Patterson

[jrry32]

I'm mainly going on production right now, but I see your point. I honestly think he's a better WR right now than Austin(regardless of today's passing game stats) and I think he'll become a very good WR when it's all said and done. I'm not sure I'd make that bet with Austin. I think he'll end up being pretty similar to Dexter McCluster. I expect WAY more from a player the Rams took 8th overall and gave up their 2nd round pick to boot.

Maybe we should be patient and see what Austin can offer. Especially when the offensive line isn't playing like junk and he's not playing with a 3rd string QB.

People jumped all over Brian Quick for two years and look how he started his third year. Patience, man, patience.

 

[ViperLjs]

Anyone want to complain about taking Donnie Avery over DeSean Jackson while we're at it? Bitching about it isn't going to change history. So you can spend the next few years complaining about the pick like people did with DeSean or you can just accept it and move on. I, for one, happen to think Tavon is a talented kid and I support him wholly.

Threads like these just seem stupid to me. What do you accomplish? If you're right, you're pouring salt in the wounds. If you're wrong, you're just crapping on a Rams player for no good reason.

I think it's fair to judge decisions like this. How well the front office manages the draft is probably the single most important factor in determining team success. Right now people are beginning to question the competency of the current regime, so naturally decisions like these will be put under the microscope.

 

[V3]

Maybe we should be patient and see what Austin can offer. Especially when the offensive line isn't playing like junk and he's not playing with a 3rd string QB.

People jumped all over Brian Quick for two years and look how he started his third year. Patience, man, patience.

I don't like waiting three years to get performance from top picks, especially when we trade two major picks for him. As I explained in a different thread, "by the time they start showing production, it's about time for a new contract. You need early production out of top picks while they're cheap if you want to get over the hump. The salary cap makes it imperative to have multiple first contract players performing well to go along with your high priced vets that are already performing. The reason I bring it up is due to how long it's taking for several other top picks to perform. This regime seems to not care about how long it takes for top picks to perform and it has me worried."

I didn't just make up that philosophy. I've heard it multiple times from football experts that know a lot more than any of us. I happen to agree with it. Look at the production Seattle has gotten out of their first contract players. That's what the Rams need if they ever want to make the playoffs. I'm nearing the end of my patience. This regime has had 3 years/drafts/FA periods to turn this around. I see the Seahawks with fewer picks at lower draft spots make just as many roster changes and become what looks like a dynasty. It isn't going to get any easier for the Rams. I haven't completely given up on Austin but I'm certainly not impressed and I won't be happy if it takes him three years to show anything.

 

[Dxmissile]

I don't like waiting three years to get performance from top picks, especially when we trade two major picks for him. As I explained in a different thread, "by the time they start showing production, it's about time for a new contract. You need early production out of top picks while they're cheap if you want to get over the hump. The salary cap makes it imperative to have multiple first contract players performing well to go along with your high priced vets that are already performing. The reason I bring it up is due to how long it's taking for several other top picks to perform. This regime seems to not care about how long it takes for top picks to perform and it has me worried."

I didn't just make up that philosophy. I've heard it multiple times from football experts that know a lot more than any of us. I happen to agree with it. Look at the production Seattle has gotten out of their first contract players. That's what the Rams need if they ever want to make the playoffs. I'm nearing the end of my patience. This regime has had 3 years/drafts/FA periods to turn this around. I see the Seahawks with fewer picks at lower draft spots make just as many roster changes and become what looks like a dynasty. It isn't going to get any easier for the Rams. I haven't completely given up on Austin but I'm certainly not impressed and I won't be happy if it takes him three years to show anything.

But he have shown things. This is only the first game in his second year. When Austin is used properly he is very dangerous. I understand what you are saying but you assume that Patterson would be doing the same if he played for the rams, but the fact is he wouldn't until schotty can call the plays that he ran today for Norv Turner this is a moot point. No matter what offensive player we draft as long as schotty is the play caller it's always going to be a should have game

 

[-X-]

Here's something to ponder.

What if Tavon was on the Vikings today and he was the beneficiary of the same plays?

 

[Athos]

Here's something to ponder.

What if Tavon was on the Vikings today and he was the beneficiary of the same plays?

Or rather......Having AP on our team instead. I think I'd take that.

 

[jrry32]

I don't like waiting three years to get performance from top picks, especially when we trade two major picks for him. As I explained in a different thread, "by the time they start showing production, it's about time for a new contract. You need early production out of top picks while they're cheap if you want to get over the hump. The salary cap makes it imperative to have multiple first contract players performing well to go along with your high priced vets that are already performing. The reason I bring it up is due to how long it's taking for several other top picks to perform. This regime seems to not care about how long it takes for top picks to perform and it has me worried."

I didn't just make up that philosophy. I've heard it multiple times from football experts that know a lot more than any of us. I happen to agree with it. Look at the production Seattle has gotten out of their first contract players. That's what the Rams need if they ever want to make the playoffs. I'm nearing the end of my patience. This regime has had 3 years/drafts/FA periods to turn this around. I see the Seahawks with fewer picks at lower draft spots make just as many roster changes and become what looks like a dynasty. It isn't going to get any easier for the Rams. I haven't completely given up on Austin but I'm certainly not impressed and I won't be happy if it takes him three years to show anything.

