draft Sammy Watkins, but I see it with other suggested prospects too. So its not just Sammy Watkins campaigners.

*What is that meaning of this word S E T when ROD'mers used like in this context? Solid or solidified or arranged or fixed or settled Ok if so ....
*Does that mean now ? Currently? SET here today? or does that mean in training camp? or does that mean in the beginning of Pre season? or does that mean for the initial of the regular season? Does that mean for a long time outward.

What does my ROD'mer family really mean & what do you base this on? Does this mean that the two signed under contract OT's starters (Long & Barksdale) is the meaning of set @ OT? Does this mean for 2014/2015? Is an NFL team really set @ OT with just two OT's signed & one named Sean Hooey who was injured most of his college career on the roster set?

Using Snead's & Fishers past two seasons as a guide the current 2 OT's would be not be what the previous season numbers were? In the 2012 season #1- Barry Richardson #2-Rodger Saffold #3-Wayne Hunter #4-Joe Barksdale #5-Chris Williams & a little Ty Nsekhe all were called on to play OT.

Then in 2013? #1-Jake Long #2-Roger Saffold #3-Joe Barksdale #4-Chris Williams & a dash of Max Starks all saw time on the field playing OT. So what has changed since the last two seasons that would cause the Rams to be all of a sudden SET @ OT with just two bonified OT's when they have been running with 4 or 5 OT's.

Or should I just disregard the ROD'mers who toss that statement "Rams are set @ OT"out?

 

[blackbart]

It means someone really doesn't know what they are talking about.

Injured Jake Long and Barksdale who is FA after 2014 does not equal being set at OT. It is one of the weakest positions on the team and needs fresh blood for the future and depth for 2014

 

[Angry Ram]

They are set at the starting spots.

Jake Long is the man @ LT. He'll be back from his injury w/o any setback. I have no basis for that...just a gut feeling.

I also think Joe Barksdale earned his starting spot for 2014. If he maintains it, he'll get an extension.

Thus, set.

 

[tonyl711]

to me it means that we already know who our OTs are next season, doesn't mean we don't need to draft one, but I don't think he needs to come in the first round since he will be more a back up, get one in the second that can be coached up to start the season if need be and can be coached to be a starter in the future.

 

[rhinobean]

It means we have 2 starters and no proven quality depth at tackle. Need quality backup/future starters at the positions. Same at guard!

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Set at Offensive Tackle? People really believe that?

Didn't they see that Jake Long was injured again? Did they notice the contract he signed? It never gave me an impression that he was more than a 2 or 3 year stop gap.

Barksdale? Sure he is adequate as an ORT, but what happens if another team offers him more than the Rams deem he is worth? The better have their bases covered.

Draft Matthews or Robinson and then move Jake to ORT. Then they are set at OT for a while.

 

[blackbart]

Why does "coaching up" someone substitute for drafting a blue chip player on the O line but not at other positions? Coaches do not give players natural ability so starting off with inferior talent only means you'll end up with inferior products.

 

[Selassie I]

@BonifayRam

LOL

I would like an explanation of "Rod'mers". I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

 

[iced]

Set at Offensive Tackle? People really believe that?

Didn't they see that Jake Long was injured again? Did they notice the contract he signed? It never gave me an impression that he was more than a 2 or 3 year stop gap.

Barksdale? Sure he is adequate as an ORT, but what happens if another team offers him more than the Rams deem he is worth?

Barksdale is under contract for 2014 with a salary of $645k. Free agent in 2015.

It is one of the weakest positions on the team and needs fresh blood for the future and depth for 2014

"One of the weakest positions on the team" - yet the only position on the team besides DE that had someone playing the Top 5 Level (Jake Long). Given how well Barksdale played at RT, Tackle and DE are really the only positions "we're set" in - atleast its the only positions playing at the highest at their perspective positions in comparison to the rest.

Most certainly can't say that about Wide Receiver, Safety, Corner, etc.

 

[Ramifications]

They are set at the starting spots.

Jake Long is the man @ LT. He'll be back from his injury w/o any setback. I have no basis for that...just a gut feeling.

I also think Joe Barksdale earned his starting spot for 2014. If he maintains it, he'll get an extension.

Thus, set.

