Quick

[CoachO]

Not really. Quick had 18 receptions for 302 yards and 2 TDs, VJ had 27 rec for 453 yards and 6 TDs. The 6 TDs really stand out, imo.

Anyway, the statistics may be close, but that doesn't mean much to me. Quick is an eyesore for me on the field, just not much physicality to his game for someone who's size would suggest otherwise. When you combine that with rookie mistakes and a bad case of butterfingers, there's really just not much there for me to bet on. If he ever became half the receiver VJ has, I would be absolutely flabbergasted.

Thought you might find it interesting to see the STATS when it comes to Quick. Did you realize he had TWO dropped passes in 2013. Targeted 34 times for a drop % of 5.9%

You might also find it interesting that the guy that most around Rams country consider to be the "possession" receiver had 4 drops in 63 targets, for a 6.4% of drops. That would be Austin Pettis. Tavon Austin = 7 drops (10.1%) Cook = 6 drops (7.0%) Kendricks = 2 drops (4.4%)

http://www.sportingcharts.com/NFL/stats/drops/2013/

I guess I point this out, because I just don't understand the CONTINUED belief that Quick drops all these passes. And for those who think he wasn't improving, and the victim of the QB change, then you should try watching something other than the BALL when you watch the game.

Quick continually ran open, but because the majority of his routes were of the intermediate nature (14-18 yards down field) Clemens RARELY even looked at him. As much as Bradford gets chastised for being the "check down" king, Clemens in fact was even more "guilty" of it.

Quick's snap counts were WAY up this year, and he found ways to contribute to the offense even when NOT being targeted. I, for one, will continue to believe he can develop into the kind of physical receiver that Snead has said from the outset he can become. Regardless of his draft position.

 

[CGI_Ram]

He continues to progress.

Until that stops, I see no reason to put a limit on this guy yet.

 

[blackbart]

I'm not sure you understood what I said; that, or I don't get what you're saying. If Quick turns out to be a role player that gets around 600 yards or so each year, and the Rams still maintained that that's what they were expecting from him, then I'd argue they don't know what they're doing. If they honestly believed that getting mediocre production is good return for where Quick was taken, then I would lose all faith in them drafting a WR.

And your scenarios require a lot of "ifs". There's a reason they are "ifs". Stacey was clearly the best player at his position so he warranted the playing time. I'd be willing to bet Clemens(and Bradford, for that matter) didn't look Quick's way much because he didn't trust him.

And the reason his draft position is so significant is that when you miss on your top picks, it sets your franchise back. You can't miss on picks in the top two rounds- not in our division. Also, there are so many other players that I would have taken over him at the time(and I'm not just playing 20/20 hindsight) that are already helping their respective teams a great deal more than I believe Quick ever will. I already gave the Cordy Glenn example(whom I wanted at the time). He could be playing LT, RT, or even OG. The board seems to be in agreement that our O-line is one of our biggest weaknesses. Well, if the Rams had taken him, they could be looking at Watkins at #2 or Evans at #13 and not be as concerned about the O-line. If the Rams keep missing on their second round picks, they aren't going to win a Super Bowl unless they beat the averages in a major way by compensating with absolutely stellar picks later in the draft. Those don't happen much, though, which is why I don't count on them.

In my opinion we just have not seen enough of Quick to make a determination that Glenn or anyone else is helping their team more. The Rams were never going to be a two year turn around from the mess that was here when Snead and Fisher were hired. They have the biggest clean up maybe ever in the history of the NFL on their hands and have done an admirable job of turning over the roster and have been hitting on some big FAs and draft picks. So saying the Quick pick and where he was taken equate to them not knowing what they are doing discounts Givens, Austin, Bailey as luck??

Quick's first year was grad school he was barely on the field enough to be considered part of the roster and rightly so. This year just when he was starting to see some more targets and become part of the game plan Bradford went down. Was he still having some growing pains absolutely, does it mean he is a bust or that he will never improve heck no. He still has time left on his rookie contract and with an improved running game, Bradford back at the helm and a better O line (hopefully) he will have a chance to be a better producer. Is he going to be "a true #1" what ever the F that means? Probably not in this offense on this team, they don't want that scenario. They want 3 or 4 guys that can be the focus in any given game, ball distribution and the whole team producing.

