About that #10 pick...

[Rams43]

The only reason we even own it in the first place is because of the catastrophic loss of Bradford in last year's preseason.

Hopefully, we won't be drafting that high again for quite some time. I expect to be drafting in the twenties next year and beyond.

So let's make it really count by taking a playmaker!

In my world, there are 3 WR's, a RB, and a DE that will possibly be there that provide better value to us than the top O lineman. (Presumably Scherff).

It's conceivable that another player or two might unexpectedly fall to us at #10, as well.

Let's take the weapon with the highest ceiling while we can. That's been the MO of S/F for the last 4 picks in the 1st round. Why change up now?

There are plenty of quality OG's later in this draft, so fixing the OL is not at issue.

Why risk passing on a potential future HOF player to fill a "need" with a "pretty good" player?

The smart play is to let the draft come to us.

C'mon, Snead. Now is the time to "Don't be afraid". Lol.

 

[Ltrautman]

Everyone that can be seen as a potential hall of famer from this draft will be long gone by our pick and I dont think you can predict that yet. Id be pissed if we took a running back at 10 especially with how solid our guys are at that position right now. Yes maybe we ended up at 10 because Bradford got hurt, but if we dont protect Foles this year we'll be right back at 10 in 2016

 

[Mr. Walker]

Everyone that can be seen as a potential hall of famer from this draft will be long gone by our pick and I dont think you can predict that yet. Id be pissed if we took a running back at 10 especially with how solid our guys are at that position right now. Yes maybe we ended up at 10 because Bradford got hurt, but if we dont protect Foles this year we'll be right back at 10 in 2016

So your taking an O-lineman no matter what?

 

[12intheBox]

I think there are offensive lineman in the hall of fame, too and not all of them were top 5 picks.

As badly as I want to address needs - BPA is still the way to draft - especially early. But lets open ourselves up to the possibility that an OL is the BPA at 10. Its not like there is a lot of consensus at the top this year - and even if there was - it only matters what the consensus is in the Rams war room.

Last year, Sammy Watkins was the consensus best WR in the draft (well, actually that isn't true - some teams apparently had Evans higher) - but OBJ turned out to be the cream of that crop.

The other thing we can't ignore is team fit. Different teams have different boards for a reason. The Seahawks are going to look for different traits in a lineman than the Packers are. Every team has their style and scheme offensively and defensively.

Forget what positions are typically harder to fill, forget what consensus big boards say, and toss grades handed out days after the draft right out the window.

Rate the players then draft the players.

 

[lockdnram21]

The only reason we even own it in the first place is because of the catastrophic loss of Bradford in last year's preseason.

Hopefully, we won't be drafting that high again for quite some time. I expect to be drafting in the twenties next year and beyond.

So let's make it really count by taking a playmaker!

In my world, there are 3 WR's, a RB, and a DE that will possibly be there that provide better value to us than the top O lineman. (Presumably Scherff).

It's conceivable that another player or two might unexpectedly fall to us at #10, as well.

Let's take the weapon with the highest ceiling while we can. That's been the MO of S/F for the last 4 picks in the 1st round. Why change up now?

There are plenty of quality OG's later in this draft, so fixing the OL is not at issue.

Why risk passing on a potential future HOF player to fill a "need" with a "pretty good" player?

The smart play is to let the draft come to us.

C'mon, Snead. Now is the time to "Don't be afraid". Lol.

We need a RT tackle to not just oh I think and hope Barksdale is through with us.

 

[lockdnram21]

It also depends on there board. Last year they had Robinson and a couple others rated higher then Watkins

 

[Ltrautman]

So your taking an O-lineman no matter what?

Unless Amari Cooper or one of the top 2 QBs is available at 10 then yes

 

[Ballhawk]

BPA is the point where talent and need intersect.

 

[PressureD41]

I predict wr or front 7 player will be our pick at 10

 

[8to12]

BPA is the point where talent and need intersect.

Hmmm, I have never heard that. BPA stands alone. It is the best player available compared to all others, regardless of who is picking and what their needs may be.

Now, I have heard that a great "Value" pick is where the Best Player Available fills a "Need".

 

[Ballhawk]

It's common sense. If the "BPA" is a three-four nose tackle and you play a Four-three, do you still take him? If you have a young Walter Payton on your team and the "BPA" is a running back, do you take him? Or do you take the next best player that actually fits your needs?
I know that past Rams administrations have gotten into deep trouble drafting "BPAs" that didn't fit their teams and I hope that the current brain trust is smarter than that!

 

[12intheBox]

It's common sense. If the "BPA" is a three-four nose tackle and you play a Four-three, do you still take him? If you have a young Walter Payton on your team and the "BPA" is a running back, do you take him? Or do you take the next best player that actually fits your needs?
I know that past Rams administrations have gotten into deep trouble drafting "BPAs" that didn't fit their teams and I hope that the current brain trust is smarter than that!

If you run a 4-3, then a guy who is only a fit in 3-4 may be ESPNs BPA, but he won't be the BPA on your board.

Scheme fit goes in to the ranking process.

As others have said in years past, it's BPA unless there is a strong reason to pass.