As long as Jake Long isn't seriously injured or doesn't break down in his 30s, this is eminently sensible, and given his history in recent years of an immaculate, pristine medical record...

WAIT, WHAT?

 

[Yamahopper]

So great if Long comes back ready to go and Barksdale keeps improving next season. Then the next year Long is a year older and Barks does a Safflod and takes a walk for a huge payday which would be more over 5 years than taking a OT in the 1st round this year, that the Rams can't afford since they need to lock up Quinn and Sneed's first draft class is a year away from cashing in.
Meanwhile we have no swing tackle so if a injury happens to Long or Barksdale for more than a game it's another 7-9. Wait I forgot about Hooey, the guy in camp last season that didn't know how to line up.
Yeah were set.

 

[Ramifications]

Set at Offensive Tackle? People really believe that?

Didn't they see that Jake Long was injured again? Did they notice the contract he signed? It never gave me an impression that he was more than a 2 or 3 year stop gap.

Barksdale? Sure he is adequate as an ORT, but what happens if another team offers him more than the Rams deem he is worth? The better have their bases covered.

Draft Matthews or Robinson and then move Jake to ORT. Then they are set at OT for a while.

Good point, the way Long's contract is structured, I think it isn't too hard to extricate ourselves from it in 2015-2016. IMO we shouldn't count on him fulfilling the original length and terms of the contract.

 

[Ramifications]

Barksdale is under contract for 2014 with a salary of $645k. Free agent in 2015.




"One of the weakest positions on the team" - yet the only position on the team besides DE that had someone playing the Top 5 Level (Jake Long). Given how well Barksdale played at RT, Tackle and DE are really the only positions "we're set" in - atleast its the only positions playing at the highest at their perspective positions in comparison to the rest.

Most certainly can't say that about Wide Receiver, Safety, Corner, etc.

"Set at" for a year, if Barksdale outplays his contract (virtually certain based on 2013) and leaves.

I think we define "set at" differently.

 

[iced]

"Set at" for a year, if Barksdale outplays his contract (virtually certain based on 2013) and leaves.

I think we define "set at" differently.

I think you're idea of "Set at" involves a lot of assumptions and crystal ball staring...

 

[blackbart]

"One of the weakest positions on the team" - yet the only position on the team besides DE that had someone playing the Top 5 Level (Jake Long). Given how well Barksdale played at RT, Tackle and DE are really the only positions "we're set" in - atleast its the only positions playing at the highest at their perspective positions in comparison to the rest.

Most certainly can't say that about Wide Receiver, Safety, Corner, etc.

And then the turf monster grabbed him and blew out his knee, there is no guarantee he will ever play at that level again and who are you going to use for depth?? I hope Long is back in camp and able to start Game 1 and play the entire year but even through 14 games he did not play ever down in 2013.

 

[iced]

And then the turf monster grabbed him and blew out his knee, there is no guarantee he will ever play at that level again and who are you going to use for depth?? I hope Long is back in camp and able to start Game 1 and play the entire year but even through 14 games he did not play ever down in 2013.

-sigh-

I've already said grab a tackle in the bottom of the 1st (assuming trade down) or anywhere past the 1st where the value meets the selection - but if it ain't BPA, don't spend a premium pick on a position of strength.. I honestly don't understand how so many of you can look at the starting receivers and starting tackles then say "Yep we're set at receiver - we need to draft a tackle!" Again - 2 players at Tackle playing at a high level, one at the very best and top 5 LT...

For receiver - we have to hope for injury or someone to be inactive (Austin Pettis/Tavon Austin) to see else what we "might" have (Stedman Bailey).

"You don't draft a player due to injury" - Les Snead

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah - not sure I like the RODmer term either. No biggie. It just sounds a little derogatory.

That aside, I personally think there are few positions at which we are "set". That's the thing and one of the reasons I don't put too much stock in draft projections. The coaching staff and Snead will take their board and work the phone lines and one of us might get lucky and guess right on what... one player? I know I sound like a wet blanket here but I actually do like reading the thoughts of the guys who get into mocks and trying to guess who we draft. I just don't put a lot of stock into these mocks or for that matter questioning the rationale behind them.

