Rams might have NFL's least-experienced O-line/PD

[Memphis Ram]

Yes the Rams chose the "bird in the hand" theory. I personally do not believe it was "likely" Havenstein was gone. I would agree that the Titans might take him at #100, but probably not #66.

After they selected Poutasi??

 

[Fatbot]

After they selected Poutasi??

That's one way to look at it, the other way is it's possible Tenn chose Poutasi so early because the Rams taking Havenstein so early forced them to take a tackle a round earlier than they wanted: "With the Rams taking Rob Havenstein already, who I really thought would and should be there for pick #100, tackle shifted from a priority to a must, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Poutasi was the next player on the list".

 

[Akrasian]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is it's possible Tenn chose Poutasi so early because the Rams taking Havenstein so early forced them to take a tackle a round earlier than they wanted: "With the Rams taking Rob Havenstein already, who I really thought would and should be there for pick #100, tackle shifted from a priority to a must, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Poutasi was the next player on the list".

Or maybe we believe the local reporter, who said that they were looking hard at Havenstein, who really impressed teams with his pass blocking at the Senior Bowl - and that the Titans were strongly considering taking Havenstein with their next pick.

It is at least possible that the Rams had some inkling of which teams were considering which players, and sometimes when. Especially since the Rams do have Titan connections.

 

[Alan]

junkman with this:
Respectfully, JTs criticism is still off even with what you are saying. If JT wanted to make the points you're making, that building a team with a run-heavy focus is the wrong approach, he should have made those points. But that's not what he did.

JT KNOWS (as we all do) that the Rams are building for a run-heavy offense, and then criticizes them for getting pieces chosen specifically for a run heavy offense. Again, it's disingenuous.
If JT disagrees with the strategy, he should disagree with the strategy.

As usual I have a couple of thoughts.

First and most importantly I have no problem with you disagreeing with what he's saying or even pointing out that he isn't taking things into consideration things you feel he should have. What I have a problem with is this:

"There's better journalistic integrity in spending the time trying to explain what the Rams did within the context of what they are trying to do."

Was that necessary? Did it add something to our discussion of who we picked in the draft?

I read what he wrote and I saw nothing disingenuous about anything he said. All I read is that he has misgivings about the direction that Snisher is taking us and questioning some of his actions. He did exactly what you thought he should have done except that instead of saying something was wrong and he disagreed with it he merely pointed out some inconvenient facts (in his mind) that he thinks Fisher is either glossing over, minimizing or hasn't even considered.

I completely disagree with this: "the Rams are building for a run-heavy offense, and then criticizes them for getting pieces chosen specifically for a run heavy offense"

Now I can disagree with you in many ways but I'll give you two examples.

You're wrong about that. You're being disingenuous when you ignore the fact that the Rams need O-line players who excel in a power blocking running scheme and who are more than adequate as pass blockers. One dimensional O-line players can usually be gotten in the later rounds because they aren't complete players, aren't versatile and if your scheme fails or changes you're fucked.

OR

Is it smart to draft a player who only fits one scheme and can't handle his secondary duties like pass blocking very well? Havenstein is a mauler but is his pass blocking good enough for the times when we need him to pass block? I guess time will tell the story. Is it fair to say that we could have gotten one dimensional players later in the draft?

Which of those two would you rather have heard from me? If it was just you and I talking about this over a beer or two I'd use the first example. If I'm talking about what you said in front of you and a large group of people I'd for sure use the second example.

I think you're letting your personal opinion of him color everything he says. Can you point out a specific statement in his article that is disingenuous and not just one you disagree with?

 

[Ram65]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is it's possible Tenn chose Poutasi so early because the Rams taking Havenstein so early forced them to take a tackle a round earlier than they wanted: "With the Rams taking Rob Havenstein already, who I really thought would and should be there for pick #100, tackle shifted from a priority to a must, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Poutasi was the next player on the list".

Your grasping here. So the Rams started a run on OTs.

It's easy to say the Rams should have waited to take Havenstein because you have nothing to loose.

 

[Alan]

Robocop keeping it in state:
ill answer that last question. Yes they can. Look at Kansas City. the Rams are a much better team than them. We may not have a Jamaal Charles (or do we now...) but run heavy is still very viable in todays NFL. Ask Peyton what happened last year when he tried throwing the ball 50 times against us.

You just gave two examples of why I don't think it can be "very effective," Especially over the long run.

In reverse order:

You're example of what happened with Peyton is why you need to be football centric and not run or pass centric to meet my criteria. Had Denver possessed a more balanced offense they might have prevailed.

What has the Bungles offense done for them? Have they even made it past the first round of the playoffs much less won the SB with it?

If your a run centric offense and you're playing against a team whose defensive strength is stopping the run what happens?
If you're a pass centric team and it's pouring down rain what happens?

You have a much better chance to prevail under varying conditions and circumstances if you have a balanced offense because it gives you a chance to prevail in most situations.

Can you win without one? Sure but the odds aren't in your favor. A point that Wagoner made when he pointed out that there has been three teams in fairly recent history who accomplished a SB victory without balance.

 

[FrantikRam]

What's the argument here, that our rookie OL can't pass block well? We don't know that, so why not wait until we do?

And as far as JT's point, I would say that watching an OL struggle that you know is only going to get better, is MUCH better than watching an OL struggle that you know will be getting worse.....which was the position we were in last year.

 

[FrantikRam]

Who says we're not balanced? Every team, even balanced ones, have an identity. That's all we're going for here.

 

[Memphis Ram]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is it's possible Tenn chose Poutasi so early because the Rams taking Havenstein so early forced them to take a tackle a round earlier than they wanted: "With the Rams taking Rob Havenstein already, who I really thought would and should be there for pick #100, tackle shifted from a priority to a must, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Poutasi was the next player on the list".

I'm curious. Did all of the other players drafted get selected where you thought they would be selected?

 

[Alan]

Athos thinking about trying the lottery:
Being worse would be an incredible feat.

I'd hate to find out if that's actually possible. :eek:

 

[ramsince62]

A couple of things here:

First of all, this isn't just JT making comments like this. Most of the Rams/NFC West dedicated reporters are saying the same thing. Nick Wagoner just made the same type of comments as JT did here but was even more sceptical. Commenting about the reporter instead of what he's reporting adds nothing to the discussion of this issue IMO. So rather than continue to talk about the reporter I'll address what JT and you are saying about concerning this issue.

1) There is no longer that glaring difference between a LT and a RT in the NFL IMO. The difference is only in degree and potential damge to your QB that can result from a botched assignment. Yes, the LT still usually plays against the other teams best edge rusher but with the huge focus on getting to the passer teams are now making a real concerted effort to have an equally effect pass rush from the left side too. You'll always have your best pass block defender at LT because of the potential damage a blind side hit can can inflict upon your QB but that's becoming more and more the only real difference between the two positions IMO. With much less reliance upon the run you need a RT who can pass block very effectively almost as much as you need him to run block very effectively. That is trending more in that direction every year IMO.

2) The Rams will need to be able to field a "pass effective" offense when they get behind or they will never be successful. So while we might concentrate on the run more than other teams, we need to be very effective in our passing game too. We've all seen what happens when their passing game is an after thought and the defenses put 12 in the box.

3) In my mind you're setting the table incorrectly. What I would say is that if the Rams picked OL that can't run block effectively and pass block effectively no scheme will be very effective in the long run. Since you seem to be biased against anything that JT says I'll paraphrase some of what Nick Wagoner said about this issue. In the past 15 years or so only three teams have won the big one without a very good passing attack and are those the odds you want to try and overcome? Can a run centric offense be very effective in today's NFL? The jury is still out.

x 100

 

[ramsince62]

On a list of 100 pundits, 100 being the worst, I place Pres. Obama at 101, then comes Wagoner, JT, and Gordon!!

