-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #63
Yeah, that wasn't in the original post but a response on the fly to your observation. I think we could think of examples where some things haven't changed as much as others. The point about FBs being drafted could have been made as easily by saying they aren't drafted high, or in the first round, etc. There still seems to be a hierarchy where QB, LT and DE seem to be valued more than other positions, LB, TEs, RBs and safeties tend to not go in the top 10 unless they are special, etc.
But I agree, the boundaries of what is value or too high are shifting. Was last year the first in the common draft where not even one RB went in the first round? Admittedly a small sample, but it does seem to reflect a league-wide trend where passing is increasingly emphasized, and more and more teams are employing RBBCs, rotating two or even three RBs, and using them situationally.
We might be taking Robinson or Matthews in the top 5-10 range, so it would be interesting to see if far more LTs are being taken in the contemporary era (just last year three in the top four). Incidentally, given evolution and changes in the landscape, what would your cutoff be where you would judge historical exemplars to be spurious and no longer relevant to contemporary discussions. Might be hard to nail down to the year, but interested in expanding on your thoughts.
Last edited:
Plus, the shelf life of a RB is not very long. Seems like the trend is to pick a RB in the lower rounds and in a few years draft his replacement.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 49,733
- Name
- Burger man
That would be my approach.
With a good oline, you can find RBs to get the job done later.
laramsoriginal
Starter
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2014
- Messages
- 604
According to trends fisher doesn't select cb, OL, s, in the first round....
Scary trend considering those positions are the glaring holes the rams Need to fill.
I see the rams bucking the trend and selecting OL, CB, S in the first two rounds....assuming we trade down
Scary trend considering those positions are the glaring holes the rams Need to fill.
I see the rams bucking the trend and selecting OL, CB, S in the first two rounds....assuming we trade down
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #70
Personally I think you are more right with the limited sample size than no DBs in the first. Maybe they won't, but I wouldn't be comfortable making sweeping generalizations based on two drafts (I'm breaking from the Fisher doesn't take OL in the first round maxim, and that is an 18 year old pattern!
).I think they were targeting Blackmon in 2012 but got sniped. Plan B, they liked Brockers more than Claiborne. In retrospect, that was a great call, Brockers looks like he could be a future Pro Bowler, and Claiborne could be a bust. Certainly some teams like to build from the inside out, and we already had Long and Quinn, so perhaps he envisioned a dominant DL as a strength of the defense and team as a whole (he also added Langford in free agency). This would also answer Gilmore (and don't forget, in bypassing Claiborne and Gilmore, they got not only Brockers, but the DAL second, which alas they wasted on Pead, but intended to use on Kendrick's or Wagner) and Kirkpatrick (who also hasn't set the league on fire - at some point, if a pattern emerges and there is a recurring theme, maybe we should just credit the front office, coaches and scouts with doing a good job in passing over Claiborne and Kirkpatrick for Brockers?).
He turned down Jenkins at #33, but we did have a screaming need at WR, so that could have been a case of one bigger need trumping another. They did take Jenkins a few picks later, so that could have been a case of them being confident he would drop with his off field problems (again, we should credit them for being right in this case), and/or putting a price on how much he was worth given his well documented risk, and not wanting to exceed it. We don't know how they graded Vaccaro or Reid, though they look like outstanding players, but I can see how they might have coveted Austin more, and felt like it would be easier to get a safety like them the following year easier (perhaps in free agency or the draft) than a WR like Austin. I am going under the assumption Fisher and Snead realized that they wouldn't be able to fill all holes in the 2013 draft, and it would be a multi-year process.
I didn't read into passing on Trufant (ups and downs but great NFL bloodlines and looks good) as an indictment of all possible future first round DBs (they did take them in the first round in TEN, for instance Pacman and Michael Griffin, among others) when they parlayed that trade into Ogletree, a third used on Bailey and a sixth packaged with their own for the fifth used on Stacy... this has to be the single best trade they have engineered so far? As to passing on Elam (I like him but he is undersized), Cyprien and Slay (underwhelming rookie season), Snead and Fisher talked about how they viewed Ogletree as a top 10-15 overall talent (which those DBs weren't), if not for the off field question marks. Once again, we should credit the team for excellent scouting. They may have been right that he was a better straight up BPA, as well as filling an equally pressing and critically important need. IMO, not only is he already our most athletic, talented and playmaking LB, but has a chance to be one of the best in franchise history. That takes precedence and primacy over the likes of Slay.
