Where I was wrong

[Merlin]

The casual draft fans may have went scrambling for info, but the true hardcore draftniks knew about Quick.

Small school draft expert Josh Buchanan talked about his a bit that off season.

Here's another example:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-with-small-school-draft-expert-josh-buchanan

Basically, Quick being selected in round two wasn't a big surprise. But, Quick being selected at the top of the round and ahead of Jeffrey was a surprise though.

Either way that selection is like so many others at WR post-Holt, where the Rams have taken guys based on raw ability moreso than being a receiver, i.e. being able to run correct routes and actually catch the ball. Just like with Avery I am sure Quick will "get it" at some point, just not with this team.

What is dumb is that in today's NFL you can't afford to take 3-4 year projects high in the draft when the initial contract is so short. Teams need to consider how soon they will see return on their draft pick investment and THAT is an area where Snead/Fish have struggled. The second round in particular is where you gotta be careful IMO, since it's still high real estate but you lose that extra year on the contract.

If Fish/Snead could do it again it would be wise to limit the long-on-potential guys to the defensive side where the staff is up to snuff and have shown an ability to develop them. With the receivers, OL, TEs, etc stick to guys who have actual developed skills and who are ready to make an impact. Oh and btw I do think they learned that lesson a bit based on last year's draft... Gurley was very polished as a runner in a pro-style offense, and the OL they chose all had a lot of experience vice being purely physical freaks like GRob.

 

[FrantikRam]

Everyone was wrong on Foles.

I thought that the worst we'd get was a season like his 13 TD 10 INT last year in Philly before his injury.

Gurley surprised me.

I was cautiously optimistic that the D would be top 10.....and we're not even close to that. I keep saying this, but the defense has had me more down than the offense this season. All those dollars and good players and they give up to 80 yard TDs to a lackluster Bears offense at home after the Bears played a Monday night game on the WEST COAST.

Yea yea injuries. Injuries happen. We have 14 different players with sacks...we have a deep defense. Even when they were healthy we were getting gashed for big plays and there were missed assignments.

 

[nighttrain]

The casual draft fans may have went scrambling for info, but the true hardcore draftniks knew about Quick.

Small school draft expert Josh Buchanan talked about his a bit that off season.

Here's another example:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-with-small-school-draft-expert-josh-buchanan

Basically, Quick being selected in round two wasn't a big surprise. But, Quick being selected at the top of the round and ahead of Jeffrey was a surprise though.

[/QUOTE]I'm not against projects, but get them later. Quick would have been there in the 4th.[/QUOTE]
Quick was a good pick, just to soon, maybe early 3rd, but then the friggin injury just when he seemed to get it
train

 

[jrry32]

I was cautiously optimistic that the D would be top 10.....and we're not even close to that.

Yes, we are. We're currently 9th in DPPG Allowed and 7th in Points Per Drive Allowed. And that's with the offense putting the defense in terrible spots and all of the injuries.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

 

[Debacled]

Funny what one game can do to change perceptions eh?

People are drawing a lot of conclusions in this thread. Not connect the dots type...more like skip half the dots and connect a few here and there type.

 

[RamzFanz]

Yes, we are. We're currently 9th in DPPG Allowed and 7th in Points Per Drive Allowed. And that's with the offense putting the defense in terrible spots and all of the injuries.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

This D is still producing. It's amazing really. No Ogletree, Gaines, McDonald, Quinn, and missing others off and on, man. Who loses that kind of talent and still produces?!

 

[jrry32]

This D is still producing. It's amazing really. No Ogletree, Gaines, McDonald, Quinn, and missing others off and on, man. Who loses that kind of talent and still produces?!

If it were the Patriots, I'd just assume it was cheating.

 

[Zaphod]

This D is still producing. It's amazing really. No Ogletree, Gaines, McDonald, Quinn, and missing others off and on, man. Who loses that kind of talent and still produces?!

I'm still shocked they've done as well as they have.

 

[FrantikRam]

Yes, we are. We're currently 9th in DPPG Allowed and 7th in Points Per Drive Allowed. And that's with the offense putting the defense in terrible spots and all of the injuries.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

My bad, we're top 10 in some rankings.

But I still think they need to play a lot better. 500 yards to the Bucs at home? When the time of possession was just about even? C'mon..

Glad we don't give up a ton of points, but we seem to get gashed for big play after big play almost every week.

 

[Shoman01]

I had them down for 7-9, so there is still a chance of being correct. The offense is just not good enough to do any better. It's wasn't at the beginning of the season, and it isn't now. I thought the defense would be out there too long. They just don't have enough talent.

 

[snackdaddy]

So where was I wrong? I never thought Foles would be great, but I thought he would be serviceable. I was wrong there.

I thought Tavon would never be utilized properly. I was wrong there.

I thought Gurley would not be effective till next season. I was wrong there.

I thought the offense wouldn't be horrible. I was wrong there.

I thought Britt and Cook would be factors in this offense. I was wrong.

Most of all I thought we'd be 8-6 instead of 6-8 at this point. I was very wrong.

 

[RamzFanz]

I thought Britt and Cook would be factors in this offense. I was wrong.

If Britt weren't alone out there and had a QB all season, I think we would all be pleased with him. Dude has his drops but he also has made a lot of clutch plays. He's definitely a factor.

 

[jrry32]

My bad, we're top 10 in some rankings.

But I still think they need to play a lot better. 500 yards to the Bucs at home? When the time of possession was just about even? C'mon..

Glad we don't give up a ton of points, but we seem to get gashed for big play after big play almost every week.

We are without 3 of our best defenders and were up 28-6 going into the 4th quarter. I don't see the issue. The Bucs scored a bunch of points after the Rams took their foot off the gas.

 

[den-the-coach]

We are without 3 of our best defenders and were up 28-6 going into the 4th quarter. I don't see the issue. The Bucs scored a bunch of points after the Rams took their foot off the gas.

I concur as fans we've forgotten how to act after a win.because they've been so far and few between!

 

[Memphis Ram]

Either way that selection is like so many others at WR post-Holt, where the Rams have taken guys based on raw ability moreso than being a receiver, i.e. being able to run correct routes and actually catch the ball. Just like with Avery I am sure Quick will "get it" at some point, just not with this team.

What is dumb is that in today's NFL you can't afford to take 3-4 year projects high in the draft when the initial contract is so short. Teams need to consider how soon they will see return on their draft pick investment and THAT is an area where Snead/Fish have struggled. The second round in particular is where you gotta be careful IMO, since it's still high real estate but you lose that extra year on the contract.

If Fish/Snead could do it again it would be wise to limit the long-on-potential guys to the defensive side where the staff is up to snuff and have shown an ability to develop them. With the receivers, OL, TEs, etc stick to guys who have actual developed skills and who are ready to make an impact. Oh and btw I do think they learned that lesson a bit based on last year's draft... Gurley was very polished as a runner in a pro-style offense, and the OL they chose all had a lot of experience vice being purely physical freaks like GRob.

I guess my only issue with this viewpoint is that we don't really know if the speed of these WRs development is solely on the players, IMO. Some of this very well could be on the coaching staff and the QB position, too. For all we know, WRs playing well elsewhere might not have looked as good here and vice versa.

 

[Merlin]

I guess my only issue with this viewpoint is that we don't really know if the speed of these WRs development is solely on the players, IMO. Some of this very well could be on the coaching staff and the QB position, too. For all we know, WRs playing well elsewhere might not have looked as good here and vice versa.

It could be partially on the staff and I do think that's the case.

But regardless of the staff I think it is important to draft players for return. If a player like Quick for example is so raw that he is likely going to require 3 years of redshirting you have to think twice about taking him in round 2. And I'm not approaching this by hindsight here either, they knew he was very raw when they took him.

Havenstein was a great example of this IMO. He's a the type of pick made with "return over time" in the initial contract vs "draft position" being considered.

 

[Memphis Ram]

It could be partially on the staff and I do think that's the case.

But regardless of the staff I think it is important to draft players for return. If a player like Quick for example is so raw that he is likely going to require 3 years of redshirting you have to think twice about taking him in round 2. And I'm not approaching this by hindsight here either, they knew he was very raw when they took him.

Havenstein was a great example of this IMO. He's a the type of pick made with "return over time" in the initial contract vs "draft position" being considered.

The staff and the QB situation.

Anyway I see what you are saying and I agree. However, while the organization knew Quick was raw, do we really know that they believed that it would take 3 years? And is it possible that Quick could have been ready to contribute more during year two, but not given the opportunity due to again, the staff and the QB situation?

 

[12intheBox]

3 years is about the average for a WR to come into his own. These rookies who immediately contribute are the exceptions.

 

[Athos]

3 years is about the average for a WR to come into his own. These rookies who immediately contribute are the exceptions.

Been a helluva lot of rookies contributing immediately the last few drafts tho from the WO spot.

I wasn't a huge fan of bringing in Foles, but yea, no way I thought he'd be worse than Hill and Pick 6 Davis.

 

[FrantikRam]

We are without 3 of our best defenders and were up 28-6 going into the 4th quarter. I don't see the issue. The Bucs scored a bunch of points after the Rams took their foot off the gas.

I understand all that.

I just don't think this defense has played consistently all year long.

Seahawks - good game

Redskins - bad game

Steelers - good game

Cardinals - okay game (got gashed for too many big plays - even Fisher said this)

Packers - okay game (was good at the time, but Green Bay has struggled on offense against other teams. Lions won in GB)

Browns - good game

49ers - good game

Vikings - okay game

Bears - bad game

Ravens - good game

Bengals - bad game

Cardinals - bad game

Lions - good game

Bucs - okay game (50 pass attempts and not one sack? We applied pressure in the first half but the 2nd half he had allll day)


I like our defense, I just think some fans overrate it. The designation of good, bad and okay are just my opinions of course, but seeing it like this, all I see is inconsistency.

The offense was consistently bad - which is worse. And I'm sure the defense would've been better with a better offense.

But for me, the season turned against the Bears and IMO, that game was lost on defense.