- Joined
- Jul 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,546
- Name
- Michael
Rams fans seem to be upset over the team's first-day trade-down maneuver that ended with the team choosing LSU defensive tackle Michael Brockers with the 14th overall selection.
I'll start off by issuing my usual caveat: anyone who is throwing down an immediate and conclusive judgment is just fluffling their own ego, or shrieking to be heard. You don't grade draft picks 30 seconds after they're chosen. It can take two or three years to really know if the guy was a great pick, a lousy pick, or an OK pick. So if you wish to be a poser by declaring Brockers a home-run pick or a strikeout as soon as commissioner Roger Goodell announced his name, be my guest. It's laughable.
Now let's begin ...
Here was my mindset going into the Rams' draft, and I can sum it up in two quick parts:
1. The best thing the Rams could do was accumulate as many picks as possible in the first three rounds. And that's even after they picked up three No. 1s and a No. 2 from the Redskins in exchange for moving down four spots in the first round. Why collect premium draft picks? Does that really require an explanation? If this isn't the least talented team in the NFL, it's close. The Rams roster is a disaster area, as one might conclude after noting the team's 15-65 mark since 2007, the worst five-year record in NFL history.
2. If the Rams couldn't trade down and stayed in the No. 6 overall slot, and their preferred wide receiver (Justin Blackmon?) was there, then they should just go ahead and take the wideout ... even if Blackmon wasn't really the sixth best overall player in the draft.
In my opinion, the worst thing the Rams could do was give up draft picks to move up in the draft. There are simply too many holes to fill to give away picks for one player. The scouts I talk to really believed there were only three truly elite players: quarterbacks Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin the 3rd, and RB Trent Richardson. After that, there just wasn't much difference between the fourth player and the 15th, 16th player.
So many areas of this team need major reinforcement, you could draw up a list of the top five needs and not be wrong in ranking them. I looked at the most pressing needs this way: Wide Receiver, Defensive Tackle, Guard, Cornerback, Offensive Tackle. You can put Outside Linebacker on there, too.
To me, if the Rams came out of the first two or three rounds with seemingly legit pieces that addressed this long list of needs, I wouldn't have a major complaint. This is not a team that will leap into becoming a playoff contender based on a first-round draft pick this year. The Rams need many good players. In many areas. And over multiple drafts. So if the Rams filled each of the shaky roster spots in a methodical manner -- I'm fine with that. I said that before the first round, and I'm still saying it again after the first round.
OK, so what about moving down to take Brockers?
If you don't mind a pragmatic assessment of this move, then hopefully you'll continue reading. If not, by all means click away from this blog. No offense taken here. Thank you.
I'm fine with the Brockers selection for a several reasons; (1) defensive tackle was on my list of priority positions; (2) run defense has been a horrible weakness on this team for several years; (3) Brockers has received strong advance grades for his ability to stop the run; (4) Rams coach Jeff Fisher had a reasonably successful track record of drafting and developing DTs in Tennessee. (The Titans got lots of starts and production from drafted defensive tackles including Albert Haynesworth, Gary Walker, John Thornton, Randy Starks, etc.)
I wasn't stunned by this pick; on my Thursday radio show on 101 ESPN I recited Fisher's draft history and noted that he liked taking DTs and defensive ends. It fits his profile of team-building. And the Titans were consistently good on defense under his leadership.
That's why I thought DT Fletcher Cox was a possibility for the Rams, even at No. 6. But Cox is more of a pass-rushing defensive tackle. Brockers is more of a stout, point-of-attack guy that can take on blockers. So GM Les Snead and Coach Fisher apparently wanted to go with the run stuffer. Cox went 12th; Brockers went 14th.
Pardon my snark, but if you are one of the critics that didn't think a DT should be a priority area, then I am not sure what you have been watching since 2006.
Over the last six seasons combined, this is where the Rams rank in run defense among the 32 NFL teams:
-- 136.4 rushing yards allowed per game, 29th.
-- a yield 4.6 yards per carry, 32nd.
-- 111 rushing touchdowns allowed, 30th.
-- giving up 369 carries that gained 10+ yards, 32nd.
Moreover, the Rams have permitted individual running backs to rack up a total of 35, 100-yard rushing days -- topped by DeMarco Murray (253 yards vs. STL last season), Beanie Wells (228 yards) and Michael Turner (208 yards.)
You you don't have to be Chuck Noll to know that any firm run defense starts up front, between the tackles. As my friend Rick Venturi told me -- he coordinated defenses in the NFL for a long time, at Indianapolis and New Orleans -- his worst defenses surfaced in seasons in which his unit was thin at defensive tackle.
So Brockers may not play the position that you wanted the Rams to target in the first round, and he won't be catching passes for Sam Bradford, but if he can develop and be a positive force against the run, he most definitely fills a need.
One aside: you know what's completely irrelevant? Citing previous DTs drafted by the Rams -- DTs that never panned out. On Twitter Thursday night, folks were puking up the names of Damione Lewis, Jimmie Kennedy, Adam Carriker, etc. (They were also mentioning Ryan Pickett, which is really dumb, considering that he's been an 11-year starter in the NFL. And he's been a run-playing standout for Super Bowl-caliber teams in Green Bay.) How silly is this? What in the world do these DTs have to do with Snead and Fisher? Bulletin: Snead and Fisher didn't draft Kennedy, Lewis or Carriker. This is the first draft at Rams Park for Snead and Fisher. They had nothing to do with the Rams draft busts of the past. It's just nutty.
Thursday night, I asked longtime NFL scout Dave Razzano for his opinion of the Brockers pick. Razzano is an independent thinker; his refusal to be a yes-man in draft war rooms cost him a job or two, because GMs and coaches don't want a lowly scout to tell them they're making a mistake in drafting a certain player.
So I value Razzano's opinion. His quick take on the Brockers pick: "It's a great pick. I had Brockers as one of the seven best players in the draft."
My friend Russ Lande, who runs a scouting service, broke down tapes of four of Brockers' games.
This is what Lande's comprehensive report had to say about Brockers' run-stopping ability:
"This is where Brockers is a dominant force. I have seen very few defensive linemen that can so easily jolt OL run blockers upright and backwards, toss them aside and make tackles behind the line. He is quick to get hands on run blocker, locks out and can press OL backwards until the ball carrier is about to make move and then can free up to make tackle."
Lande had a lot of positive things to say about Brockers; he praised his instincts and work ethic. "He is a very competitive player who goes hard on every snap, which is impressive for such a big man as big DL often do not compete as a high level all the time."
Lande has one concern: Brockers' inexperience. He said that a lot of NFL people are reluctant to invest a first-round pick in a player that hasn't started many games at college. (Brockers, 21, left LSU after his sophomore season.)
"He has not proven his durability over the long term," Lande said of Brockers.
Brockers could also develop into an above-average pass rusher but that won't be his job right away; the Rams signed free-agent DT Kendall Langford to give them an inside pass rush. No, Brockers was grabbed so he could give the feeble Rams some desperately needed muscle against the run.
By trading down, the Rams picked up the 45th overall pick from Dallas. That means they'll have the 33rd, 39th and 45th pick in Friday night's second round. And that's where the accumulate-picks strategy can really make a difference. This is where the excitement -- and an increased challenge -- begins.
I don't know how the Rams really felt about Justin Blackmon, or Notre Dame WR Michael Floyd. But based on their approach -- the Rams declined to be aggressive to move up and take either wideout -- they apparently weren't too bothered by losing out on them.
If you think I'm letting the Rams off the hook for not having addressed the wideout position, then you're wrong. They missed in free agency. They made the decision to bypass a WR in the first round. They left themselves vulnerable to the whims of other wideout-seeking teams; a couple of WRs came off the board after the Rams selected at No. 14. (Kendall Wright went 20th to Tennessee, and A.J. Jenkins went 30th to San Francisco.)
But if the Rams didn't love any of these WRs as a first-round target, then why would we really expect them to take one? After Blackmon and Floyd were gone, why would we expect the Rams to settle for a decent but not imposing WR with the 14th pick? Why force it? It's how you get in long-term roster trouble.
That said, Snead and Fisher are under enormous pressure to grab a wideout in the second round. And they've taken a risk here; perhaps they were banking on someone being there that's already gone.
I don't know, because I doubt that they'll volunteer that information. But maybe, just maybe, a WR they really like is still there, on the board, waiting for the Rams to pull his name. And if that's the case, then the Rams will have activated a strategy that I discussed in Thursday's print-edition column: target another area of need in the first round, then go for the WR in the second round. They can still achieve that.
We'll see what they do. They'll have three picks in the second round, and then No. 65 overall (early in the third round.) That gives them an opportunity to address the holes at WR, guard, OT, LB, maybe CB ... but again, they have so many glaring weaknesses, that I can't really growl about where they decide to go in the second round and third round as long as they come up with good players who can start early in their careers.
The only exception to that, of course, is wide receiver. Fisher and Snead will take a credibility hit if they ignore a neglected area ... again.
If the Rams don't take a WR early in the second round, then I'll co-sign on your dissent.
But at the end of the first day, as I write this late Thursday night/early Friday morning, I certainly won't rip Snead and Fisher team for drafting a promising run-stopping defensive tackle who turned heads in the toughest college football conference in the nation. That would be the SEC.
No, I'm not going to have a coronary episode over this pick after I've spent the last six years of Sundays watching this Rams defense getting prison-yard stomped by bullying offensive lines that rammed the football at will against soft or invisible DTs.
Thanks for reading this...
— Bernie
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... z1tF0kNWFJ
I'll start off by issuing my usual caveat: anyone who is throwing down an immediate and conclusive judgment is just fluffling their own ego, or shrieking to be heard. You don't grade draft picks 30 seconds after they're chosen. It can take two or three years to really know if the guy was a great pick, a lousy pick, or an OK pick. So if you wish to be a poser by declaring Brockers a home-run pick or a strikeout as soon as commissioner Roger Goodell announced his name, be my guest. It's laughable.
Now let's begin ...
Here was my mindset going into the Rams' draft, and I can sum it up in two quick parts:
1. The best thing the Rams could do was accumulate as many picks as possible in the first three rounds. And that's even after they picked up three No. 1s and a No. 2 from the Redskins in exchange for moving down four spots in the first round. Why collect premium draft picks? Does that really require an explanation? If this isn't the least talented team in the NFL, it's close. The Rams roster is a disaster area, as one might conclude after noting the team's 15-65 mark since 2007, the worst five-year record in NFL history.
2. If the Rams couldn't trade down and stayed in the No. 6 overall slot, and their preferred wide receiver (Justin Blackmon?) was there, then they should just go ahead and take the wideout ... even if Blackmon wasn't really the sixth best overall player in the draft.
In my opinion, the worst thing the Rams could do was give up draft picks to move up in the draft. There are simply too many holes to fill to give away picks for one player. The scouts I talk to really believed there were only three truly elite players: quarterbacks Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin the 3rd, and RB Trent Richardson. After that, there just wasn't much difference between the fourth player and the 15th, 16th player.
So many areas of this team need major reinforcement, you could draw up a list of the top five needs and not be wrong in ranking them. I looked at the most pressing needs this way: Wide Receiver, Defensive Tackle, Guard, Cornerback, Offensive Tackle. You can put Outside Linebacker on there, too.
To me, if the Rams came out of the first two or three rounds with seemingly legit pieces that addressed this long list of needs, I wouldn't have a major complaint. This is not a team that will leap into becoming a playoff contender based on a first-round draft pick this year. The Rams need many good players. In many areas. And over multiple drafts. So if the Rams filled each of the shaky roster spots in a methodical manner -- I'm fine with that. I said that before the first round, and I'm still saying it again after the first round.
OK, so what about moving down to take Brockers?
If you don't mind a pragmatic assessment of this move, then hopefully you'll continue reading. If not, by all means click away from this blog. No offense taken here. Thank you.
I'm fine with the Brockers selection for a several reasons; (1) defensive tackle was on my list of priority positions; (2) run defense has been a horrible weakness on this team for several years; (3) Brockers has received strong advance grades for his ability to stop the run; (4) Rams coach Jeff Fisher had a reasonably successful track record of drafting and developing DTs in Tennessee. (The Titans got lots of starts and production from drafted defensive tackles including Albert Haynesworth, Gary Walker, John Thornton, Randy Starks, etc.)
I wasn't stunned by this pick; on my Thursday radio show on 101 ESPN I recited Fisher's draft history and noted that he liked taking DTs and defensive ends. It fits his profile of team-building. And the Titans were consistently good on defense under his leadership.
That's why I thought DT Fletcher Cox was a possibility for the Rams, even at No. 6. But Cox is more of a pass-rushing defensive tackle. Brockers is more of a stout, point-of-attack guy that can take on blockers. So GM Les Snead and Coach Fisher apparently wanted to go with the run stuffer. Cox went 12th; Brockers went 14th.
Pardon my snark, but if you are one of the critics that didn't think a DT should be a priority area, then I am not sure what you have been watching since 2006.
Over the last six seasons combined, this is where the Rams rank in run defense among the 32 NFL teams:
-- 136.4 rushing yards allowed per game, 29th.
-- a yield 4.6 yards per carry, 32nd.
-- 111 rushing touchdowns allowed, 30th.
-- giving up 369 carries that gained 10+ yards, 32nd.
Moreover, the Rams have permitted individual running backs to rack up a total of 35, 100-yard rushing days -- topped by DeMarco Murray (253 yards vs. STL last season), Beanie Wells (228 yards) and Michael Turner (208 yards.)
You you don't have to be Chuck Noll to know that any firm run defense starts up front, between the tackles. As my friend Rick Venturi told me -- he coordinated defenses in the NFL for a long time, at Indianapolis and New Orleans -- his worst defenses surfaced in seasons in which his unit was thin at defensive tackle.
So Brockers may not play the position that you wanted the Rams to target in the first round, and he won't be catching passes for Sam Bradford, but if he can develop and be a positive force against the run, he most definitely fills a need.
