Defensive End could be in Rams draft plans ESPN Wagoner

[jjab360]

I'm tired of Fisher. I think this is a smoke screen, 100%. But I'm still tired of him. We need to get with the program and draft offensive skill positions until our offense is at least top 16. So tired of being bottom 25 in offense EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Also perturbs me that we didn't go the route of hiring a elite offensive coordinator like Trestman. #venting

Bottom 25 is a pretty big category in a league with only 32 teams..

 

[Alan]

Memphis Ram with tunnel vision:
NO ONE. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON is saying that the Rams shouldn't address the Offensive Line. NOT ONE. However, anyone suggesting the potential of not using their 1st round or even 2nd round pick(s) on the OLine (and/or anointing them as rookie starters at that) seem to be typecast with that strawman argument.

Potential signees in Blalock and Barksdale would be fine alternatives until a rookie or another younger player develops. But, you disagree because they are not who you want.

If an OLineman is the BPA on the Rams draft board, they would be wrong to pass on him. But, they would be just as wrong to ignore their draft board and reach for a need.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, so many focus on round one, but with the exception of Saffold and Greco (who are both NFL starters), last I checked, this team hasn't even addressed the Oline in the 2nd and 3rd round in about 20 years. What's wrong with starting to address the position in the 2nd, 3rd, and/or 4th round in a deep draft class and NOT banking on these rookies to start immediately if they can pick up some vet alternatives? Absolutely nothing except that doesn't appear to be what you want the team to do.

You made some good points Memphis but you appear to think there are only two paths to take.

When you say that Blalock and Barksdale would be fine alternatives until we develop some, presumably, lower round young stuff you ignore the fact that many of us think that's an integral part of any COMPREHENSIVE strategy to not only fix our O-line but as a general rule, to fix and maintain every area of the team. I myself have advocated that very strategy as it pertains to re-signing Barks. Are you certain that those that disagree with you and there aren't many concerning this point, do so because "they are not who you (we) want" or do perceive that to be true because their strategy isn't what you want? Your comment about the Rams not having addressed the O-line in the 2nd and 3rd rounds in about 20 years could be said about the first round too. What does that mean? To me it points out that we should have addressed the O-line in all three rounds during that time frame.

NO ONE. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, is advocating that we reach for an O-line player in the first round, NOT ONE. Instead, we talk about trading down until the value IS there for drafting an O-line player. Not to mention that it's only your opinion that there isn't top ten O-line talent in this draft.

There are good reasons why many of us are putting our PRIMARY focus on the first round and it has to do with history and math. The odds of getting an elite/very good player are much greater in the first round than it is in the lower rounds. That's just history and math and if you ignore them you're doomed to long term failure no matter what your strategy is IMO. Many of us are tired to death that we've had a miserable O-line for lo these many years.

I would like to sign Blalock, Barks, Wis AND draft O-line players in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd AND 4th rounds. With possibly a WR or QB thrown into the mix if, as you said, the value is there and it's too great to pass up. I want us to finally fix this problem and if we have to throw the kitchen sink at it then so be it. I don't think I'm alone in this either.

 

[Memphis Ram]

@Alan.
Perhaps I was showing tunnel vision because I was responding to ONE person.

But to some of your points, probably every team in the league wants to trade down. But, wanting do to so doesn't mean that said team can find a partner willing to move up. Then what?

Next, each draft class is different. And while not top heavy, this appears to be a pretty deep OLine class. On top of that, math and history tell me that the majority of 1st round OLinemen selected are usually LTs (immediate starters or to guys be groomed to eventually take over) and the Rams already have one.

Continuing with that premise, the same history tells me that loads of quality interior lineman and RTs have been typically selected outside of the first round for years now. And those two points combined (loads of quality non-LTs outside of of the 1st round plus a deep draft class of non LTs) tell me that the chances of finding an elite/very good player outside of round one THIS YEAR is darn strong. Even stronger as opposed to other draft classes (a key point).

But, even despite all of that. While great to have, a team doesn't have to have a group of elite/very good players up and down their OLine to have success on offense. Five solid to above average guys working together on the same page and not missing to much time due to injuries can provide a team with very good OLine for a successful offense. Especially, in a good scheme with a QB worth his salt.