Well, it doesn't always happen that way. Doesn't much matter what you like. Players mature at their own pace. If Austin pans out with the Rams, it was a successful pick. Whether it was on your time schedule or not.

I think it's fair to judge decisions like this. How well the front office manages the draft is probably the single most important factor in determining team success. Right now people are beginning to question the competency of the current regime, so naturally decisions like these will be put under the microscope.

I think it's fair to judge decisions like this after a fair amount of time has passed. Rams fans have "judged" decisions like this to be errors or questionable for players like Robert Quinn, Chris Long, and Brian Quick before giving the player ample time to prove themselves. And thus far, they were wrong in two out of the three. We'll see if Quick keeps it up.

Have they been right before in doing so? Absolutely. But ultimately irrelevant. Because nothing was gained in them being right. They did, however, unfairly judge successful players because the demand for instant gratification.

 

[stano00]

Here's something to ponder.

What if Tavon was on the Vikings today and he was the beneficiary of the same plays?

As long as we have Schotty and they have Turner as OC, this thread would still be here. Just the names would be reversed

 

[-X-]

As long as we have Schotty and they have Turner as OC, this thread would still be here. Just the names would be reversed

That's kind of my point. Just because Patterson blew up today due to poor tackling on our part and good execution on theirs, doesn't mean we need to reevaluate which receiver we drafted. If Tavon is on their side, the results are likely the same. That doesn't make Tavon a bad player.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Tavon Austin is not a bad player at all. But, it's doubtful he'll ever compare favorably over a Patterson and Warford combination.

 

[Lesson]

Tavon Austin is not a bad player at all. But, it's doubtful he'll ever compare favorably over a Patterson and Warford combination.

Do you think an Austin + Ogltree combo> Patterson+ Warford?

 

[V3]

Well, it doesn't always happen that way. Doesn't much matter what you like. Players mature at their own pace. If Austin pans out with the Rams, it was a successful pick. Whether it was on your time schedule or not.
.


I think it's fair to judge decisions like this after a fair amount of time has passed. Rams fans have "judged" decisions like this to be errors or questionable for players like Robert Quinn, Chris Long, and Brian Quick before giving the player ample time to prove themselves. And thus far, they were wrong in two out of the three. We'll see if Quick keeps it up.

Have they been right before in doing so? Absolutely. But ultimately irrelevant. Because nothing was gained in them being right. They did, however, unfairly judge successful players because the demand for instant gratification.

There are varying levels of success. If the Rams continue to get that kind of return on their picks, they won't be winning the SB any time soon

 

[Memphis Ram]

Do you think an Austin + Ogltree combo> Patterson+ Warford?

Iffy so far. But, remember the Rams traded up for Austin. They could have had Patterson, Ogletree, & Warford.

 

[V3]

Do you think an Austin + Ogltree combo> Patterson+ Warford?

Ogletree isn't really relavent. He could have been the pick regardless. Warford would have been the 2nd round pick...the one they traded away.

 

[Lesson]

Iffy so far. But, remember the Rams traded up for Austin. They could have had Patterson, Ogletree, & Warford.

Edit: I'm very stupid haha. I could have sworn Warford went earlier. But there has to be a reason why he slid out of the 2nd right?

 

[V3]

Edit: I'm very stupid haha

Warford wasn't a first round pick.

Nm. You edited while I was typing.

 

[Lesson]

Warford wasn't a first round pick.

Nm. You edited while I was typing.

Yeah. I got confused. I remembered Long being a G the Rams were interested in and looked at and confused Warford for him.

 

[V3]

That's kind of my point. Just because Patterson blew up today due to poor tackling on our part and good execution on theirs, doesn't mean we need to reevaluate which receiver we drafted. If Tavon is on their side, the results are likely the same. That doesn't make Tavon a bad player.

I don't agree that Tavon would have done the same thing if he was on the Vikings. That big run by Patterson, he broke 6 or 7 tackles(Fox said 7 but it looked more like 6 to me). Tavon goes down on first contact due to his size.

 

[-X-]

I don't agree that Tavon would have done the same thing if he was on the Vikings. That big run by Patterson, he broke 6 or 7 tackles(Fox said 7 but it looked more like 6 to me). Tavon goes down on first contact due to his size.

Could be, but I didn't see any actual tackles. I saw some whiffs, but not tackling. And who's to say Austin doesn't get past those defenders way before Patterson did? That aside, are you saying my point isn't valid here? Are we going to disagree about whether or not he would have been tackled while ignoring the fact that the play was designed to get the guy in extreme open space .... and did?

 

[Force16X]

Or Hopkins.

If you're going to take a WR 8 overall, trading up for him no less, one who is 5'8, you GOTTA game plan competently with him. Shotty isn't one for that. Getting Austin involved was always going to be tough. Being creative helps.

Which is why Patterson would have been the better option. A superior return man by far. Both raw WRs.

Is what it is....I hope he explodes, but you have to game plan smartly for that.

who'd thunk that patterson could also have been our BEST running back as well ??