It is time to look at the big picture for the Rams and that does not include at "true #1 WR"

 

[CoachO]

I'm not sure you understood what I said; that, or I don't get what you're saying. If Quick turns out to be a role player that gets around 600 yards or so each year, and the Rams still maintained that that's what they were expecting from him, then I'd argue they don't know what they're doing. If they honestly believed that getting mediocre production is good return for where Quick was taken, then I would lose all faith in them drafting a WR.

And your scenarios require a lot of "ifs". There's a reason they are "ifs". Stacey was clearly the best player at his position so he warranted the playing time. I'd be willing to bet Clemens(and Bradford, for that matter) didn't look Quick's way much because he didn't trust him.

And the reason his draft position is so significant is that when you miss on your top picks, it sets your franchise back. You can't miss on picks in the top two rounds- not in our division. Also, there are so many other players that I would have taken over him at the time(and I'm not just playing 20/20 hindsight) that are already helping their respective teams a great deal more than I believe Quick ever will. I already gave the Cordy Glenn example(whom I wanted at the time). He could be playing LT, RT, or even OG. The board seems to be in agreement that our O-line is one of our biggest weaknesses. Well, if the Rams had taken him, they could be looking at Watkins at #2 or Evans at #13 and not be as concerned about the O-line. If the Rams keep missing on their second round picks, they aren't going to win a Super Bowl unless they beat the averages in a major way by compensating with absolutely stellar picks later in the draft. Those don't happen much, though, which is why I don't count on them.

You and I see the draft differently. Obviously you view EACH and EVERY pick for what they are. I see the draft in its entirety. It's about adding PLAYERS that will contribute long term. For you to say they "don't know what they are doing" if Quick turns out to be something less that a #1 WR (another term i just don't get), then they missed on a "TOP PICK", but getting the production out of a 4th round pick in Givens or a 5th round pick in Stacy says what? There isn't a team in the history of the league that gets it right 100% of the time. But if you see the draft as a way of adding valuable pieces to the overall roster.

At the end of the day, in both drafts, they have added quality players that have contributed already to the growth of this franchise. They are TWO YEARS into the program of completely rebuilding this roster. They have come away with what looks like no less than 11 players (13 if you count Jones and Quick going into 2014) who have made significant contributions to this roster. I find it to be totally unrealistic to make any fair evaluations on ANY of the players they have drafted since Fisher and Snead have had the reigns.

 

[jjab360]

Thought you might find it interesting to see the STATS when it comes to Quick. Did you realize he had TWO dropped passes in 2013. Targeted 34 times for a drop % of 5.9%

You might also find it interesting that the guy that most around Rams country consider to be the "possession" receiver had 4 drops in 63 targets, for a 6.4% of drops. That would be Austin Pettis. Tavon Austin = 7 drops (10.1%) Cook = 6 drops (7.0%) Kendricks = 2 drops (4.4%)

http://www.sportingcharts.com/NFL/stats/drops/2013/

I guess I point this out, because I just don't understand the CONTINUED belief that Quick drops all these passes. And for those who think he wasn't improving, and the victim of the QB change, then you should try watching something other than the BALL when you watch the game.

Quick continually ran open, but because the majority of his routes were of the intermediate nature (14-18 yards down field) Clemens RARELY even looked at him. As much as Bradford gets chastised for being the "check down" king, Clemens in fact was even more "guilty" of it.

Quick's snap counts were WAY up this year, and he found ways to contribute to the offense even when NOT being targeted. I, for one, will continue to believe he can develop into the kind of physical receiver that Snead has said from the outset he can become. Regardless of his draft position.