And it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to finally fix a unit that has the potential to change every year or so due to injuries and/or free agency anyway. At least I'm having a hard time recalling an OLine unit in the league that has had the same 5 guys starting each game year after year.

In the end, the whole thing probably amounts to a Need vs. BPA debate of which the need fillers and I won't agree.

 

[LACHAMP46]

@Alan Loved your whole argument until

I would like to sign Blalock, Barks, Wis

this.....has anybody ever negotiated a contract, not gotten what they wanted, then performed ass out? I just don't see the talent, or the actual money to get these guys....but

 

[Alan]

Memphis Ram mixing me up:
Perhaps I was showing tunnel vision because I was responding to ONE person.

But to some of your points, probably every team in the league wants to trade down. But, wanting do to so doesn't mean that said team can find a partner willing to move up. Then what?

Next, each draft class is different. And while not top heavy, this appears to be a pretty deep OLine class. On top of that, math and history tell me that the majority of 1st round OLinemen selected are usually LTs (immediate starters or to guys be groomed to eventually take over) and the Rams already have one.

Continuing with that premise, the same history tells me that loads of quality interior lineman and RTs have been typically selected outside of the first round for years now. And those two points combined (loads of quality non-LTs outside of of the 1st round plus a deep draft class of non LTs) tell me that the chances of finding an elite/very good player outside of round one THIS YEAR is darn strong. Even stronger as opposed to other draft classes (a key point).

But, even despite all of that. While great to have, a team doesn't have to have a group of elite/very good players up and down their OLine to have success on offense. Five solid to above average guys working together on the same page and not missing to much time due to injuries can provide a team with very good OLine for a successful offense. Especially, in a good scheme with a QB worth his salt.

And it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to finally fix a unit that has the potential to change every year or so due to injuries and/or free agency anyway. At least I'm having a hard time recalling an OLine unit in the league that has had the same 5 guys starting each game year after year.

In the end, the whole thing probably amounts to a Need vs. BPA debate of which the need fillers and I won't agree.

You may have been responding to one person but when you say this "NO ONE. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON is saying that the Rams shouldn't address the Offensive Line. NOT ONE. " you appear to be referring to many people. I'm easily confused though so... In any case, I was referring to that all inclusive statement in my reply.

I'll address each of your points.

Trading down out of the top ten is very easy now because the new CBA allows for a longer contract with those picks (making them worth even more) and it isn't a question of not finding a dance partner it's a question of what you're asking for in return that usually makes trading down harder. At least that's what I've observed. More importantly though, I think everyone in this thread is talking about what they'd PREFER to do. What they might be forced to do is a different conversation.

I think you're looking at "old" history and not "new" history. 10-20 years ago the paradigm for drafting O-line players was radically different. In today's NFL, it's very common to see guards and centers taken in the first round. For good reason.

You appear to be trying to separate history and math like they aren't married. The math is derived from the history and regardless of how many "success" stories you point out concerning successful O-line picks in the later rounds, the math disagrees with you. In so far as basing your drafting strategy on those outliers.

I agree with you that it isn't necessary for the O-line to consist of a group of elite/very good players but they need to be good at the very least and the LT needs to be very good or better if you're looking to be among the elite teams. That doesn't change the math though. The odds of getting good players isn't any better than getting great/elite players in later rounds, the raw numbers are higher but the comparative percentages remain relatively the same.

Fixing a problematic unit isn't the same as tweaking an already good unit so I see no logic in that statement. One need only look at the "tweak" we made to the D-line (exchanging Langford for Fairley) to see a great example of what I'm talking about.

Our differing views concerning how Need and BPA combine to create different draft strategies is a given and many strategies can be successful but... I don't believe any strategy that doesn't take into account, in a very meaningful way, history and math will in the LONG TERM be less successful than strategies that do. IMO of course.

My final point is this, absent even an average O-line, what difference in our won loss record would you envisage us having if we drafted a good LG/C/RT as compared to drafting an elite OLB? The answer to that, in my mind, depends on the quality of the player they are replacing. If the elite player is replacing a very good player and the good player is replacing a player who shouldn't even be a starter then I would rather have the good player.

