First Take: Seattle Michael Robinson Talks Rams

[jrry32]

Luck had one of the best come from behind victories in NFL history.
F-that Luck is underrated !!

Luck is underrated because of one game? Ryan Fitzpatrick threw 3 TDs in 3 Quarters and led his team back from 21 down to a win in his first game. Guess that made him a future superstar?

Luck is treated like he's an elite QB when the reality is that he's been a solid to good QB thus far in his career that has benefited greatly from playing in the worst division in football. Last year, Sam Bradford had a 121.6 QB Rating against the AFC South and averaged 3 TDs per game. You don't think he'd have benefited greatly from playing 6 games a year against Jacksonville, Tennessee, and Houston instead of San Francisco, Arizona, and Seattle?

Luck is a very talented QB but he's not played to his hype as of yet. But people treat him like he has because his TEAM has won.

--Kap doesn't wear his Cap on right .Still it is not about his looks. He has proved himself,and earned his spot by replacing a All/Pro QB.He will be so good this season with all his WR/TE this year.Him & Crabtree caught fire last year.Maybe he has lost to years in a row on last plays to be a Super Bowl Champ.He at least gave SF a chance.

Kaepernick is a limited QB that is overly reliant on his athleticism. He had Anquan Boldin, Vernon Davis, and Frank Gore last year...and yet the guy needed to ALSO have Crabtree to "catch fire". He isn't a mentally adept QB. He has a strong arm and great athleticism which allow him to compensate for how slowly he processes things, his poor field vision, and his struggles makings his way through progressions.

Kaepernick is lucky to play on an offense with a stellar supporting cast and stellar coaching. Because he'd be a mediocre or worse QB in most other places.

--Cam ?? He is not playing with many weapons.Don't know what Bradford would have looked like in Carolina blue ?

You do know what Bradford would look like considering he's had a worse supporting cast. I don't know where you're trying to go with this one.

BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, Cam Newton is a freak. He'd do well in St. Louis.

----Can't wait to destroy Russell Wilson.He is a good QB at game management,but not a great passer.Donald will force him right in Chris Long arms.

Wilson is the best QB of all the guys you named...excluding Cam Newton. And he's flawed. But he's a cerebral, accurate, patient QB that would play solid football for the Rams. Wouldn't have the numbers he did in Seattle but he'd be good for us.

 

[jrry32]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if their opinion is demonstrably profoundly stupid, and brings shame and disgrace upon the family name of the poster for generations to come.

It depends on where you rate Jackson. Some Rams fans do overrate the guy when they claim he's as good as Marshall and Dickerson but just didn't have the cast. I never saw Jackson in that light. Very good HB but he wasn't a HOF talent even in his prime. His last year here, imo, he was overrated. Was an average HB that left yardage on the field. And the Rams made the smart business move to move on.

I respect the hell out of the guy. No one will ever doubt his dedication or how much he wanted to win.

 

[Boffo97]

It depends on where you rate Jackson. Some Rams fans do overrate the guy when they claim he's as good as Marshall and Dickerson but just didn't have the cast. I never saw Jackson in that light. Very good HB but he wasn't a HOF talent even in his prime. His last year here, imo, he was overrated. Was an average HB that left yardage on the field. And the Rams made the smart business move to move on.

I respect the hell out of the guy. No one will ever doubt his dedication or how much he wanted to win.

I don't know that all that many people are rating him on the Faulk/Dickerson level, but I do think he could have some rings with better talent around him.

He does, AFAIK, possess most or all of the Rams' all time rushing records, and the NFL streak for consecutive 1,000 yard seasons. That should count for something.

 

[jrry32]

I don't know that all that many people are rating him on the Faulk/Dickerson level, but I do think he could have some rings with better talent around him.

He does, AFAIK, possess most or all of the Rams' all time rushing records, and the NFL streak for consecutive 1,000 yard seasons. That should count for something.

He doesn't possess that. Curtis Martin had 10. Emmitt Smith had 11. Barry Sanders had 10. Jackson had 8.

The Rams records count for a lot with the Rams...but that was more to do with longevity than anything because Faulk and Dickerson weren't here as long.

Jackson was a very good HB so there's no doubt that he could have rings on the right squad...but I'm not really sure what that means.

 

[Boffo97]

He doesn't possess that. Curtis Martin had 10. Emmitt Smith had 11. Barry Sanders had 10. Jackson had 8.

The Rams records count for a lot with the Rams...but that was more to do with longevity than anything because Faulk and Dickerson weren't here as long.

Jackson was a very good HB so there's no doubt that he could have rings on the right squad...but I'm not really sure what that means.

You're right on the consecutive seasons thing. Should have checked that before posting.

But back to the main point, we do agree that Jackson was at least very good. Even if some think he was better than that, when someone is called "overrated", to me that indicates decent at best. So that's why I think some are reacting badly to Jackson being called overrated.

