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.
Rams Draft - QUANTITY OVER QUALITY?
- Thread starter SeminoleRam
- 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.
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
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.
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.
Yes ... we're not saying different things here.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
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,
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
no he didn't, he just looked like a rookie.
who was mentored by jeff fisher and rob boreus. what hope did he have?
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bennett was the Rams target at QB not anybody else. No lunches were stolen.
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.
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.