 

[Alan]

LACHAMP46 trying to introduce some reality into the equation:
I just don't see the talent, or the actual money to get these guys

No doubt about that. According to everything I've read we have, at most, enough CAP room to sign two of those. I was merely stating what I'd like to do.

I'd also like to have a super model mistress that my wife was OK with. I think we have a better chance of signing those three.

As for the "not having enough talent" part of your reply. Compared to what we have on our roster now, they're PB players.

 

[Memphis Ram]

You may have been responding to one person but when you say this "NO ONE. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON is saying that the Rams shouldn't address the Offensive Line. NOT ONE. " you appear to be referring to many people. I'm easily confused though so... In any case, I was referring to that all inclusive statement in my reply.

I'll address each of your points.

Trading down out of the top ten is very easy now because the new CBA allows for a longer contract with those picks (making them worth even more) and it isn't a question of not finding a dance partner it's a question of what you're asking for in return that usually makes trading down harder. At least that's what I've observed. More importantly though, I think everyone in this thread is talking about what they'd PREFER to do. What they might be forced to do is a different conversation.

I think you're looking at "old" history and not "new" history. 10-20 years ago the paradigm for drafting O-line players was radically different. In today's NFL, it's very common to see guards and centers taken in the first round. For good reason.

You appear to be trying to separate history and math like they aren't married. The math is derived from the history and regardless of how many "success" stories you point out concerning successful O-line picks in the later rounds, the math disagrees with you. In so far as basing your drafting strategy on those outliers.

I agree with you that it isn't necessary for the O-line to consist of a group of elite/very good players but they need to be good at the very least and the LT needs to be very good or better if you're looking to be among the elite teams. That doesn't change the math though. The odds of getting good players isn't any better than getting great/elite players in later rounds, the raw numbers are higher but the comparative percentages remain relatively the same.

Fixing a problematic unit isn't the same as tweaking an already good unit so I see no logic in that statement. One need only look at the "tweak" we made to the D-line (exchanging Langford for Fairley) to see a great example of what I'm talking about.

Our differing views concerning how Need and BPA combine to create different draft strategies is a given and many strategies can be successful but... I don't believe any strategy that doesn't take into account, in a very meaningful way, history and math will in the LONG TERM be less successful than strategies that do. IMO of course.

My final point is this, absent even an average O-line, what difference in our won loss record would you envisage us having if we drafted a good LG/C/RT as compared to drafting an elite OLB? The answer to that, in my mind, depends on the quality of the player they are replacing. If the elite player is replacing a very good player and the good player is replacing a player who shouldn't even be a starter then I would rather have the good player.

As to preference, I would prefer that the BPA on the Rams draft board always have the potential to fill an immediate need on the team. But, given what I prefer isn't guaranteed I'm open to other options which include veteran free agents.

And while it is common to see more interior linemen selected in the first round today, the majority of OLinemen selected are still potential LTs (immediate starters or hopefully groomed for the spot). Now they don't all prove the abilities to make it there, but that potential played a major role in their draft spot.

And I get that a team's chances of hitting on a player is higher in round one (And especially if unfairly compared to every other round at once). However, the fact remains that each draft class is different. Some position groups are deeper at certain positions than others. With that in mind, math and history says that when this occurs, teams have a better chance of success selecting players in said position group outside of round one that year as opposed to other years. And THIS YEAR that happens to be the case with the interior OLine.

I agree that fixing a problematic unit isn't the same as tweeking a good unit. However, my point remains that the so-called problematic unit, while in need of healthy upgrades, wasn't as bad as some make out. And I believe that if better playcalling and QB play were available, said unit wouldn't have looked as bad as some make out. Not only that, but a bit of what the OLine gets blamed for is not only on the QB play, but the backs and TEs, too.

Said it before and I'll say it again. Switch the Rams OLine with the OLine of the NFL teams with top rated offenses and we'd still be here talking about how badly upgrades are needed on the OLine.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I say without a doubt we go best player available at 10 or trade down for more picks. In that case I say without a doubt go best player available. And dont listen to all the couch coach quarterbacks yelling for offensive linemen early and often. B. P. A. Is a winning formula in my opinion.

