Rams Draft - QUANTITY OVER QUALITY?

[majrleaged]

Agree but two points to consider.

The Rams only had 44 players on their roster entering the Draft. They could add 30 more with their selections and undrafted free agents signed right after the Draft, and still only have 74 players and be well under (by 16) the 90-man-limit.

The other point is that the most attractive undrafted players typically agree to terms within a short time after the Draft. Sometimes within hours. If the Rams are serious about using the undrafted-free-agent-route to upgrade the roster, they will have to move quickly this evening and tomorrow.

I'm not predicting they add 46 players by tomorrow to get to 90. However, I do think it will be at least 25-30.

The fact that the rams have a lot of holes, have a great reputation of coaching up and are in LA,will make them very desirable landing spot for UDFA.

 

[OldSchool]

Agree but two points to consider.

The Rams only had 44 players on their roster entering the Draft. They could add 30 more with their selections and undrafted free agents signed right after the Draft, and still only have 74 players and be well under (by 16) the 90-man-limit.

The other point is that the most attractive undrafted players typically agree to terms within a short time after the Draft. Sometimes within hours. If the Rams are serious about using the undrafted-free-agent-route to upgrade the roster, they will have to move quickly this evening and tomorrow.

I'm not predicting they add 46 players by tomorrow to get to 90. However, I do think it will be at least 25-30.

McVay knows your two points and still says what he says. I get the roster size issue people have. But they know these issues and these points and still say they won't rush to 90 players. Which you seemed to agree with on your two points

 

[snackdaddy]

Yup, they went with quantity. Quality is yet to be determined. I say lets revisit this draft in two or three years. Don't get too worked up if these guys aren't what you thought when the season starts. Unless you're a first round immediate impact type player its gonna take time. Maybe just in time for the 2024 season. Which is when they think they will have the resources to compete again.

 

[Flatlyner]

We could probably get Malik Willis for a 5th...

Just a thought

I'd rather have Hall or Tune honestly. Willis was scary bad when given snaps last year. So much so that they signed a street FA to start games for them with Tannehill was hurt and just drafted Willis' replacement because he was that bad.

 

[Ram Ts]

I think Willis might make McVay consider retirement -- he'd drive him crazy. Does not seem his his kind of QB. I think they will draft a guy today.

 

[Allen2McVay]

McVay knows your two points and still says what he says. I get the roster size issue people have. But they know these issues and these points and still say they won't rush to 90 players. Which you seemed to agree with on your two points

Yes ... we're not saying different things here.

As you posted earlier, the Rams will 'likely end up 5-10 short' of the 90

If the Rams add 25-30 players this weekend, as I suggest they will, their roster will still be well-under 90,

 

[LA_Rams_#29]

I'd rather have Hall or Tune honestly. Willis was scary bad when given snaps last year. So much so that they signed a street FA to start games for them with Tannehill was hurt and just drafted Willis' replacement because he was that bad.

Goff looked terrible before McVay

 

[Corbin]

Goff looked terrible before McVay

That’s a bad bad way to look at it.

Some people just don’t have it.

 

[LA_Rams_#29]

That’s a bad bad way to look at it.

Some people just don’t have it.

It's bad to look st McVay as a great developer of QB talent?

It's a moot point now that we drafted Bennett, but the Rams liked Willis last year and just because he didn't shine as a rookie in minimal opportunities with a franchise that hasn't developed a qb since Steve McNair doesn't mean he doesn't have the talent everyone saw before he was drifted

 

[Merlin]

Willis was taken by a team desperate to upgrade at QB. And they just took another QB. He's a bust.

 

[muggmeister]

It's bad to look st McVay as a great developer of QB talent?

It's a moot point now that we drafted Bennett, but the Rams liked Willis last year and just because he didn't shine as a rookie in minimal opportunities with a franchise that hasn't developed a qb since Steve McNair doesn't mean he doesn't have the talent everyone saw before he was drifted

We had Willis on roster the last 2 years, he was AKA Bryce Perkins.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Goff looked terrible before McVay

no he didn't, he just looked like a rookie.

who was mentored by jeff fisher and rob boreus. what hope did he have?