 

[jrry32]

You're right on the consecutive seasons thing. Should have checked that before posting.

But back to the main point, we do agree that Jackson was at least very good. Even if some think he was better than that, when someone is called "overrated", to me that indicates decent at best. So that's why I think some are reacting badly to Jackson being called overrated.

Yep, very good in his prime. Overrated is overrated to me. Ben Roethlisberger is a very good QB...but if a lot of people claimed he was the best QB of the 2000s, I'd call him overrated.

Luck is a solid to good QB. I think he's overrated because many people treat him like he's one of the best QBs in the NFL. Overrated to me has more to do with how you're treated relative to your talent level than your talent level by itself.

But that's just arguing over semantics. Different strokes for different folks and all.

 

[Tailback]

Luck is underrated because of one game? Ryan Fitzpatrick threw 3 TDs in 3 Quarters and led his team back from 21 down to a win in his first game. Guess that made him a future superstar?

Luck is treated like he's an elite QB when the reality is that he's been a solid to good QB thus far in his career that has benefited greatly from playing in the worst division in football. Last year, Sam Bradford had a 121.6 QB Rating against the AFC South and averaged 3 TDs per game. You don't think he'd have benefited greatly from playing 6 games a year against Jacksonville, Tennessee, and Houston instead of San Francisco, Arizona, and Seattle?

Luck is a very talented QB but he's not played to his hype as of yet. But people treat him like he has because his TEAM has won.



Kaepernick is a limited QB that is overly reliant on his athleticism. He had Anquan Boldin, Vernon Davis, and Frank Gore last year...and yet the guy needed to ALSO have Crabtree to "catch fire". He isn't a mentally adept QB. He has a strong arm and great athleticism which allow him to compensate for how slowly he processes things, his poor field vision, and his struggles makings his way through progressions.

Kaepernick is lucky to play on an offense with a stellar supporting cast and stellar coaching. Because he'd be a mediocre or worse QB in most other places.



You do know what Bradford would look like considering he's had a worse supporting cast. I don't know where you're trying to go with this one.

BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, Cam Newton is a freak. He'd do well in St. Louis.



Wilson is the best QB of all the guys you named...excluding Cam Newton. And he's flawed. But he's a cerebral, accurate, patient QB that would play solid football for the Rams. Wouldn't have the numbers he did in Seattle but he'd be good for us.

I don't agree with you on the Luck vs. Newton comparison. Luck is a MUCH better pocket passer and every bit the athlete that Newton is. Luck is not asked to do the things that Newton does in his offense. As a Ducks fan I watched Luck many times. I also watched the Ducks hold Cam Newton's Auburn team to their lowest production that year and they beat the snot out of Cam. Nick Fairley single handedly won that game for Auburn, not Cam Newton.

http://www.49ers.com/video/videos/4...-Manziel/451f1541-58be-4d99-a544-119677ae5d71

 

[jrry32]

I don't agree with you on the Luck vs. Newton comparison. Luck is a MUCH better pocket passer and every bit the athlete that Newton is. Luck is not asked to do the things that Newton does in his offense. As a Ducks fan I watched Luck many times. I also watched the Ducks hold Cam Newton's Auburn team to their lowest production that year and they beat the snot out of Cam. Nick Fairley single handedly won that game for Auburn, not Cam Newton.

http://www.49ers.com/video/videos/4...-Manziel/451f1541-58be-4d99-a544-119677ae5d71

Not in this universe or any other.

Newton is currently the better QB. Luck is a better pocket passer but it's not by much of a margin.

As far as Fairley "single-handedly" winning that game...that's a farce. Not even worth the argument. If you're going to go there, might as well mention Luck's mediocre effort the last time he played Oregon in college which included a pick six...you know the game where his team lost by 23 points.

 

[Tailback]

Not in this universe or any other.

Newton is currently the better QB. Luck is a better pocket passer but it's not by much of a margin.

As far as Fairley "single-handedly" winning that game...that's a farce. Not even worth the argument. If you're going to go there, might as well mention Luck's mediocre effort the last time he played Oregon in college which included a pick six...you know the game where his team lost by 23 points.

We'll agree to disagree. You discounting Fairley completely relegates your argument to complete rubbish. The beauty of the internet is that nothing ever goes away. I have a feeling we'll revisit this conversation somewhere in the future. For now, there's really no reason to continue.

 

[jrry32]

We'll agree to disagree. You discounting Fairley completely relegates your argument to complete rubbish. The beauty of the internet is that nothing ever goes away. I have a feeling we'll revisit this conversation somewhere in the future. For now, there's really no reason to continue.

Rubbish? I think you need to check what discounting and single-handedly mean. Fairley was amazing in that game. But if giving Cam Newton and Michael Dyer, two players that combined for 472 yards of total offense and 2 TDs, credit is discounting Fairley...you're the one who has the rubbish argument. Fairley didn't single-handedly win that game. As usual, the win was a team effort. He had a large role in it...but so did Newton with his 329 yards of offense and 2 TDs and Dyer with his 143 rushing yards.

Go ahead and revisit this. As I've maintained all along, Luck is plenty talented but his level of play hasn't reach his level of hype...yet. And there's not a particularly strong argument that he outplayed Cam Newton last year. So I'm not sure how one could conclude that he's currently the better QB. In the future? He certainly could be. But in 2013, he was not. Since 2014 hasn't started, not much else to base it on. Not even sure how a college football game from 2010 has any relevance in this discussion today.

 

[Boffo97]

Yep, very good in his prime. Overrated is overrated to me. Ben Roethlisberger is a very good QB...but if a lot of people claimed he was the best QB of the 2000s, I'd call him overrated.

Luck is a solid to good QB. I think he's overrated because many people treat him like he's one of the best QBs in the NFL. Overrated to me has more to do with how you're treated relative to your talent level than your talent level by itself.

But that's just arguing over semantics. Different strokes for different folks and all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this... if I think Dickerson is the best Rams' RB ever and Faulk #2, and you think just the opposite of that, it'd be pretty ridiculous of me to then state that Faulk is "overrated" even if technically you rate him higher than I do.

Jackson may not be on that top tier... but he's pretty close. And thus an implication that he's overrated is ridiculous to me, even if people may have MINOR differences in where he's rated.

 

[jrry32]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this... if I think Dickerson is the best Rams' RB ever and Faulk #2, and you think just the opposite of that, it'd be pretty ridiculous of me to then state that Faulk is "overrated" even if technically you rate him higher than I do.

Jackson may not be on that top tier... but he's pretty close. And thus an implication that he's overrated is ridiculous to me, even if people may have MINOR differences in where he's rated.

We're talking about a minor difference vs. a major difference. Faulk and Dickerson are both HOF talents. And I believe Faulk to be a top 7 HB of all time. I don't think Jackson is a HOF talent. So yes, putting him in the same tier as those two is overrating him in my mind. They're not on the same tier/level.

Ranking players on the same tier/level differently isn't overrating...it's just a difference of opinion...such as you rating Josh Gordon over AJ Green while I rate AJ over Gordon as an example. Now, if I rated someone like T.Y. Hilton over Gordon...that would be overrating Hilton...because they're not on that same level.

 

[The Rammer]

SJ 39 was(is) over rated !!
.

.

It's like SJ39.You can show me stats,but are you winning.int.
Chrissy Everett took The Rams to playoff games & was one of the best passers stat wise than in Ram history.He still got boo'd, the final straw was when he went down for no reason.
You ask Diggtty about the worst play in Ram playoff history,& he might tell you the Ronnie Lott int.

I call BS on that! Take your SJ39 was overrated crap somewhere else. Dude was the ONLY and I mean THE ONLY bright spot on the team we really had and he did what he could. So by your logic Dan Marino and Jim Kelly was Shit?
sit down

 

[The Rammer]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this... if I think Dickerson is the best Rams' RB ever and Faulk #2, and you think just the opposite of that, it'd be pretty ridiculous of me to then state that Faulk is "overrated" even if technically you rate him higher than I do.

Jackson may not be on that top tier... but he's pretty close. And thus an implication that he's overrated is ridiculous to me, even if people may have MINOR differences in where he's rated.

Yea I have to totally agree with this statement. Jackson might not be top tier like a Dickerson or Faulk but he's slightly below it. If he wasn't on the NFL's worst losing team in history I'm sure he would of been able to help a team to get to AT LEAST 2 championships.... Imagine him on the Pats roster? or Green Bay's? or Pittsburgh's? Or New Orleans? would imagine they would have achieved a lot more success overall.

 

[Boffo97]

We're talking about a minor difference vs. a major difference. Faulk and Dickerson are both HOF talents. And I believe Faulk to be a top 7 HB of all time. I don't think Jackson is a HOF talent. So yes, putting him in the same tier as those two is overrating him in my mind. They're not on the same tier/level.

How big a difference do you place between "Hall of Fame Tier" and "Very Good Tier" (which you said SJ was in)? Of course, I can't know your personal ratings system, but just by definition, the tiers would either be right next to each other or just have an "Elite, but not quite HOF" tier between them.

To me, that kind of difference is way too minor to slam someone with the "overrated" label, which again I would think to most would carry a "really not all that good" connotation to it.

I wouldn't say Jackson's one of the top 10 best ever, and his lack of rings will hurt any HOF case he might have, but the dude was great for it... and it's going to really rub a lot of Rams fans the wrong way to dismiss what he did for us with that label, which is what it intrinsically does.

 

[Tron]

I usually avoid posting in these types of threads but decided to for once.

I do not think Sam is soft. Has he had some bad luck with injuries? Yes. If he gets hurt again this year early on and misses the rest of the season then the Rams will probably draft a new QB imo.

I want nothing more than Sam to succeed. He played great last year before the injury. If he comes out and plays all 16 games or close to it and performs like he did last year we will be set. Also if our wr's dont drop as many balls it will be even better, obviously.

Now we all know Sam doesnt throw a lot of interceptions, but after doing some research, I found that every game Sam has played in against Seattle, he has thrown 1 interception. 6 games, 6 interceptions. Never thrown 0, and never thrown 2 or more against them. Always 1 int. thats not horrible, and Robinson saying that if they get pressure on him he will cough it up to them is wrong, unless of course they only get pressure on him once a game lol.
Hopefully he breaks that streak this year.

 

[jrry32]

How big a difference do you place between "Hall of Fame Tier" and "Very Good Tier" (which you said SJ was in)? Of course, I can't know your personal ratings system, but just by definition, the tiers would either be right next to each other or just have an "Elite, but not quite HOF" tier between them.

To me, that kind of difference is way too minor to slam someone with the "overrated" label, which again I would think to most would carry a "really not all that good" connotation to it.

I wouldn't say Jackson's one of the top 10 best ever, and his lack of rings will hurt any HOF case he might have, but the dude was great for it... and it's going to really rub a lot of Rams fans the wrong way to dismiss what he did for us with that label, which is what it intrinsically does.

It's pretty major to me. It's like the difference between a Drew Brees and a Tony Romo.

Dickerson and Faulk are two of the all time greats. Two guys that will and should be remembered long after they retire. Steven Jackson is more of a Fred Taylor. Once he retires, I don't think many people outside of the Rams fan-base will really remember him or think much about him.

 

[blue4]

Not in this universe or any other.

Newton is currently the better QB. Luck is a better pocket passer but it's not by much of a margin.

As far as Fairley "single-handedly" winning that game...that's a farce. Not even worth the argument. If you're going to go there, might as well mention Luck's mediocre effort the last time he played Oregon in college which included a pick six...you know the game where his team lost by 23 points.

Newton isn't the better QB IMO. Luck is a better pocket passer by a good margin. And he can get past his 2nd read without running away. I'd take Luck over Newton every day, especially looking towards the future when Cams legs don't work as fast as they used to.

 

[jrry32]

Newton isn't the better QB IMO. Luck is a better pocket passer by a good margin. And he can get past his 2nd read without running away. I'd take Luck over Newton every day, especially looking towards the future when Cams legs don't work as fast as they used to.

I think a lot of you guys are more caught up in the myth than you are the reality. Cam Newton has progressed significantly since he came into the league and some of the criticisms that are being thrown around simply aren't true anymore.

Here's something to keep in mind, Cam Newton had a higher QB Rating in 2013 than Andrew Luck. And there's no arguing Newton had better weapons.

The idea that Newton can't work through progressions, read defenses, or lacks the mental sharpness to handle the pro game simply isn't true. As a rookie and a sophomore, I could see it. He had his struggles. But he found himself this year. Here are some examples that display it:

Looks right to the trips initially to work through his progressions recognizing that the press coverage on the lone receiver on the left side of the field will mean his route converts to a fade. By working through his progressions on the right side, Newton holds the single deep safety in the middle of the field and throws a perfect strike when he finally resets left to Steve Smith for a TD knowing that Smith will have single coverage.

Newton opens to his right, holds the deep safety which creates a lane to hit Olsen on the seam route...he works off his original read and finds Olsen in that lane for a big play with an accurate laser of a pass.

Newton opens left off the play-action fake to his first read, Greg Olsen, but Olsen is well covered, Newton receives great protection and works his way through all his progressions recognizing that nobody is open but he sits patiently in the pocket until Justin Smith forces him to move off his spot and reset which he does while keeping his eyes down the field which leads him to stop Smith working his way open and he hits him with the pass.

I think that last play pretty well displays that Newton isn't some run first pass second guy anymore. Could have easily bailed on the pocket at any point during that play. Instead, he hung in there patiently until a WR came open. Those are three pretty darn good examples of the progress Newton has made and why these criticisms being levied at him are outdated. And all three of those plays came from the same game. There are plenty of others that I could post.

 

[cgsuddeath]

I actually agree with him. He aint scared but he does recognize talent. Bradford does need to play better under pressure. some of it is recievers and some of it is him. But he has to up his game under pressure and make teams pay for bringing the blitz. the online this year should help that out alot

I guess you didn't see the Buffalo game of 2012 or the Houston Texans Game of 2013.Funny how people forget those things.