I have my thoughts on what needs to happen this season but I also think there are several ways to skin a cat. Defenses are made better by offenses that don't constantly go three and out or only score on long plays that get the defense back on the field quickly. Offenses are helped out by defenses that prevent scoring, score some themselves, and put the offense in positions where they are not one dimensional. Often times you can keep your QB from getting killed more with a balanced attack or by keeping the defense from being able to just pin their ears back.

My priority this season would be to do whatever it takes to keep Bradford upright and stop the automatic 8 yard completion given up by our defense. Does that mean drafting an OT and a CB or FS? IMO? Yes. But this regime may not see a huge upside to drafting one of those positions in the first over some of the later options. They may also really like players that play a position none of us really feel we need.

If in the draft, you have the opportunity to lock down a side of the ball, go for it. You better hope you can make your other units sound enough to not then be a weakness.

 

[blackbart]

-sigh-

I've already said grab a tackle in the bottom of the 1st (assuming trade down) or anywhere past the 1st where the value meets the selection - but if it ain't BPA, don't spend a premium pick on a position of strength.. I honestly don't understand how so many of you can look at the starting receivers and starting tackles then say "Yep we're set at receiver - we need to draft a tackle!" Again - 2 players at Tackle playing at a high level, one at the very best and top 5 LT...

For receiver - we have to hope for injury or someone to be inactive (Austin Pettis/Tavon Austin) to see else what we "might" have (Stedman Bailey).

"You don't draft a player due to injury" - Les Snead

Sorry I don't read every post from every member and I'm too old to remember what each on said.

I honestly do not think we know what we have at WR because of Bradford's injury in 2013. Before he went down he was in the top of the league TDs and was looking like a career year was sure to come. He seemed to be developing a good rapport with some of the guys and I expect those relationships to grow IF they can all stay healthy. Drafting a WR is just as iffy and can be more so than an OT, you just never know.

I don't see this team ever being a team that has a megatron kind of attitude when it comes to WR. This will be a run first team that throws the ball about 25-30 times a game. The TEs are going to get their share probably 7-10 targets a game. RB's maybe another 5 per game. That leaves about 15-20 throws a game to WR maybe 1 guy gets 5-7 targets a game, MAYBE. I don't see Watkins (presuming that is your choice) being as important to this team as the O line.

And that line from Les Snead is BS you have to replace injured personnel all the time. It happens guys get old and broken and can no longer perform.

 

[Flipper_336]

It means I've fallen asleep after one too many bottles of Chimay and dreamt that we had Orlando Pace at LT and Jackie Slater at RT.

 

[iced]

Sorry I don't read every post from every member and I'm too old to remember what each on said.

I honestly do not think we know what we have at WR because of Bradford's injury in 2013. Before he went down he was in the top of the league TDs and was looking like a career year was sure to come. He seemed to be developing a good rapport with some of the guys and I expect those relationships to grow IF they can all stay healthy. Drafting a WR is just as iffy and can be more so than an OT, you just never know.

Well how about what we do know..

-the receiver's we had led the league in drops while bradford was QB, a trend that they continued to up hold even with clemens and still managed to finish 7th in drops Despite Being a Run first oriented attack.
-Tavon Austin led the receivers with 40 catches - a franchise low that hasn't broken in some 20+ years... Tight end leads in receiving.. Our recievers struggle catching the ball, identifying hot reads,and gaining separation against even somewhat decent corners...

I don't see this team ever being a team that has a megatron kind of attitude when it comes to WR. This will be a run first team that throws the ball about 25-30 times a game. The TEs are going to get their share probably 7-10 targets a game. RB's maybe another 5 per game. That leaves about 15-20 throws a game to WR maybe 1 guy gets 5-7 targets a game, MAYBE. I don't see Watkins (presuming that is your choice) being as important to this team as the O line.

And that line from Les Snead is BS you have to replace injured personnel all the time. It happens guys get old and broken and can no longer perform.

No, this is also wrong. This was not a run first team after the "philosophy" switch with Bradford- Stacy averaged 16 carries a game with Bradford starting, it was over 23 with Clemens first 3 games... With Bradford, the average was right about middle of the pack.

Lol you can call that line Bs all you want - Jake Long is not old, at all...And he can still perform. Add in modernized medicine and you can understand why Snead and others have showed optimism regarding Jake Long's recovery.