My thoughts on the draft

[Username]

Austin needs to be as good as TWO high quality starters because that's what he cost us. There are very few players that are worth two high quality starters. I hope he's one of them but I have my doubts. I don't doubt that he'll be good, just not that good.

What did they give up though? Honestly? Like I said this draft didn't really have shit. They gave up a 2nd and got back a 3rd. How many players taken in the 2nd round didn't have 3rd or later grades?

There was a handful of solid first rounders, the Rams made sure they got one of them. Considering what he brings to the table, I would say it's in an area of desperate need too.

 

[albefree69]

Username not liking most of the draftees:

What did they give up though? Honestly? Like I said this draft didn't really have shyte. They gave up a 2nd and got back a 3rd. How many players taken in the 2nd round didn't have 3rd or later grades?

There was a handful of solid first rounders, the Rams made sure they got one of them. Considering what he brings to the table, I would say it's in an area of desperate need too.

I guess that would depend on your definition of very good players. I disagree that this draft didn't have shit. I don't consider Ogletree to be anthing but a very good player. I don't consider the player we would have chosen at #16 to be shyte either. Nor the pick we would have made at #48.

If you look at who I would have drafted you'll see who I thought we gave up. As for gaining the 3rd, we would have gained that with out sacrificing our 2nd rounder. I loved the trade dow with Dallas. That fits right in to my drafting philosophy.

look what's happening at safety. In my draft we got a top SS and FS. We have holes that I'd like to get filled. But there are other ways of doing it that's for sure.

 

[Angry Ram]

Well you can look at my signature of who I preferred. I really jumped on the DeAndre Hopkins bandwagon in April. And of course Eddie Lacy since the beginning.

Barrett Jones was my favorite pick...I'm really hoping he becomes the center of the future.

 

[albefree69]

Angry Ram with some alternate picks:
Well you can look at my signature of who I preferred. I really jumped on the DeAndre Hopkins bandwagon in April. And of course Eddie Lacy since the beginning.

Barrett Jones was my favorite pick...I'm really hoping he becomes the center of the future.

Yeah I noticed those. I think we had enough at RB already but I like all the other players you listed. Especially Hopkins.

 

[FRO]

The Rams did exactly what I wanted to in the first round. They hit a grand slam in the first round getting 2 guys who have the ability to be elite.

To be honest safety is the hardest position for me to evaluate. I know Craig Dahl sucked. I know Ed Reed was great. So unless you suck or are incredible I have a hard to evaluating. My weakest position by far. So I have no clue how good McDonald will be. He is a good athlete, smart, a heavy hitter, productive, and has good bloodlines. So there is some good there. I was praying just praying Warford made it there, apparently the Rams were too.

I wasn't as high on the Bailey pick as some are. I didn't hate the pick, just was ok with it.

Was absolutely shocked Barrett Jones was there in the 4th. No brainier.

I think the 5th round was pretty good.

What I love about the Rams is they move up to get guys they love. I would rather have 2 guys I really wanted than 7 guys I would be ok with.

 

[albefree69]

FRO wrote:
What I love about the Rams is they move up to get guys they love. I would rather have 2 guys I really wanted than 7 guys I would be ok with.

Possibly I would too. If I only had 2 or 3 holes I'd go with that strategy. With 7 holes I wouldn't agree with that strategy.

What I love about the Rams is that they move down to get the guys we need. Just like they did when they traded down three times last year and once this year. I didn't have any real problem with trading up for Stacy because we were below the 4th round.

So we have different strategies and I've seen both work so I'm glad you're happy with how it turned out. I'm very happy too. Would have liked to be ecstatic though. :yeh:

 

[Angry Ram]

Yeah but c'mon man...if you have 7 "holes" you're lucky if you can fill 4. Might as well make a "hole" a "strength" w/ the best player @ said "hole."

 

[-X-]

FRO wrote:
What I love about the Rams is they move up to get guys they love. I would rather have 2 guys I really wanted than 7 guys I would be ok with.

Possibly I would too. If I only had 2 or 3 holes I'd go with that strategy. With 7 holes I wouldn't agree with that strategy.

What I love about the Rams is that they move down to get the guys we need. Just like they did when they traded down three times last year and once this year. I didn't have any real problem with trading up for Stacy because we were below the 4th round.

So we have different strategies and I've seen both work so I'm glad you're happy with how it turned out. I'm very happy too. Would have liked to be ecstatic though. :yeh:

Well, unfortunately, every team has holes. I know it would be ideal to have 22 solid starters and 22 solid depth players, but that's just not realistic. As it turns out, we might only be weak in two spots total. That's not bad after completely purging the roster after the 2011 season, and it's certainly worth taking a gamble on getting elite talent to make a couple of positions really strong if you're only short in a couple of areas.

That's just the way these guys are gonna roll anyway. Taking highly athletic players with enormous upside, and then filling out the roster with coachable players who fit the scheme. Conversely, all fans have their preferred method of drafting and building the team, but in the end it's wise to defer to the way they're doing it while making sure they're following the course they themselves laid out in the beginning.

Which they are.

That said, I'll check my watch in 2016 and see where this team is, compared to how your scattered players are doing individually. :ww:

 

[albefree69]

Well that's a good point Angry but in my mind you can make 4 holes into strengths with 2 first rounders , 1 second rounder and 2 third rounders. That's having one of those high picks be a fail. Then you have Jones in the fourth round and you now got 5 holes filled instead of 4 (giving you Jones too :bg: ).

I like my math better than yours. It requires good picks but so does yours.

X added:
That said, I'll check my watch in 2016 and see where this team is, compared to how your scattered players are doing individually.