Just as long as you have Obozo, first!

 

[LACHAMP46]

ahhh, football to end my day...bliss, pure bliss

There is no longer that glaring difference between a LT and a RT in the NFL

I wanted to say this so many times the last few days...but this is so true...they are virtually the same, or rather they NEED to be the same type of player...That Houston guy in KC confirms that...ask JB

It is one thing to have "a" rookie on the line, the veterans on either side can correct/help that single player, they better know what to do if he blows an assignement for instance. Multiple rookies means erros are more likley to multiply or compound on each other.

I was hoping to spread them around...I mean we don't have to start them both on the right side, do we?

both Foles and Mannion is that they can throw an accurate deep ball.

Pretty nice, with time to throw...They must fear the run, and play-action has to be effective.....

the huge piece of "overdraft" people are glossing over is the opportunity cost of the overdraft in terms of picking options.

Biggest reason I've been bitching and moaning...you lose something, rather you lose the opportunity, the chance to draft ANOTHER player, that could be better, and could possibly still draft the over-drafted player (in this case Havenstein) later....But I read about the Titans interest, so maybe Snisher did the right thing.
JT & Wagoner are just stating what a bunch of people are thinking, nothing more....And trust me, those guys want the Rams to succeed just as bad, maybe more, than most casual fans...Of course, most of us here are not casual...
I would like to see them play before I claim any starters, the kid outta Fresno can moved, Brown can to. That should be a huge battle. I have watch Donnell, perhaps 4 games..I was always looking at Scherff, then I noticed him...I was convinced he could play in the senior bowl...Havenstein too, then I let a thing I have about body styles sway me...But I should know, it's not what you look like in you jersey, but what do you look like on the field...
Almost forgot, the number one things teams need to strive for is balance. Run first, run centric...Fisher wants to be able to run, when the opponent knows it. When it's 3rd and 2...Goal line offense. 4 minute offense...There's never been a team run 60% of the time in this passing era. It should fluctuate 48%-52% in either way...And like NE showed, have the ability to attack any weakness, be it run or pass....Austin Davis had success....because teams loaded the box. If Foles sees a loaded box, I hope he's able to audible and hit Quick, Tavon, Britt, or Cooks with something quick, if not, we'll still be in trouble.
All of our backups should be scared to death and know that their time is coming to an end if they can't play...Should be a great camp...Guarantee I'll be at Oxnard one weekend. Hope to see some of you there...I'll try and be a Coach0 or Hammer, LOL....

 

[drasconis]

I was hoping to spread them around...I mean we don't have to start them both on the right side, do we?

Good lord I hope they avoid that, but even still - while not "rookies" have any of our Centers played more than a few snaps in regular season games? Right now it looks like 3 new starters on the line, three guys with limited real NFL game experience. Even if you split up veterans they are going to be spread thin helping out.

Reminds me of a place a I worked years ago, decided to expand a manufacturing operation and debated between our major factory and a small facility we had elsewhere. If they had added to the maor facility it would have been 100 guys teaching 50 new guys but they decided on the smaller facility where it was 30 guys training 120 new guys...you can imagine how the first few years went....

 

[kurtfaulk]

Which is why you should shoot for a balanced attack. If you achieve that you'll always have a chance to win no matter what the circumstances are. I cringe every time I hear the phrase "run centric attack."

That doesn't mean you shouldn't draft supporting players that play to your strengths.

um - foles, britt, quick, austin, bailey, cook, kendriks

that looks like alot of support. remember the rams just need an actual qb to stay healthy. 23 games with backups behind centre would crush any team.

and before anyone mentions warner again, he is clearly not a backup qb, he is a hof qb. clemens, hill and davis are the epitome of what a back up qb looks and plays like for any long period of time.

.