One aside: you know what's completely irrelevant? Citing previous DTs drafted by the Rams -- DTs that never panned out. On Twitter Thursday night, folks were puking up the names of Damione Lewis, Jimmie Kennedy, Adam Carriker, etc. (They were also mentioning Ryan Pickett, which is really dumb, considering that he's been an 11-year starter in the NFL. And he's been a run-playing standout for Super Bowl-caliber teams in Green Bay.) How silly is this? What in the world do these DTs have to do with Snead and Fisher? Bulletin: Snead and Fisher didn't draft Kennedy, Lewis or Carriker. This is the first draft at Rams Park for Snead and Fisher. They had nothing to do with the Rams draft busts of the past. It's just nutty.
Thursday night, I asked longtime NFL scout Dave Razzano for his opinion of the Brockers pick. Razzano is an independent thinker; his refusal to be a yes-man in draft war rooms cost him a job or two, because GMs and coaches don't want a lowly scout to tell them they're making a mistake in drafting a certain player.
So I value Razzano's opinion. His quick take on the Brockers pick: "It's a great pick. I had Brockers as one of the seven best players in the draft."
My friend Russ Lande, who runs a scouting service, broke down tapes of four of Brockers' games.
This is what Lande's comprehensive report had to say about Brockers' run-stopping ability:
"This is where Brockers is a dominant force. I have seen very few defensive linemen that can so easily jolt OL run blockers upright and backwards, toss them aside and make tackles behind the line. He is quick to get hands on run blocker, locks out and can press OL backwards until the ball carrier is about to make move and then can free up to make tackle."
Lande had a lot of positive things to say about Brockers; he praised his instincts and work ethic. "He is a very competitive player who goes hard on every snap, which is impressive for such a big man as big DL often do not compete as a high level all the time."
Lande has one concern: Brockers' inexperience. He said that a lot of NFL people are reluctant to invest a first-round pick in a player that hasn't started many games at college. (Brockers, 21, left LSU after his sophomore season.)
"He has not proven his durability over the long term," Lande said of Brockers.
Brockers could also develop into an above-average pass rusher but that won't be his job right away; the Rams signed free-agent DT Kendall Langford to give them an inside pass rush. No, Brockers was grabbed so he could give the feeble Rams some desperately needed muscle against the run.
By trading down, the Rams picked up the 45th overall pick from Dallas. That means they'll have the 33rd, 39th and 45th pick in Friday night's second round. And that's where the accumulate-picks strategy can really make a difference. This is where the excitement -- and an increased challenge -- begins.
I don't know how the Rams really felt about Justin Blackmon, or Notre Dame WR Michael Floyd. But based on their approach -- the Rams declined to be aggressive to move up and take either wideout -- they apparently weren't too bothered by losing out on them.
If you think I'm letting the Rams off the hook for not having addressed the wideout position, then you're wrong. They missed in free agency. They made the decision to bypass a WR in the first round. They left themselves vulnerable to the whims of other wideout-seeking teams; a couple of WRs came off the board after the Rams selected at No. 14. (Kendall Wright went 20th to Tennessee, and A.J. Jenkins went 30th to San Francisco.)
But if the Rams didn't love any of these WRs as a first-round target, then why would we really expect them to take one? After Blackmon and Floyd were gone, why would we expect the Rams to settle for a decent but not imposing WR with the 14th pick? Why force it? It's how you get in long-term roster trouble.
That said, Snead and Fisher are under enormous pressure to grab a wideout in the second round. And they've taken a risk here; perhaps they were banking on someone being there that's already gone.
I don't know, because I doubt that they'll volunteer that information. But maybe, just maybe, a WR they really like is still there, on the board, waiting for the Rams to pull his name. And if that's the case, then the Rams will have activated a strategy that I discussed in Thursday's print-edition column: target another area of need in the first round, then go for the WR in the second round. They can still achieve that.
We'll see what they do. They'll have three picks in the second round, and then No. 65 overall (early in the third round.) That gives them an opportunity to address the holes at WR, guard, OT, LB, maybe CB ... but again, they have so many glaring weaknesses, that I can't really growl about where they decide to go in the second round and third round as long as they come up with good players who can start early in their careers.
The only exception to that, of course, is wide receiver. Fisher and Snead will take a credibility hit if they ignore a neglected area ... again.
If the Rams don't take a WR early in the second round, then I'll co-sign on your dissent.
But at the end of the first day, as I write this late Thursday night/early Friday morning, I certainly won't rip Snead and Fisher team for drafting a promising run-stopping defensive tackle who turned heads in the toughest college football conference in the nation. That would be the SEC.
No, I'm not going to have a coronary episode over this pick after I've spent the last six years of Sundays watching this Rams defense getting prison-yard stomped by bullying offensive lines that rammed the football at will against soft or invisible DTs.
Thanks for reading this...
— Bernie
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... z1tF0kNWFJ