Maybe they won't take a DB in the first, but if one is clearly the BPA, I don't see why they would hesitate?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #71
Robinson's potential versatilty (doubly so if we retain Saffold in this scenario) is very attractive. He could play guard, be an upgrade at RT, fill in for Jake Long returning from his ACL, and be the heir apparent at LT. He could have pro bowl potential at LT, RT and guard.
fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,784
Yeah it is debatable. I list Matthews because he seems to be listed first by most sources and he seems versatile. But, you know, a couple of guys will rise and a couple will fall before the draft. Whether it is Matthews, Lewan, Robinson or someone else the need is the same.
fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,784
Joel Bitonio from Nevada may be a guy like this. Played T in college, is 6' 4" 309 lbs, so, more a G body, particularly with shorter arms. He could end up being a guy that can possibly start at G and backup at T. Im sure his playing NFL weight would be closer to 315 or so. He is projected as a 3-4 rounder from what I have seen. Taking a pure T in round one and Bitonio (or someone like him; has a skill set, hands, first step ect., developed at T, but isent a round 1 or 2 guys because of his size) in round 3 or 4 makes sense to me.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #74
Saffold can arguably go to the positive side of the ledger, especially once they stumbled onto his natural pro position of guard, if they can retain him. Barrett Jones won the Outland Trophy and would have gone higher (second or third?) if not for the lis-franc injury. This was a red shirt year, so too early to tell what we have in him. For all we know, he could be a future stalwart.
Not Fisher or Snead's fault, but we have had bad luck with free agent OL in recent years, especially interior OL. Ex-Raven Jason Brown and former Titan Jacob Bell didn't fare well.
laramsoriginal
Starter
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2014
- Messages
- 604
I think if the rams trade down to the 8th or 10th spot, Robinson or Mathews might be available. Plus it would help secure additional picks. Besides, rams need a starting OG or two.
The rams priority (iyam)
OG
CB
S
DEPTH AT:
OT
DT
LB
WR
The rams priority (iyam)
OG
CB
S
DEPTH AT:
OT
DT
LB
WR
fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,784
Yeah, the signing of Wells makes sense. Good, smart, vet C to lead a line that was trying to find itself and a young offense in general. His play has not been as bad as some propose, but, he has been too injured....so it goes. Even at T I think Saffold was a positive. I think they "stick" rate for guys, regardless of position, after round 4 is bad, so, drafting Oline in rounds 4-7....its not a surprise not many have hung around.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #77
I think I only heard Warford's name mentioned, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they had other prospects of interest (did you here who, I'd be curious?). I may have heard about another trade down being possible but forgot about it, that vaguely rings a bell. Guess we will probably never know for sure? If they were considering Warford at the the 1.30 (albeit with other prospects, and possibly alongside the further trade down option), that might still be interpreted as potential evidence that Fisher/Snead won't categorically rule out a first round OL.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #78
Not sure about 2012, I think Wells played well this year (gave up only 1-2 sacks?), better than Dahl, but you nailed it, he has missed a lot of time, which is why IMO, he hasn't justified his contract so far, and at around 32-33 (?), you have to wonder if he is breaking down. Without looking it up, I think he missed the first nine games in 2012 and the last four in 2013, so 13 of 32. Not good.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #79
Pace and Jones are Hall of Fame material, and Boselli was maybe headed there before blowing out his shoulder. That is a high bar. For me, potential Pro Bowl would be a more workable threshold (and not sure it would even be that high). I feel more confident with Robinson than Matthews on that score, due to his upside.
I agree the WR class is ridiculously strong and deep, though I might pass if we don't get Watkins. DB might be deep (?), not sure it is strong at the top. Not with the higher first round pick, but with the 1.13, or if we trade down, FS our biggest DB need, so Pryor or Clinton-Dix make sense, but we could use a CB, too, so Dennard or Gilbert would also be a good BPA/need intersection fit at some point.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #80
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!
My first point in the OP, was a question about whether Reese had final decision in HOU/TEN, which would render moot and torpedo the whole historical determinism premise/hypothesis of "Fisher's" previous drafts and making too literal inferences about which positions he purportedly did and did not favor based on them.
Last edited: