A Controversial Take

[CGI_Ram]

He started that season. Many times.

According to NFL.com; 1 start

http://www.nfl.com/player/robertquinn/2495485/profile

 

[V3]

According to NFL.com; 1 start

http://www.nfl.com/player/robertquinn/2495485/profile

Well, he played enough to fool me. Whether he was out there for the first snap or come in on certain downs, he played enough to be noticed a lot and make a difference, be it good or bad. He probably should have been "starting" more, TBH. It's not like the Rams were going to do anything that year and it wasn't like we were filled at the position. He flashed enough as a rookie to warrant more "starts" in my book.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Well, he played enough to fool me. Whether he was out there for the first snap or come in on certain downs, he played enough to be noticed a lot and make a difference, be it good or bad. He probably should have been "starting" more, TBH. It's not like the Rams were going to do anything that year and it wasn't like we were filled at the position. He flashed enough as a rookie to warrant more "starts" in my book.

If memory serves me correct, we had a productive James Hall that season in front of him. Plus, Spagnuolo who favoured vets to rookies.

He probably should have started more.

 

[CGI_Ram]

That IS fair.

James Hall was a nice player.

 

[LesBaker]

I'd still like to get a first next year out of this cuz LOOK at what the potential is for it climbing to heights like this year Washington pick did.

Suppose we trade with someone and they pic second next year? Would that be worth is and THEN we draft "THAT Player" a Lawrence Taylor or a Clowney .
IMO we are going to keep picking lower with our picks from here and for a playoff team to have that high a pick would be the kind of thing dynasties are made of,THAT is my aim and FWIW I see that potential here,if we had two more drafts like last year and those players end up depth,can you say OMG? I can

Yes very true the Rams won't be earning top draft picks so getting one more next year is ideal.

 

[V3]

If memory serves me correct, we had a productive James Hall that season in front of him. Plus, Spagnuolo who favoured vets to rookies.

He probably should have started more.

Hall was okay but he wasn't anything special. For a bad team, I don't like having older players that aren't anything special taking valuable playing time(aka, learning) away from a top draft pick. If the Rams were good that year, it would be different.

 

[Ramifications]

That's exactly what they did for Stacy last year, and hit a HR by doing so...well, at least a triple.

Austin, too (ground rule double?).

 

[Thordaddy]

Oh wait that said Quinn ,not Quick,maybe some other people develop than d-linemen

 

[jrry32]

If we don't have at least 3 rookies starting next year, then it wasn't a good draft, IMO.

I disagree. It depends on how you define starting. Defensively, we need starters at FS and SLB. If we keep Dunbar and add a FS in FA, that's 0 defensive rookie starters. But we will need key role players at slot CB as well as CB and Safety depth. And we could use a rotational DT if we have a good option.

Offensively, we could use a starting LG and RG. But if we retain Saffold, that's just a LG remaining. We could also use a #1 WR but it's not a glaring need and it's possible there aren't any rookies ready to handle such a role. So there's 1 starting spot on the offense. And that spot could also be filled with a reasonably priced FA.

All in all, yes, we could have 3+ rookies starting next year. But it's also possible we only have 1 if we re-sign a couple key players and make a couple savvy FA signings.

Personally, I think it's never a bad idea to have good enough starters where you can ease rookies into the starting line-up so you can prepare them first.

 

[jrry32]

He started that season. Many times.

He started 1 game. He played 75+% of the snaps in two games that year. The majority of the year, he split time with Long and Hall as the 3rd DE.

 

[laramsoriginal]

If the rams can get a good player at G, FS, CB, via free agency and the draft, st.Louis will make the playoffs. Considering two high draft pick and the potential to acquire more picks, I expect the rams to fill every hole using the two methods written above.

The rams are not that far off, yeah we could use some depth at OT, LB, DT but it can be done. I am excited abiut the 2014 season.

 

[V3]

I disagree. It depends on how you define starting. Defensively, we need starters at FS and SLB. If we keep Dunbar and add a FS in FA, that's 0 defensive rookie starters. But we will need key role players at slot CB as well as CB and Safety depth. And we could use a rotational DT if we have a good option.

Offensively, we could use a starting LG and RG. But if we retain Saffold, that's just a LG remaining. We could also use a #1 WR but it's not a glaring need and it's possible there aren't any rookies ready to handle such a role. So there's 1 starting spot on the offense. And that spot could also be filled with a reasonably priced FA.

All in all, yes, we could have 3+ rookies starting next year. But it's also possible we only have 1 if we re-sign a couple key players and make a couple savvy FA signings.

Personally, I think it's never a bad idea to have good enough starters where you can ease rookies into the starting line-up so you can prepare them first.

CGI and I kinda got into that part- how you define starting. I agree with you there. For example, we were talking about Quinn's rookie year. Technically he only started one game. To me, he played enough to be considered a starter by then end of the season. We both agreed Quinn probably should have played more, too. So yeah, it's not by the technical term "started games". It's more about snaps. We should have three players from this draft that get plenty of snaps. At least IMO.