If my memory is correct, Quick dropped three passes in the Carolina game alone. Something tells me that site is a little lenient on how they judge drops. Also, if Quick is always open and his hands are so great, how come he only catches 52% of his targets? Something's just not adding up here...

 

[CoachO]

If my memory is correct, Quick dropped three passes in the Carolina game alone. Something tells me that site is a little lenient on how they judge drops. Also, if Quick is always open and his hands are so great, how come he only catches 52% of his targets? Something's just not adding up here...

Targets are any pass that are thrown his direction. If the pass is overthrown or uncatchable it is still considered a target. Givens for example, only had 2 drops on 83 targets, with a 41% catch/target %.

I think your memory might not doing you justice. And please, spare me the sarcasm about him "always being open" in that is somehow an indicator of his target %. Kellen Clemens recognized his limitations, as simply was not going to look down field unless forced to by down and distance.

We can disagree as to the opinion of Quick, but the STATS are what they are. And if you look at the entire list from the link, the comparison to Vincent Jackson is still valid. The DROP % is very similar, but when you get the ball thrown to you 159 times, the NINE drops don't look so bad. Although it still works out to be 5.7% compared to Quick's 5.9%

Even you would have to agree, that once Clemens took over at QB, they threw the ball an average of less then 25 passes per game, and COMPLETED less than 15 per game. How is ANY WR going to put up any worthwhile numbers under those conditions?

 

[blackbart]

If my memory is correct, Quick dropped three passes in the Carolina game alone. Something tells me that site is a little lenient on how they judge drops. Also, if Quick is always open and his hands are so great, how come he only catches 52% of his targets? Something's just not adding up here...

Targets do not equal catchable balls.

 

[V3]

You and I see the draft differently. Obviously you view EACH and EVERY pick for what they are. I see the draft in its entirety. It's about adding PLAYERS that will contribute long term. For you to say they "don't know what they are doing" if Quick turns out to be something less that a #1 WR (another term i just don't get), then they missed on a "TOP PICK", but getting the production out of a 4th round pick in Givens or a 5th round pick in Stacy says what? There isn't a team in the history of the league that gets it right 100% of the time. But if you see the draft as a way of adding valuable pieces to the overall roster.

At the end of the day, in both drafts, they have added quality players that have contributed already to the growth of this franchise. They are TWO YEARS into the program of completely rebuilding this roster. They have come away with what looks like no less than 11 players (13 if you count Jones and Quick going into 2014) who have made significant contributions to this roster. I find it to be totally unrealistic to make any fair evaluations on ANY of the players they have drafted since Fisher and Snead have had the reigns.

That's not what I said at all. It's like you're intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.

Here's what I wrote:

"If Quick turns out to be a role player that gets around 600 yards or so each year, and the Rams still maintained that that's what they were expecting from him, then I'd argue they don't know what they're doing."

Either you didn't read it or you're trying to put words in my mouth. I can understand misreading something and making a mistake but I get pretty mad when people try and put words in my mouth when it's not what I said AT ALL.

 

[V3]

In my opinion we just have not seen enough of Quick to make a determination that Glenn or anyone else is helping their team more. The Rams were never going to be a two year turn around from the mess that was here when Snead and Fisher were hired. They have the biggest clean up maybe ever in the history of the NFL on their hands and have done an admirable job of turning over the roster and have been hitting on some big FAs and draft picks. So saying the Quick pick and where he was taken equate to them not knowing what they are doing discounts Givens, Austin, Bailey as luck??

Quick's first year was grad school he was barely on the field enough to be considered part of the roster and rightly so. This year just when he was starting to see some more targets and become part of the game plan Bradford went down. Was he still having some growing pains absolutely, does it mean he is a bust or that he will never improve heck no. He still has time left on his rookie contract and with an improved running game, Bradford back at the helm and a better O line (hopefully) he will have a chance to be a better producer. Is he going to be "a true #1" what ever the F that means? Probably not in this offense on this team, they don't want that scenario. They want 3 or 4 guys that can be the focus in any given game, ball distribution and the whole team producing.