.

 

[LA_Rams_#29]

no he didn't, he just looked like a rookie.

who was mentored by jeff fisher and rob boreus. what hope did he have?

.

Malik Willis looked like a rookie last year too. That's my point.

 

[FarNorth]

I will say there is evidence they would have taken Hooker at 69. Brad Holmes traded just in front of us, he doesn't do that without a reason and he definitely still has someone in the building/knows us well enough to know what we were going to do. There was also a lot of pre-draft smoke as well, that usually doesn't come from nowhere.

On top of that, we immediately traded down after he was picked.

Not a massive loss, but I feel like we need to start getting more proactive at the QB position. I love Stafford but it wasn't pretty last year and the sun's getting real low...

Holmes stole Snead's lunch and ate it. Hooker would have been a significant addition for the Rams.

My personal view is that he may be the best qb in the 2023 draft. Accurate, outstanding downfield passer, barely throws any INTs. Needs to learn a pro offense, but he's got the ability to do it.

 

[PhillyRam]

Yup, they went with quantity. Quality is yet to be determined. I say lets revisit this draft in two or three years. Don't get too worked up if these guys aren't what you thought when the season starts. Unless you're a first round immediate impact type player its gonna take time. Maybe just in time for the 2024 season. Which is when they think they will have the resources to compete again.

Next yr they will have 11 or more picks again...next yr might be the yr to move up for 3 or 4 specific high floor, high ceiling players, to add to what should be an active FA class.

This yr it was about filling out a roster and finding key role players and a few potential foundational guys.

 

[Turducken]

Maybe 12 of these guys make the team.
Maybe 7 have significant playing time next year.
Maybe 5 are still around after two seasons.
Maybe 3 sign extensions.

I'm counting next year as a development season. I don't expect to make the playoffs, so the difference between getting 5 wins and 7 wins is sorta negligable.

I expect some of our (eleven!) day 3 guys will work out. Quantity (plus playing time) will reveal quality.

 

[OldSchool]

Holmes stole Snead's lunch and ate it. Hooker would have been a significant addition for the Rams.

My personal view is that he may be the best qb in the 2023 draft. Accurate, outstanding downfield passer, barely throws any INTs. Needs to learn a pro offense, but he's got the ability to do it.

Bennett was the Rams target at QB not anybody else. No lunches were stolen.

 

[PhillyRam]

Holmes stole Snead's lunch and ate it. Hooker would have been a significant addition for the Rams.

My personal view is that he may be the best qb in the 2023 draft. Accurate, outstanding downfield passer, barely throws any INTs. Needs to learn a pro offense, but he's got the ability to do it.

Oh please...if they were really high on Hooker they take him at 36, or trade back in round 2 and take him.

They traded back from 69 because they wanted to fill that "black hole" they spoke of with no picks between 77 & 167. So they traded back a few times to fill that gap.

 

[FarNorth]

Oh please...if they were really high on Hooker they take him at 36, or trade back in round 2 and take him.

They traded back from 69 because they wanted to fill that "black hole" they spoke of with no picks between 77 & 167. So they traded back a few times to fill that gap.

I admit to some artistic license… and agree the Rams were eyeing Bennett... but taking a qb at no. 36 would have been a disaster for the Rams roster building program. No. 69 is another matter. Hooker wasn’t expected to fall that far.
Would the Rams have taken him? Don’t know, but he would have been a terrific pick as a possible starting QB after Stafford.

 

[Merlin]

Holmes stole Snead's lunch and ate it. Hooker would have been a significant addition for the Rams.

I think Hooker is a bit of a project. I don't see full reads consistently on his film like with Bennett. Bennett is much more likely to be able to play if we need him. Hooker is really talented and I love his throws, love his arm, the guy is a fucking assassin but QBs look a lot different when they're thinking in real time. I don't think he would have been what we need, which is a year one backup. He'd be a futures pick.