BPA

[Alan]

RamFan503 with anecdotal evidence:
What I take from observations like this is that you can grab top talent along the O-line and it doesn't necessarily translate to coming out of the gates being a good O-line. I think we have some talent on ours and it will take some time to gel. But I don't see us in much worse (if worse at all) shape than several teams that have gone all in on their O-line.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it @Alan :boxing::shooting:Too late!

At which position isn't that true? There have been quite a few LTs not panning out very well that's for sure.

 

[Alan]

Athos with this:
Peat blows. Hard. I was a fan..... And then I saw the light. Especially when he showed up to camp way way way out of shape pretty much. That's a cardinal sin and I want no part of that kinda player.

But like you, we didn't know that at the time. Hindsight.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't do hindsight and if I did and he had turned out great would that have made you think it was a good decision?

What kind of armchair GM are YOU? Hindsight is our best barometer. Of course I would have thought that was a great decision - IF Peat played like ESPN said he would. But he hasn't and Gurley appears to be as advertised. Nod goes to Gurley with #10.

Well, again, that's completely ignoring what I said about why I didn't like the pick. The injury history. But I see why you like the pick and I sure hope he plays for us for a long time.

The injury concern is exactly why I was surprised. I'm not ignoring it and I too raised concerns at the time - which also included his declining numbers after his Freshman year.

That being said, what we are actually doing here is discussing the decision with the 10th pick. Obviously none of us have the intel and eye that our scouts and Snead have. So wishing we had gone O-line says that we wish they had done as you would have. And the reasoning is that our O-line is struggling and therefore, trading down to grab Peat would have been the better move. I don't subscribe to that. What would be your take if our O-line was NOT struggling? Same argument as you are using - no? At what point do you draw the line on a good decision?

At which position isn't that true? There have been quite a few LTs not panning out very well that's for sure.

I'd say overall. As the O-line positions have been valued up, the number of misses has risen. However, there are 5 starting O-linemen on every team and generally one RB. So line chemistry being hard to evaluate, you are left with trying to pick out the stud that could do it with some other 4 linemen. To me, that adds to the crap shoot factor of O-linemen in the modern era. That and the college game these days.

So when you see a RB that not only lit it up but has the physical and mental tools to be great in the NFL, I think it is a better use of a high draft choice. That RB can (and has) change games. Do we even win against the Browns without Gurley? Do we keep it close against GB without him? Do we win against AZ without him? Does Peat or another Rookie O-lineman make that impact? Personally, I don't think he does.

 

[Alan]

RamFan503 with this:
That being said, what we are actually doing here is discussing the decision with the 10th pick. Obviously none of us have the intel and eye that our scouts and Snead have. So wishing we had gone O-line says that we wish they had done as you would have. And the reasoning is that our O-line is struggling and therefore, trading down to grab Peat would have been the better move. I don't subscribe to that. What would be your take if our O-line was NOT struggling? Same argument as you are using - no? At what point do you draw the line on a good decision?

I'd say overall. As the O-line positions have been valued up, the number of misses has risen. However, there are 5 starting O-linemen on every team and generally one RB. So line chemistry being hard to evaluate, you are left with trying to pick out the stud that could do it with some other 4 linemen. To me, that adds to the crap shoot factor of O-linemen in the modern era. That and the college game these days.

So when you see a RB that not only lit it up but has the physical and mental tools to be great in the NFL, I think it is a better use of a high draft choice. That RB can (and has) change games. Do we even win against the Browns without Gurley? Do we keep it close against GB without him? Do we win against AZ without him? Does Peat or another Rookie O-lineman make that impact? Personally, I don't think he does.

Well first, I wouldn't be trading down to grab Peat, that was who I'd have taken had I not traded down, But that is irrelevant to my point. Changing the dynamic from injury concern + O-line need to just injury concern is a completely different kettle of fish. Had we not had such dire needs on the O-line I would have drafted him if I thought he was as good as they obviously did.

You're probably right about the math concerning the O-line high round failures. If you have 3 good starters at LT in the draft and there are 6 teams that need them then 3 teams are not going to be happy campers. I think the fact that so many of the good teams, as in highly ranked, don't run pro style offenses and evaluators are forced to project athleticism. That leads to picks like GR. I'm not saying he won't turn out to be a stud but it's why I didn't want him in the first place. So we agree there. Another thing I think factors into the equation is that we are now drafting players high from the small schools. How can you really evaluate a player who didn't play against teams with high skill levels?

I can see that point of view. Let's hope he's running like the wind for us in 5 years.

 

[jrry32]

What's even being argued about here? I think at this point, Gurley has proven himself to be the right pick. So nobody under the age of 60 can complain about that pick. I omit people over the age of 60 because I don't want to make a certain wise, experienced poster cranky.