 

[kurtfaulk]

There's no certainty to a draft, but given his universal label as a late rounder, it's likely that Havenstein would have still been available at pick #72. So the Rams could have drafted AJ Cann -- or Marpet or even Poutasi -- at #57, then picked Havenstein next. By overdrafting, they in essence chose Jamon Brown over a better rated potential starting G.

you're looking at it the wrong way. it's obvious they wanted havenstein more than cann. they weren't willing to lose out on him but were on cann. what does that tell you?

after the wagner fiasco (which ruined a great trade down with the cowboys) they weren't going to lose a player they wanted again, especially when they knew another team had high interest in said player and that team was picking before them in the next round.

.

 

[Alan]

kurtfaulk reading me out of context:
um - foles, britt, quick, austin, bailey, cook, kendriks

that looks like a lot of support. remember the rams just need an actual qb to stay healthy. 23 games with backups behind centre would crush any team.

Sorry kf, that comment about support players was directed towards my earlier comment about balance and not a comment on what Snisher has done in that area. I just wanted to add that while balance is great you should always be flexible in your approach. Meaning you also need to get players who will allow your stars (if you have any) to shine. Balance should always be in the back of your mind though.

 

[Fatbot]

Seems like if some people here had the first pick in a fantasy baseball draft and really liked Matt Carpenter, they would draft him #1 instead of Mike Trout. The logic being "somebody else might be interested in Carp before I draft in round 2". Totally ignoring the possibility that if they take Trout they can probably still get Carp in round 2 and have both.

There's a science to drafting, part of the goal is getting maximum value out of your picks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and you lose out on a guy you like. Or the opposite, by reaching you lose out on a guy you should have had -- but that's why you play the odds and don't reach. Over time the odds max out if you play them. Trying to get cute, thinking you know better than everyone else and be different than the consensus draft board is an easy recipe to get burned.

So the Rams had Havenstein as a must-have pick and didn't want to take the risk he'd be gone before they picked again, and/or they didn't like Cann. I disagree, I don't think Havenstein was a must-have and I think Cann was the more valuable pick at the time based on the consensus board. It was a 100% certainty Cann would not be available later, whereas there was a 1-99% chance Havenstein would have still been there later. I would have filled the G need there with Cann then for the next pick, maybe Havenstein is there or if he was gone some other similarly rated RT.

Hindsight will decide if the Rams were right, as of now the only authority is fictional draft ratings that had Cann rated higher than Havenstein. That's obviously not how the Rams had it rated. I will cross my fingers hoping the Rams are correct. So far the Rams second round reaches have been a mixed bag (at best), perhaps this is the one where they strike gold.

I'm sorry this bothers folks, so that's all I will say on it, it's done and I have no interest in dwelling on it. This is the place for Rams fandom, I am back on board loving what we got in Havenstein and looking forward to the line coming together and jelling over the offseason.

 

[Akrasian]

Seems like if some people here had the first pick in a fantasy baseball draft and really liked Matt Carpenter, they would draft him #1 instead of Mike Trout. The logic being "somebody else might be interested in Carp before I draft in round 2". Totally ignoring the possibility that if they take Trout they can probably still get Carp in round 2 and have both.

Poor analogy. The Rams did take the potential star player with their #1 pick in Gurley. There weren't players clearly better than Havenstein by the time they next drafted.

Also, unlike fantasy baseball, the Rams were trying to put together an actual team. In the real world, getting a non-elite prospect where they already have a player about as good doesn't help the team near as much as getting a player about as good but at a position of strong need.

I'm a big advocate of BPA - which the Rams did in the first. But the draft is also about filling holes, or the Rams would always stay just shy of .500. This draft they got solid linemen in a draft where there weren't great prospects after the top half of the first. Just like any draft, we don't know if it will work out yet, but people are acting like Havenstein was a crappy prospect, when in fact he is a mauler whose question mark was pass blocking - but he actually had good success when given an opportunity in college and looked great at Senior Bowl week. Since every prospect available at that stage had significant question marks, I'm not sure why some feel that Havenstein was a reach.