Mock Draft Tidbits / 2024 Draft Talk

  • 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.

WestCoastRam

Legend
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
6,208
Elite defenders struggle too stop above avg offensive players due to the rules.
Umm... Maybe you could argue that above average guys on offense are able to beat out above average guys on defense due to rules skewing the league but I think this is incredible hyperbole here and patently untrue.

Are you a politician?!?
 

dang

Legend
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
7,229
Seems to be the philosophy of McVay and Snead when you look at the size of the cake the O gets in Cap. But, new DC, no AD, something has to tilt back to D and it might be most of the picks in this draft but BPA is going to rule the day if the Rams trade up or pick at 19.
So draft picks on offense:
-Gotta have a RB2.
-Nice to have a WR2/WR3 and OT depth.

The rest of the draft picks can be allotted to Defense/K.
 

WestCoastRam

Legend
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
6,208
So draft picks on offense:
-Gotta have a RB2.
-Nice to have a WR2/WR3 and OT depth.

The rest of the draft picks can be allotted to Defense/K.
I'm not saying they won't draft a RB but I think people would be disappointed in how much Rams probably ready to go to war with Williams, Rivers and an undrafted FA next year (or a camp addition FA).

Def think that any Rams addition on offense will come at WR and then OT or Center, FWIW in this draft.
 

Ramstien

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
2,426
Name
Ramstien
If Bowers falls to #19, I believe he will be the pick. He will instantly make the offense even better and take pressure off Kupp and Puka. Then go with edge and DT with the next two picks.
 

Ramhusker

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
14,212
Name
Bo Bowen
1712698476584.png
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,726
If Bowers falls to 19 there's a reason that he fell that far that could push the Rams to pass on him too. Just a thought.
 

PhillyRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
6,703
Name
Scott
Umm... Maybe you could argue that above average guys on offense are able to beat out above average guys on defense due to rules skewing the league but I think this is incredible hyperbole here and patently untrue.

Are you a politician?!?
Umm...that was my point. The rules overwhelmingly favor offenses.
 

PhillyRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
6,703
Name
Scott
Umm... Maybe you could argue that above average guys on offense are able to beat out above average guys on defense due to rules skewing the league but I think this is incredible hyperbole here and patently untrue.

Are you a politician?!?
And the Rams organization's philosophy tends to prove my point. Just look how they allocate their resources.

3X the amount of cap spent on the offense vs defense. And one guy takes up nearly half of the cap that is spent on the defense.
 

PhillyRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
6,703
Name
Scott

dang

Legend
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
7,229
I posted about Cooper a month ago. Problem is he probably goes between 30 & 40, not sure the Rams move up from 52 and fork over 99 to do so.

Of course the other option is trade down a few times to either pick him in that range or amass enough picks, in trade downs, so that they are then willing to trade up from 52.
An example of an option is Washington. They have a real need for OL/WR and have R2.36 and R2.40. Just spitballing but Rams offer R1.19/Tutu/R6 pick and could get 2 nice picks in early R2. Fiske/Cooper or Robinson/Cooper or Robinson/Cooper would be nice scenarios with those picks.
Could/would? But should?
 

PhillyRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
6,703
Name
Scott
Seems to be more of a case of bad QB play. That's why possibly 6 guys are likley to go in the top 20, and 2 are not first round talents.

And now what did the NFL do? They changed the KR rules to help the offenses get better starting field position.

I am all for building a great defense. I want 3 of the top 4 picks to be on D. I am just saying that teams focus on offense. One reason is to probably help their overpaid QBs to be successful.
 

WestCoastRam

Legend
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
6,208
Seems to be more of a case of bad QB play. That's why possibly 6 guys are likley to go in the top 20, and 2 are not first round talents.
I'd really encourage you to watch some football games around the league. A huge part of the change is defenses doing a fantastic job. They're all playing shell coverages now to eliminate big plays and many teams are rotating coverages after the snap to muddy the reads. They're some great QB play, they're just not having as much explosives.

And defenses are defending the run with light boxes and there's an increase in simulated pressures across the league all contributing to making it harder on offenses. Not only that, defenses have really clamped down on RPOs since like 2019.
 
Last edited:

Ram Ts

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
2,162
Seems to be more of a case of bad QB play. That's why possibly 6 guys are likley to go in the top 20, and 2 are not first round talents.

And now what did the NFL do? They changed the KR rules to help the offenses get better starting field position.

I am all for building a great defense. I want 3 of the top 4 picks to be on D. I am just saying that teams focus on offense. One reason is to probably help their overpaid QBs to be successful.
Last year more than half of the 1st round picks were on the Defensive side. This year seems to be an anomaly with most of the top 15-20 talent being offensive players.
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,291