It is time to look at the big picture for the Rams and that does not include at "true #1 WR"

We can definitely make a determination that Glenn is helping his team more. He's a starter. Quick isn't. Things can change but over the first two years, it's not even close.

Again, I never said that the Quick pick equates to them not knowing what they're doing. Read it again.

"If Quick turns out to be a role player that gets around 600 yards or so each year, and the Rams still maintained that that's what they were expecting from him, then I'd argue they don't know what they're doing."

I said if Quick turns out to be a mediocre player and the Rams still maintain(after they find out what he is) that that's what they were expecting from the pick, THEN I would lose faith in them picking a WR.

Also, I never said he was a bust. The very first post I made said I expected him to grow into a role player. I think it's horrible value but that doesn't equate to bust status. And my saying I expect him to become a role player should tell you that I think he can still grow. I just don't expect him to grow as much as the rest of you.

And to say the Rams don't want him to become a #1 ("they don't want that scenario") is pretty crazy, IMO. The very first thing they said about Quick was that they think he'll be like Vincent Jackson- who is a #1 WR. I also find it pretty funny that this is the only place where you'll find people asking what a #1 WR is like they've never heard the term before. Specifics can vary a litte(not that much) but everyone knows what a #1 WR is. Think Vincent Jackson, Green, Johnson, Fitz, Julio, Gordon, etc. They are all players that is the primary WR that opposing teams game plan for and put extra men on them and yet those WR's still put up big numbers every year. Torry Holt knows the term and even said he doesn't think Quick will be a #1. He's been working with him extensively so I trust his opinion more than anyone.

 

[MFaulk107]

I also think there is no reason for a vet presence. What we have now is going to be showing out real soon I feel.

 

[Ram Quixote]

Again, I never said that the Quick pick equates to them not knowing what they're doing. Read it again.

"If Quick turns out to be a role player that gets around 600 yards or so each year, and the Rams still maintained that that's what they were expecting from him, then I'd argue they don't know what they're doing."

I said if Quick turns out to be a mediocre player and the Rams still maintain(after they find out what he is) that that's what they were expecting from the pick, THEN I would lose faith in them picking a WR.

IOW, you laid out a far-fetched scenario, in which Snead and Fisher would admit they don't know how to draft a WR? To me, that sounds like you're more interested in the argument than the player.

 

[Penguin.]

That horrible drop in the Carolina game. Right through his hands. I like him though.

 

[BigRamFan]

The redskins

The 2 - 14 Redskins?

 

[BigRamFan]

Bears

The Bears that we dominated this year? Not trying to harsh your groove, I just think you're coming down a bit hard on our boy Killer Kel.

 

[ontilllit]

The Bears that we dominated this year? Not trying to harsh your groove, I just think you're coming down a bit hard on our boy Killer Kel.

Yes there back ups are better than clemens

 

[ontilllit]

The Bears that we dominated this year? Not trying to harsh your groove, I just think you're coming down a bit hard on our boy Killer Kel.

The back up for the bears was better than even there starter cutler in 2013. As far as clemens he did the best he could and has heart but hes not good throwing over 12 yards.

 

[BigRamFan]

Yes there back ups are better than clemens

I never said there weren't better back ups, just that, IMO, you were being a bit hard on him. My question was, how many teams are going to truly succeed if their starter is lost for a large portion of the season. I will freely admit that McCown outplayed Clemens this year but how many teams have back ups that are better than just serviceable? And, IMO, Clemens is serviceable.

 

[ontilllit]

I never said there weren't better back ups, just that, IMO, you were being a bit hard on him. My question was, how many teams are going to truly succeed if their starter is lost for a large portion of the season. I will freely admit that McCown outplayed Clemens this year but how many teams have back ups that are better than just serviceable? And, IMO, Clemens is serviceable.

We really dont kno. Some of these guys hasnt even been given a shot. look at kurt warner he wouldnt have gotten a shot if our starting qb didnt get injuried that year. Its like i said clemens has heart gives his all. I respect him for that.