NFL.com Ranks Rams RBs At 19th In League

[Prime Time]

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2015/6...-rankings-st-louis-rams-todd-gurley-tre-mason

2015 St. Louis Rams: NFL.com Ranks Rams RBs At 19th In League
By 3k  @3k_ on Jun 16, 2015

Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports

NFL Media's Mark Sessler ranked every running back corps in the league, and the Rams made the bottom half.

If there's a position the Rams are looking to take charge of, it's the running back.

Take note of how heavily they've invested in running backs in just the last four drafts:

NAME.....................POS....YEAR......ROUND...PICK (OVR)
Todd Gurley............RB......2015.........1...............10 (10)
Tre Mason...............RB......2014.........3...............11 (75)
Zac Stacy..................RB......2013.........5...............27 (160)
Isaiah Pead.............RB......2012.........2...............18 (50)
Daryl Richardson..RB......2012.........7...............45 (252)

That's significant draft capital to spend on a single position when you're trying to craft a playoff team out of a roster that, going back to that 2012NFL Draft timeframe, needed a lot of work.

So when NFL.com's Mark Sessler ranked the NFL running back units, you'd hope the Rams' young group would at least make the top half of the league.

Nope.

Sessler has them at 19th with this short writeup:

The Rams have a chance to leap up this list if Gurley blows up, but we need to see him fully healthy first. Mason was a versatile revelation down the stretch, but his touches are going to dip if Gurley delivers as expected.

There's a ton to quibble with on the list.

Philadelphia coming in at #1 above Seattle is a bit surprising, but I get Sessler's trying to project out rather than go off of 2014. Still, the Chargers are 12th overall despite being next to last in yards per carry a season ago. And swapping Ryan Matthews for Melvin Gordon doesn't seem to be a warranted reason to have them seven slots above the Rams.

And the Colts a slot above them at #11 just seems to be asking a lot out of Frank Gore for a 32-year old workhorse back. On the other hand, watch the Cowboys down at 26. That offensive line is going to make that unit look much better than people are slotting it at right now.

In any case, it's a fair estimation of where the Rams sit on the national radar:

Meh.

 

[RAGRam]

The Rams have a chance to leap up this list if Gurley blows up, but we need to see him fully healthy first. Mason was a versatile revelation down the stretch, but his touches are going to dip if Gurley delivers as expected.

So Mason was a "revelation" but he's going to be supplanted by someone better...which is a bad thing? Did I understand that right?

 

[JackDRams]

I saw this yesterday. Was too pissed to post it. They don't even take into account depth. They have numerous teams ahead of us, with one good back. And a few of them aren't even better then our current starter.

 

[shovelpass]

So Mason was a "revelation" but he's going to be supplanted by someone better...which is a bad thing? Did I understand that right?

It's a BS ranking system. It's supposedly ranked solely on RB backfields and yet the shehawks are #2 because of Lynch and Wilson.

 

[JackDRams]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000496901/article/ranking-nfl-backfields-from-no-1-to-32

If you check out the full list, my opinion is we should come in at 11. And that's only because Gurley hasn't played yet.

 

[jap]

Gurley Man: "Somebody doesn't have a whole ton of faith in us, that's for sure!!!"

 

[Rmfnlt]

Clearly, it's not assuming anything regarding Gurley.

That being the case, yeah... 19th.

As soon as Gurley shows he can do what the media says he can do? The Rams jump up considerably.

 

[jap]

Clearly, it's not assuming anything regarding Gurley.

That being the case, yeah... 19th.

As soon as Gurley shows he can do what the media says he can do? The Rams jump up considerably.

Not just Gurley but our former lackluster OL's. However, who the hell cares what the damn pundits say? We will achieve our proper ranking the old fashion way---by earning it!!!

 

[DaveFan'51]

After Gurley's 1st step on the field we'll be in the Top 10. then we go up after he gets going!!

 

[Leuzer]

2015 St. Louis Rams: NFL.com Ranks Rams RBs At 19th In League

 

[-X-]

It's June, so ranking anything is a moving target. In this exercise, proven veterans earn more points than newbies yet to play. We also factored in strong offensive lines and quarterbacks who can hurt you on the ground.

I don't like it, but it seems fair (for now). Unless or until we know how effective Foles can be, we can only speculate about how effective our run game is going to be. If our passing game struggles, again, then we're not going to be all that scary on the ground. But if the passing game gets going, and we pull out some early leads, then it'll be pretty hard to stop our RBs. Especially if the O-line, who was specifically selected for their run blocking, can get going early.

Lotta ifs though.

Only thing we can do is go out and prove the guy wrong.
So, <bookmarked>.

 

[dbrooks25]

So Mason was a "revelation" but he's going to be supplanted by someone better...which is a bad thing? Did I understand that right?

That's what I thought I read as well. LMAO

 

[Robocop]

So Mason was a "revelation" but he's going to be supplanted by someone better...which is a bad thing? Did I understand that right?

thank you. just another "sports writer" talking out his ass

 

[brokeu91]

 

[shaunpinney]

Super-duper-dumb-ass article.

Surely you should just look at last years rushing yards + TDs scored and pull together your conclusion from that. You can't really rank players on new teams yet, same goes for rookies, you just don't know how they're going to perform on a new team - it's just a black art my friend...

If they're looking at depth of RBs, then you should consider the drop off in production if your #1 RB is off the field, Seattle and the Vikings would be screwed (IMO).

I bet the RBs for Gang Green are mightily pissed off this morning, the were #3 in rushing yards last year, but somehow they're down at #20... ohh well

 

[Memphis Ram]

 

[RamzFanz]

So Mason was a "revelation" but he's going to be supplanted by someone better...which is a bad thing? Did I understand that right?

How could we word this to make any sense?

Mason was really good last season but Gurley may be better so the Rams suck at running?

The Rams move down the list because their two good running backs cancel each other out?

Gurly may steal the show AP fashion outshining a good RB so I'm downgrading them?

What? It just... what?

 

[Back Jlack]

Hopefully Gurley gives motivation to our RB's to do more, especially with less playing time once gurley gets healthy