 

[RamFan503]

So nobody under the age of 60 can complain about that pick. I omit people over the age of 60 because I don't want to make a certain wise, experienced poster cranky.

Not to worry. @Alan is cranky when he rolls out of the rack in the morning. illowfight:

 

[Alan]

RamFan503 wishing he had my get up and crank:
Not to worry. @Alan is cranky when he rolls out of the rack in the morning.

Your wrinkles either show that you're nasty, cranky, and senile, or that you're always smiling.
Carlos Santana

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-T8CGMbZQ

 

[RamFan503]

Well first, I wouldn't be trading down to grab Peat, that was who I'd have taken had I not traded down, But that is irrelevant to my point. Changing the dynamic from injury concern + O-line need to just injury concern is a completely different kettle of fish. Had we not had such dire needs on the O-line I would have drafted him if I thought he was as good as they obviously did.

I get yuh but my point about the injury thing is that these guys know more about the severity of the injury and how it is healing than do we. Not that they are always right in predicting based on it but that they are better at playing the odds. And in a case where Peat is actually the one out due to injury, is your barometer for whether to draft someone playing out well? Sometimes you have to take chances on rare players. I hate the injury fear myself and it can't be ignored with Gurley but when you watch him play, you just can't ignore the talent gap between him and virtually every other RB not named Adrian.

I can see that point of view. Let's hope he's running like the wind for us in 5 years.

Yep, yep, and yep.

 

[RamFan503]

Your wrinkles either show that you're nasty, cranky, and senile, or that you're always smiling.
Carlos Santana

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-T8CGMbZQ

Man! I've seen Santana in concert three times. A purely music based show. No glitz or special effects. Just great music and Carlos on the guitar makes even atheists feel the presence of God.

 

[Alan]

RamFan503 back for more:
I get yuh but my point about the injury thing is that these guys know more about the severity of the injury and how it is healing than do we. Not that they are always right in predicting based on it but that they are better at playing the odds. And in a case where Peat is actually the one out due to injury, is your barometer for whether to draft someone playing out well? Sometimes you have to take chances on rare players. I hate the injury fear myself and it can't be ignored with Gurley but when you watch him play, you just can't ignore the talent gap between him and virtually every other RB not named Adrian.

Well of course you're right about the Rams FO knowing more than me but that's a pretty low bar. Yeah, he might never have a major injury again but that's why my objection wasn't just based on the fear of him getting re-injured. While it's good to hear that after the horrid game the Whiners played this weekend (thank you very much) we are no longer have the worst offense in the NFL but not really. A direct result of our O-line problems IMO.

I totally get that you, as I said earlier, need to remain flexible when a gem drops in your lap and that's one of the reasons why I was all for the Donald pick. But we had already drafted what we hoped would be a player to fix our main need. Some will look at that as BPA but I look at it as the BPA at our need position of need. So in that situation when you have what might be looked at as an "extra" pick then you can do what we did much more easily. That wasn't the case in the last draft. Also, had that "once in a blue moon" player played at almost any other position I might have drafted him even with my other concerns. Let's just take a quick look at Adrian. Arguably the best RB in the last whatever and they have a good D and yet...how's that worked out for them? The RB position has been devalued for a good reason.

 

[RamFan503]

Let's just take a quick look at Adrian. Arguably the best RB in the last whatever and they have a good D and yet...how's that worked out for them? The RB position has been devalued for a good reason.

Doesn't help that a certain 1st round LT they drafted has been less than expected. Hmmmmmm sounds familiar.

 

[dieterbrock]

Let's just take a quick look at Adrian. Arguably the best RB in the last whatever and they have a good D and yet...how's that worked out for them? The RB position has been devalued for a good reason.

Well, the Vikings have made the playoffs 3 times in his 7 full seasons with a differnt QB each time so I think his value has paid off quite a bit

 

[Alan]

dieterbrock seeing value:
Well, the Vikings have made the playoffs 3 times in his 7 full seasons with a differnt QB each time so I think his value has paid off quite a bit

One win (Favre at the helm). I remain unimpressed. Still, good point.

 

[LACHAMP46]

McCown actually had AWESOME numbers in completions and NO ONE has mentioned it because he was hurried 18 times hit 7 times sacked twice and just got his ass beat . Yet he completed most everything.

Yeah, he did play well in the face of pressure....Think he's new to the system too...Hmmmmm....Why I look at a certain QB and SMH.....

How can you really evaluate a player who didn't play against teams with high skill levels?

Senior Bowl...and the practice leading up to the game...I was convinced Ali Marpet could play from the senior bowl...His combine numbers confirmed what I saw at the senior bowl....Those guys from Colorado State...those linemen....proved that to me a few years ago...Peat looked terrible at the combine...just way too big in his lower body...and not solid. Loose.

This thread reminds me of a bpa mystery I have....BPA should always be followed....But I have one exception....The QB position...We need a QB so bad, that I'd be ok with passing on a better player, for a decent QB....Can't win BIG without one....So, I'd draft the best QB available this year (2016)....and wouldn't look back.

 

[Alan]

Ballhawk with a Q:
You have a problem with drafting Gaines with a late round pick?

Sorry Ballhawk, I missed this the first time around. I never have problems with any picks below the 4th round. When I said this "I had no confidence in the Gaines and Joyner picks" I was referring to the chances of them being long term productive members of our CB/S corps. So far, both Joyner and Gaines have/will spent/spend long periods on the IR. It appears my fears were justified yes? Let's hope those injuries aren't representative of future outcomes. I love that pick of Gaines and as I wanted us to draft Joyner it's obvious that I liked that pick too. My concerns about future injuries remain the same though.

 

[Alan]

LACHAMP46 pointing out one of the limited resources:
Senior Bowl...and the practice leading up to the game...I was convinced Ali Marpet could play from the senior bowl...His combine numbers confirmed what I saw at the senior bowl....Those guys from Colorado State...those linemen....proved that to me a few years ago...Peat looked terrible at the combine...just way too big in his lower body...and not solid. Loose.

This thread reminds me of a bpa mystery I have....BPA should always be followed....But I have one exception....The QB position...We need a QB so bad, that I'd be ok with passing on a better player, for a decent QB....Can't win BIG without one....So, I'd draft the best QB available this year (2016)....and wouldn't look back.

I have pretty much relied on both the Senior Bowl and the East West Shrine Bowl (and the practices leading up to both) in all my evaluations of players from small schools. I never even bother to look at their highlights because, unlike many of our experts here, I'm not sure I'd even recognize attributes like "smooth hips" unless we're talking about one of the cheer leaders. But...extremely small sample size. I remember a RB named Trung Candidate who rushed for 200+ yards in a game so...

I'm not with you on drafting a QB in 2016 because I have in no way given up on Foles or Mannion. 2017? Maybe.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Say it every year and I'll say it again. It's really simple.

Team needs don't influence positional talent availability in particular draft class. Thus, it makes little to no sense at all for a team to ignore what their scouting department considers to be clearly the BPA on their draft board to select a lesser rated talent that still might be good enough to fill that team's supposed need. How so? That player might fill the position with a body, but if he isn't playing up to snuff, has the need really been met? No.

Prior to his injury, I think most felt that Gurley was the BPA in the draft class. I know I did.

 

[Athos]

I'm not with you on drafting a QB in 2016 because I have in no way given up on Foles or Mannion. 2017? Maybe.

If you wait, you get burned. If there's a guy with some quality talent where ever the Rams pick in the 1st or 2nd, you take him. Especially if he drops in your lap. I didn't like the Mannion pick, so.

 

[Alan]

Athos wantiing to stock up on QBs:
If you wait, you get burned. If there's a guy with some quality talent where ever the Rams pick in the 1st or 2nd, you take him.
I didn't like the Mannion pick, so.

Using that logic, wouldn't you draft a QB every year?

Now that's a different story. Though your scenario of having a QB with quality talent dropping in your lap might be a little far fetched. I don't think it's very likely that a QB with obvious talent makes it beyond the first ten picks. Probably the first 5 picks. Of course there are QBs picked lower than that who have been successful but they didn't have that "obvious talent" you're talking about. Or at least it's not obvious to very many. The success rate for QBs who appear to have that obvious talent level isn't very high and for those without that obvious talent level it's even lower. Though if one did fall to you...

I'm curious as to how you think the logistics of a move like that would work? With Foles, Mannion and Obvious Quality Talent on the roster who would get the reps with the first string or even the second string? Do you think it possible to develop 2 QBs simultaneously? Are you're willing to give up on our 3rd round pick without him having played a single game or for that matter, even given a real chance to develop?

On the other hand, eventually you'll land a quality QB and barring injury you'll be set for a long time but is that a high percentage play? Though if you're a BPA advocate then you should probably do that or, to paraphrase what I said earlier, you're not really a BPA guy. Lots of paths to success but this isn't one I'd take. Plus, that option is still available in 2017 if what you have doesn't seem to be the answer after you've given them a chance to succeed.

 

[jrry32]

Using that logic, wouldn't you draft a QB every year?

If we don't have one...sure? Isn't that what Mike Holmgren basically did in Green Bay? Somehow ended up with Favre, Hasselbeck, Brunell, Aaron Brooks, and Ty Detmer.(although, technically, Favre was acquired via trade)