I definately think there are a few pass rushers that are quite a bit better players than Scherff. Scherff is being over valued because interior linemen are weak this year and there is no top of the line T. GRob is better than any of them. So yeah, totally good with Fowler or the the other two.

 

[Amitar]

It's talk like this that fortells the Rams never becoming a winning team. Now we are talking about needing replacements for the stars on the Rams that were here when Fisher took over. Yet the Rams still can't get a winning season.

 

[Mikey Ram]

I don't really understand the BPA argument unless they trade down out of ten...If you take the best WR, great...If you take the best DFE, fine...My only question is after you stockpile all that talent, what happens to it when your Oline is then Robinson, Saffold and 3 cardboard
cut outs ??? Sombody tell me, please...Seriously, I just don't get it...

 

[Memphis Ram]

A tale of two cities.

In 2012, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

- 2 very good players OT Russell Okung & C Max Unger (1 game missed btw the both).
- 2 solid at best players in OL journeyman Paul McQuistan and OT Breno Giacomini (No starts missed).
- remaining spot was filled by a combination of James Carpenter (drafted to replace Giacomini but stunk at OT), John Moffit, and a former college DT in 7th rounder J.R. Sweezy.

In Seattle this is the OLine unit of a top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, we'd be screaming for 3 new starters on the OLine to turn our offense around.

In 2013, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

MASH UNIT
- 2 very good players in Okung & Unger returned, but together missed 11 starts (mostly Okung) due to injury and their starts were replaced by rookie 7th rounder Michael Bowie and backup Lemuel Jeanpierre.
- solid at best journeyman McQuistan & Giacomini returned as well though I believe the later missed about 8 games.
- OT bust Carpenter (strong run blocker / shaky pass protector) started 10 of 16 games and partnered with 2nd year, 7th round, former college DT turned OLineman J.R. Sweezy at OG.

In Seattle...........another top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, the OLine coach would be on the hotseat and we'd still be screaming for 3 new starters to finally turn our offense around.

In 2014, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

(Solid at best journeyman McQuistan & Giacomini along with Bowie are gone stinking it up elsewhere).
- 2 very good players in Okung & Unger returned again, but this time together they miss ed 12 starts (mostly Unger). Unger was replaced by a combination of journeyman Stephen Schilling and other backups Patrick Lewis & Jeanpierre.
- what has developed into an above average guard in Sweezy and former OT bust (road grader, shaky pass protector) Carpenter returned at OG.
- Rookie 2nd rounder Justin Britt took over at RT and struggles a bit.

In Seattle, we again see a top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, the OLine coach is probably fired and cries for the team to use a 1st rounder and more on the OLine and finally fix the unit holding the offense back grows to a fever pitch.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I don't really understand the BPA argument unless they trade down out of ten...If you take the best WR, great...If you take the best DFE, fine...My only question is after you stockpile all that talent, what happens to it when your Oline is then Robinson, Saffold and 3 cardboard
cut outs ??? Sombody tell me, please...Seriously, I just don't get it...

Easy. There wouldn't be 3 cardboard cutouts at the other 3 spots. There is still free agency, other draft choices, and developing players already on the roster to fill out the OLine. Works for other teams.

 

[Mojo Ram]

A tale of two cities.

In 2012, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

- 2 very good players OT Russell Okung & C Max Unger (1 game missed btw the both).
- 2 solid at best players in OL journeyman Paul McQuistan and OT Breno Giacomini (No starts missed).
- remaining spot was filled by a combination of James Carpenter (drafted to replace Giacomini but stunk at OT), John Moffit, and a former college DT in 7th rounder J.R. Sweezy.

In Seattle this is the OLine unit of a top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, we'd be screaming for 3 new starters on the OLine to turn our offense around.

