Long is a long way from finished, I just don't see the need to strengthen what is already the team's biggest strength over taking a payer who would strengthen a weaker position.
NFL Network analyst Bucky Brooks on Rams #2 pick
- Thread starter Prime Time
- Start date
-
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.
I generally subscribe to this theory as well, but I've reconsidered my position WRT pass rush/rushers. I want a relentless pass rush. I still see a clean pocket for passers too often. The NFC west dictates having athletic pass rushers than can corral Kaep and Wilson. Clowney fits that bill.
actually the Rams are one of the few teams that have kept those 2 in check for the most part.
Quick wasn't an early 1st round pick though. He was an early 2nd rounder. He was never expected to be an instant #1. He was a promising project that COULD turn into #1.
Even if we draft Watkins, Quick or someone else COULD still step up. Then that makes what's been a weakness on our team into a very scary strength.
But you could honestly go the "What if he doesn't pan out?" route with ANY pick. What if Matthews/Robinson don't pan out? Then not only did we pick a bust, we picked a bust at a position that was not a need. (I know you'll argue that, but again, early 1st round, you're drafting for LEFT TACKLE. Any other position, you get later. And we have a left tackle that we paid big money for already.)
Much better avatar. That Jeruh one would have been very hard to look at.I can say the same thing for every other position in football including Left Tackle.
You CAN get Left Tackles later, but that's not what I was saying.I can say the same thing for every other position in football including Left Tackle.
I was saying that there are only certain positions you draft in the first round, particularly early on or else you get looked at as horribly reaching.
The only OL position on the early 1st round list is Left Tackle. Which we already have. Hence (and I know I'm indulging in the table pounding I spoke out against), I don't see us going offensive line with that first pick.
I fully agree the other positions need help. What I would do is trade back for extra 2nd round picks, pick up a T and a G in the 2nd, and resign Saffold if possible. (I mentioned in another thread that I would sign him to a non exclusive franchise tag so if some other team really wants him, they can give us a draft pick for him.)
I could be wrong, but I only see that first pick being a Tackle if the Rams are convinced that he's a future Hall of Famer. And I don't hear that kind of confidence in the tackles outside of this forum.
If you were talking about the top 5, I'd say you have a point. You can draft any full time position in the first round. Hell, we saw two guards go top 10 last year and I didn't hear people claiming reach.
But Jake Matthews or Greg Robinson don't stop being a Left Tackle(in terms of talent level) if they play OG for a year or two. The reason why LTs go high is because they have a skill-set that is in demand. It's scarce. It's not because their position is so extraordinarily more valuable on the field. Once you start playing, the LT is really no more important than the LG.
A franchise tag for Saffold is around $11,000,000 in 2014. We can't afford that.
I'd take talent where I can get it. And trading back is always easier said than done. Gotta have someone worth trading up for and have enough demand for the pick. Plus, the further you drop, the smaller your probability gets that you hit on your pick. I'm fine with drafting OLs in the 2nd. I'm fine with drafting them in the 1st. I draft value where it's available. It's what I believe in doing.
Other than playing Matthews or Robinson out of position, are there guards with a first round grade? We're probably going to need at least one, and a lot of people seem to like David Yankey in the 2nd.
I've heard some people doubt they would be good guards. And to a certain degree you mess up a player's development when you play him at one position hoping to eventually switch him to another. On the other hand, if he's really good at Guard or Right Tackle, it's hard to move him, and yeah, you may have a good player at that position, but you used an early 1st round pick on a position that shouldn't have one.
I'd rather have a day one competitor in the position he's going to play forever UNLESS there's a huge talent differential.
Is that even at the lesser priced non-exclusive level? Dang.
We might not get the value we did in 2012, but we're going to trade back unless Snead is totally incompetent. There's 3 highly rated QBs and 1 highly rated DE. Houston, or whoever they trade that pick to, can only take one of them.
Zack Martin is the only one I can think of. Su'a-Filo and Yankey are on the borderline.
I don't agree. If anything, it's probably easier as an OL to be eased into things at a position like OG. Allows you to get the experience, NFL weight training, playbook and everything else that guys struggle with as rookies without as much pressure on you.
And again, I disagree with the idea that you shouldn't have used an early 1st round pick on a guy that's a great OG or RT(great enough that you don't want to move him to LT). 60% of the picks in the first round typically don't ever become quality starters. They either are busts, role players or mediocre/average starters. So I think you're successful if you come away with a good/great full time starter.
I don't really see how that's applicable. If the guy is a day one starter at any position, you've done well for yourself because most rookies aren't ready to start right away.
Yea, it is. They average the entire OL instead of just OTs or just OGs or just Cs. So you get the top 10 contracts among ALL OLs.
Obviously...if Clowney isn't the pick. But when we do trade back...lets say we have Matthews or Robinson as the best talent...we should pass on them because they wouldn't play LT immediately? Seems like a mistake to me.
We're obviously not going to agree, and you could be right. And neither of us have a vote anyway. But let me respond to this.
*IF* they have Matthews/Robinson rated higher, and that's a big if, it comes down to this for me:
If they're WAY higher than Watkins, then yes, pick them.
If not, pick Watkins. I think the best philosophy is BPA informed by Need, and LT just isn't a need. You could even argue TACKLE isn't a need (though we could use a backup behind Long and Barksdale). Guards and possibly center is a need. You get those later. If Watkins is in at least the same neighborhood, then I feel it's a mistake not to pick him.
But we'll see what Snead thinks. We know Fisher historically has not gotten offensive linemen with high picks, and we know we have a very good OL coach who can coach people up.
Also, we can get a FA RT (tee hee) and between him, Long and Barksdale be good to go. We can't get a #1 WR in free agency.
*IF* they have Matthews/Robinson rated higher, and that's a big if, it comes down to this for me:
If they're WAY higher than Watkins, then yes, pick them.
If not, pick Watkins. I think the best philosophy is BPA informed by Need, and LT just isn't a need. You could even argue TACKLE isn't a need (though we could use a backup behind Long and Barksdale). Guards and possibly center is a need. You get those later. If Watkins is in at least the same neighborhood, then I feel it's a mistake not to pick him.
But we'll see what Snead thinks. We know Fisher historically has not gotten offensive linemen with high picks, and we know we have a very good OL coach who can coach people up.
Also, we can get a FA RT (tee hee) and between him, Long and Barksdale be good to go. We can't get a #1 WR in free agency.
LT isn't a need...well...it sort of is. Sort of isn't. But the interior is. Which Matthews and Robinson can play. You can get a WR later too.
You're right, we probably won't agree.