Well we're synchronized so that shouldn't be any problem. Plus you know we'll be dissecting this and every other draft multiple times in the future. :lol:

 

[Username]

Username not liking most of the draftees:

What did they give up though? Honestly? Like I said this draft didn't really have shyte. They gave up a 2nd and got back a 3rd. How many players taken in the 2nd round didn't have 3rd or later grades?

There was a handful of solid first rounders, the Rams made sure they got one of them. Considering what he brings to the table, I would say it's in an area of desperate need too.

I guess that would depend on your definition of very good players. I disagree that this draft didn't have shit. I don't consider Ogletree to be anthing but a very good player. I don't consider the player we would have chosen at #16 to be shyte either. Nor the pick we would have made at #48.

If you look at who I would have drafted you'll see who I thought we gave up. As for gaining the 3rd, we would have gained that with out sacrificing our 2nd rounder. I loved the trade dow with Dallas. That fits right in to my drafting philosophy.

look what's happening at safety. In my draft we got a top SS and FS. We have holes that I'd like to get filled. But there are other ways of doing it that's for sure.

We just have a difference of opinion on players. I can agree to disagree. Not like either one of us know shit, but it is fun to talk about hahahaha. I think there was only 2 1st round safety's in the draft. Varacco and Elam. I personally would've had no problem taking Elam instead of Ogletree. Either one would be set up to ball in this defense. Alec will do.

 

[albefree69]

Yeah, we had a very good draft.

 

[iced]

Austin was the creme of the crop when it comes to that separation between a "good decent player" and potentially an explosive playmaker. He may not be an larry fitzgerald or an andre johnson (there wasn't one in the draft), but he was without question the top receiver in the draft. a very dynamic player than can be used all over the field.

Austin to me was the difference between a great player and a good one, least thats how it looked at going into the draft.

 

[albefree69]

iced thinking Austin is great before he even plays a game:
Austin was the creme of the crop when it comes to that separation between a "good decent player" and potentially an explosive playmaker. He may not be an larry fitzgerald or an andre johnson (there wasn't one in the draft), but he was without question the top receiver in the draft. a very dynamic player than can be used all over the field.

Austin to me was the difference between a great player and a good one, least thats how it looked at going into the draft.

It's too early to judge this pick/draft. :ww:

I hope you're right because if you aren't we made a big mistake IMO.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

austin and ogletree already made this a great draft.

anyone else that contributes is just gravy.

.

 

[Thordaddy]

Tavon Austin ,two first names ,two picks, the math works

 

[LesBaker]

Austin needs to be as good as TWO high quality starters because that's what he cost us. There are very few players that are worth two high quality starters. I hope he's one of them but I have my doubts. I don't doubt that he'll be good, just not that good.

Well, that's impossible. No NFL player is as good as TWO high quality starters. Not even Peyton Manning. So I don't think you can quantify it like that. All he (Austin) needs to be is a very good receiver who boosts our offensive output, because that's where we were lacking (clearly) and he was the best rated receiver on the board. You can either go up and get him, or settle. SETTLE, being the operative word for this HC and GM. Because nobody else they scouted, visited, worked out, or interviewed, would have been as valuable to *this* offense, and to them, as Tavon Austin.

I do understand what you're saying if he doesn't work out, but still. Rarely do teams win Super Bowls by sitting back and settling for players they didn't otherwise covet in the draft, or losing out on free agents by not being aggressive suitors for players that could help the team exponentially.

Like Snead has said.....don't be afraid. He has proven he isn't and will make moves rather than sit still and take the pick.

 

[Angry Ram]

Well that's a good point Angry but in my mind you can make 4 holes into strengths with 2 first rounders , 1 second rounder and 2 third rounders. That's having one of those high picks be a fail. Then you have Jones in the fourth round and you now got 5 holes filled instead of 4 (giving you Jones too :bg: ).

I like my math better than yours. It requires good picks but so does yours.

Maybe, but in the end every draft is different. I'm in the same boat as you...I didn't want to see a trade up, but they did. It's not the end of the world and they had the ammo to do it.

Besides, just look at the history of draft picks...you're assuming that all picks will be hits i.e. "holes filled" but reality is all throughout the rounds are picks that will never amount to anything.

 

[albefree69]

Angry Ram making lots of sense:
Maybe, but in the end every draft is different. I'm in the same boat as you...I didn't want to see a trade up, but they did. It's not the end of the world and they had the ammo to do it.

Besides, just look at the history of draft picks...you're assuming that all picks will be hits i.e. "holes filled" but reality is all throughout the rounds are picks that will never amount to anything.

I agree with that and it's why I'm not panning this draft. I gave it a B+ and that's a damn good grade IMO. I just would have done it differently. Both methods can be very successful and both require making good choices on draft picks. I like my method better because I think the odds are in my favor. Trading up for Tavon only works if he turns out to be really great. Very good isn't enough when it cost you a 2nd round pick which, all things being equal, would equate to another very good player. But if Tavon does turn out to be really great (and durable) and we didn't trade up for him then we'd be kicking ourselves for the lost opportunity. Here's the other end of that, we have all lamented the waste of the pick we spent on Jason Smith. How wouod we feel if we had traded up, using our second rounder, to draft him?

Like I've said several times now, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Rabid Ram]

Maybe you should apply to be a gm albe lol

 

[Watercop]

I've always thought it was a pointless activity to try to judge the draft. It is no guarantee that anyone, even Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, (although it would have been nice to see) would flourish if the system they are drafted into doesn't fit what they do. Skill set must match scheme or it's just not going to bring out the best in either player or team results. The best you can hope for is to try and find the best player that fits what scheme you are trying to employ. I know a lot of people profess to wanting to draft only the "best player" or "filling a need", but if the player does not have what the organization wants out of the player, then it doesn't matter if he's the best, he's not going to perform to his capabilities, or to the teams needs.