In 2013, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

MASH UNIT
- 2 very good players in Okung & Unger returned, but together missed 11 starts (mostly Okung) due to injury and their starts were replaced by rookie 7th rounder Michael Bowie and backup Lemuel Jeanpierre.
- solid at best journeyman McQuistan & Giacomini returned as well though I believe the later missed about 8 games.
- OT bust Carpenter (strong run blocker / shaky pass protector) started 10 of 16 games and partnered with 2nd year, 7th round, former college DT turned OLineman J.R. Sweezy at OG.

In Seattle...........another top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, the OLine coach would be on the hotseat and we'd still be screaming for 3 new starters to finally turn our offense around.

In 2014, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

(Solid at best journeyman McQuistan & Giacomini along with Bowie are gone stinking it up elsewhere).
- 2 very good players in Okung & Unger returned again, but this time together they miss ed 12 starts (mostly Unger). Unger was replaced by a combination of journeyman Stephen Schilling and other backups Patrick Lewis & Jeanpierre.
- what has developed into an above average guard in Sweezy and former OT bust (road grader, shaky pass protector) Carpenter returned at OG.
- Rookie 2nd rounder Justin Britt took over at RT and struggles a bit.

In Seattle, we again see a top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, the OLine coach is probably fired and cries for the team to use a 1st rounder and more on the OLine and finally fix the unit holding the offense back grows to a fever pitch.

All true, but you have to recognize the difference between Wilson's skillset behind an average OLine...and our QB's behind ours.

 

[FrankenRam]

A tale of two cities.

In 2012, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

- 2 very good players OT Russell Okung & C Max Unger (1 game missed btw the both).
- 2 solid at best players in OL journeyman Paul McQuistan and OT Breno Giacomini (No starts missed).
- remaining spot was filled by a combination of James Carpenter (drafted to replace Giacomini but stunk at OT), John Moffit, and a former college DT in 7th rounder J.R. Sweezy.

In Seattle this is the OLine unit of a top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, we'd be screaming for 3 new starters on the OLine to turn our offense around.

In 2013, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

MASH UNIT
- 2 very good players in Okung & Unger returned, but together missed 11 starts (mostly Okung) due to injury and their starts were replaced by rookie 7th rounder Michael Bowie and backup Lemuel Jeanpierre.
- solid at best journeyman McQuistan & Giacomini returned as well though I believe the later missed about 8 games.
- OT bust Carpenter (strong run blocker / shaky pass protector) started 10 of 16 games and partnered with 2nd year, 7th round, former college DT turned OLineman J.R. Sweezy at OG.

In Seattle...........another top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, the OLine coach would be on the hotseat and we'd still be screaming for 3 new starters to finally turn our offense around.

In 2014, the Seattle Seahawks OLine:

(Solid at best journeyman McQuistan & Giacomini along with Bowie are gone stinking it up elsewhere).
- 2 very good players in Okung & Unger returned again, but this time together they miss ed 12 starts (mostly Unger). Unger was replaced by a combination of journeyman Stephen Schilling and other backups Patrick Lewis & Jeanpierre.
- what has developed into an above average guard in Sweezy and former OT bust (road grader, shaky pass protector) Carpenter returned at OG.
- Rookie 2nd rounder Justin Britt took over at RT and struggles a bit.

In Seattle, we again see a top ten scoring offense.
In St. Louis, the OLine coach is probably fired and cries for the team to use a 1st rounder and more on the OLine and finally fix the unit holding the offense back grows to a fever pitch.

Thank you!

 

[BonifayRam]

I appreciate the respectful reply, Bonifay.

We just see this issue differently, I guess. And that's cool.

Taking BPA at #10 should yield a terrific football player that fell into our laps. That's never a bad strategy, if you ask me.

Drafting a QB in either round 2 or 3 is a must, don't you think? S/F have painted themselves into that corner, unfortunately. I'm not thrilled about it either, but I see no sensible alternative.

I see a vet FA as a viable starter solution at any 2 of our 3 current OL holes. They may not be Pro Bowlers, but they can hold down the positions just fine for a year or two. Teams around the league have successfully employed this strategy for years. Again, S/F have painted themselves into this corner, as well.

This is considered a very good draft for OL, especially interior OL. By the process of elimination above, we have either our 2nd or our 3rd for OL starter plus our 4th for either depth on OL or simply BPA.

Should we trade down out of our #10, we pick up still another premium pick for a quality player, possibly another OL in the 2nd or 3rd.

This all seems so logical and doable to me.

After rereading your post, I think we only really differ on two points...

Whether or not it's necessary to use our #10 on OL.

And whether or not second tier FA's (such as Barks, Wiz, Blalock, and DeLaPuente types) can hold down the fort for a season or two.

You have always deserved a respectful reply!

[BPA]I do not battle under the flag of the great smart & mighty BPA contingent. I run under the small dull flag where you take both the BPA in consideration with the teams greater needs. I think my dinky flag cadre would put the Ram team into the best position of wining in the future. Most members never have issues flushing the BPA flag down the toilet when its a QB & I understand this......I feel the same way when you have issues across most of your entire OL & have had this ongoing need for a long time now.

Hey but I have to admit that its going to be hard to pass on one of those WR's White or Cooper with the #10 pick, but you can make that pick easy if you have faith that Fisher can finally fix the OL issues....problem is.... I have little faith in Fisher & his ability to do that as I stated in my previous response post.

You bring up drafting of the QB...sure looks they want one. I even see where Jrry32 has just posted in his mock taking one with our 2nd pick. I look for Fisher will roll the dice on the 2nd day IMO. Sad this will be the same time that all those good talented OL'ers will be coming off the boards that ROD members were so excited about & where they have been saying is time to address the OL. Looks like Rams could be coming up short here on ammo on 2nd day to finally get to drafting a OL'ers guys Some things never change.

[FREE AGENTS] OL'ers I expect Rams Center Tim Barnes() & Joe Barksdale to return before the draft & later several other OL'er some point in time before the TC starts. I see very little improvement coming from this action but Barnes will bring improvement over Wells @ Center. Rams OL has been pouring out hot stinky perspiration for years & the Fisher band-aids will not stick once again. Fisher has done this the last 3 season this should make it a 4th. I have soured on his practice & the use of OL UFA's Rams43 to the point where I see virtually nothing is gained but considerable disappointment yr after yr. One reason I am begging for some youthful talent insertion in our OL on day 1 & 2 of this draft.

I understand why Fisher has been signing defensive UFA's & could be thinking of drafting a defensive players @ the top of the draft for your defensive reserves...... must be that he feels deep down inside that he is planning to have his defense spending all day on the field getting exhausted because he is unwilling or he is not capable of fielding a decent operational OL to get the defense off the field.

To answer your conclusion..."After rereading your post, I think we only really differ on two points...Whether or not it's necessary to use our #10 on OL. And whether or not second tier FA's (such as Barks, Wiz, Blalock, and DeLaPuente types) can hold down the fort for a season or two." yes..... Rams last season's OL fort should not be held down for another season or two as it was ....it must be seriously upgraded. Thanks for reading my reply Rams43

 

[Rams43]

You have always deserved a respectful reply!

[BPA]I do not battle under the flag of the great smart & mighty BPA contingent. I run under the small dull flag where you take both the BPA in consideration with the teams greater needs. I think my dinky flag cadre would put the Ram team into the best position of wining in the future. Most members never have issues flushing the BPA flag down the toilet when its a QB & I understand this......I feel the same way when you have issues across most of your entire OL & have had this ongoing need for a long time now.

Hey but I have to admit that its going to be hard to pass on one of those WR's White or Cooper with the #10 pick, but you can make that pick easy if you have faith that Fisher can finally fix the OL issues....problem is.... I have little faith in Fisher & his ability to do that as I stated in my previous response post.

You bring up drafting of the QB...sure looks they want one. I even see where Jrry32 has just posted in his mock taking one with our 2nd pick. I look for Fisher will roll the dice on the 2nd day IMO. Sad this will be the same time that all those good talented OL'ers will be coming off the boards that ROD members were so excited about & where they have been saying is time to address the OL. Looks like Rams could be coming up short here on ammo on 2nd day to finally get to drafting a OL'ers guys Some things never change.

[FREE AGENTS] OL'ers I expect Rams Center Tim Barnes() & Joe Barksdale to return before the draft & later several other OL'er some point in time before the TC starts. I see very little improvement coming from this action but Barnes will bring improvement over Wells @ Center. Rams OL has been pouring out hot stinky perspiration for years & the Fisher band-aids will not stick once again. Fisher has done this the last 3 season this should make it a 4th. I have soured on his practice & the use of OL UFA's Rams43 to the point where I see virtually nothing is gained but considerable disappointment yr after yr. One reason I am begging for some youthful talent insertion in our OL on day 1 & 2 of this draft.

I understand why Fisher has been signing defensive UFA's & could be thinking of drafting a defensive players @ the top of the draft for your defensive reserves...... must be that he feels deep down inside that he is planning to have his defense spending all day on the field getting exhausted because he is unwilling or he is not capable of fielding a decent operational OL to get the defense off the field.

To answer your conclusion..."After rereading your post, I think we only really differ on two points...Whether or not it's necessary to use our #10 on OL. And whether or not second tier FA's (such as Barks, Wiz, Blalock, and DeLaPuente types) can hold down the fort for a season or two." yes..... Rams last season's OL fort should not be held down for another season or two as it was ....it must be seriously upgraded. Thanks for reading my reply Rams43

I've enjoyed our discussion, Bonifay.

I can see where two reasonable people could take either position on use of FA's and picks to fix our OL.

Frankly, all I care about is that we come out of this offseason with a good OL. Any combo of FA or picks that S/F utilize is fine by me.

As long as they fix the OL and draft a developmental QB among the top 5, I will consider this a successful offseason.

And one that gives us a shot at the playoffs.

 

[RamFan503]

It's time for some big uglies. Plenty of good ones.

This^^^ and the bigger and uglier the better.

 

[Ramhusker]

And the Rams may be looking to draft a K, and a P, and a SS, and a CB, and a WR, and a QB, and a ILB, and a .................................................

Moving the draft back sure has spawned a bleve of useless articles for our enjoyment.

 

[Mikey Ram]

Easy. There wouldn't be 3 cardboard cutouts at the other 3 spots. There is still free agency, other draft choices, and developing players already on the roster to fill out the OLine. Works for other teams.

There's not too much left in FA, the guys already on the roster haven't shown much that says they're ready to start and I find it a little hard to believe that if they wait a couple of rounds before even stating to draft linemen, that they will get much in the way of plug-in guys...

 

[Memphis Ram]

There's not too much left in FA, the guys already on the roster haven't shown much that says they're ready to start and I find it a little hard to believe that if they wait a couple of rounds before even stating to draft linemen, that they will get much in the way of plug-in guys...

Doesn't have to be much left in FA.
1) Re-sign Barkdale.
2) Sign Blalock
3) Draft an OG anywhere in rounds 2-4
4) Let Rhaney, Jones, & perhaps Barnes or another stopgap vet to compete for the center spot.

ONLINE is SET

Now will they rival the OLines that Dickerson ran behind in LA? Probably not, but not too many OLines have over the years. AND, they don't have to in order for this team to have success on offense if the QB and OC (more important) do their jobs well. And especially, if the plan is to run the football and get the ball out quick via the passing game.

BTW, do we really know what the players on the roster have shown since they haven't actually played? Maybe Bourdeau has another Harvey Dahl waiting in the wings (former 1st time starter signed off 49ers practice squad).

 

[Mikey Ram]

Doesn't have to be much left in FA.
1) Re-sign Barkdale.
2) Sign Blalock
3) Draft an OG anywhere in rounds 2-4
4) Let Rhaney, Jones, & perhaps Barnes or another stopgap vet to compete for the center spot.

ONLINE is SET

Now will they rival the OLines that Dickerson ran behind in LA? Probably not, but not too many OLines have over the years. AND, they don't have to in order for this team to have success on offense if the QB and OC (more important) do their jobs well. And especially, if the plan is to run the football and get the ball out quick via the passing game.

BTW, do we really know what the players on the roster have shown since they haven't actually played? Maybe Bourdeau has another Harvey Dahl waiting in the wings (former 1st time starter signed off 49ers practice squad).

OK, let's just wrap this up by saying you're just a little more optmistic than I am...We'll see what happens...