Rams not going Oline in round 1?

[iced]

Really dude? I hate saying this, especially on this board, but didn't you read my post? Joe Barksdale is an UFA after this year, and no new contract so far despite his good 2013 season.

Jake Long isn't gonna be here for 5+ years, again...3 years tops. Contract and age. When he's let go, Jake Matthews will take over on the left (if he's drafted of course). Until then he would be starting right tackle, or possibly guard as @Alan said. Which I wouldn't like..but that's a different topic.

so because I disagree I didn't read your post? no.

Long may not be "long term" - but he's set for at least 3 more years, and tackles have played at a high level into their lower 30s at a high level.

Just because Barksdale is a UFA - that doesn't mean we're letting him go. I'm also not a fan of spending a #2 overall pick for a player to be a RT for 3 years when theres so much talent on the board.

Get a pure starter at a position of need/upgrade where guy starts from day one - "not for insurance" or to replace one of the very few players on the roster that actually plays at a pro bowl level

 

[blackbart]

If they want to be middle of the pack get it done but not dominate they can continue with the philosophy of low draft picks and garbage heap JAGs for the Oline. That is not going to win a SB and may not even get 2nd in the NFCW. The defense teams they play 6 games a year are too strong and will kick their butts all over the field without a strong Oline.

 

[iced]

If they want to be middle of the pack get it done but not dominate they can continue with the philosophy of low draft picks and garbage heap JAGs for the Oline. That is not going to win a SB and may not even get 2nd in the NFCW. The defense teams they play 6 games a year are too strong and will kick their butts all over the field without a strong Oline.

This is the mentality I don't get.... its first round or nothin for o-linemen, despite a lot of quality starting guards come out of the 2nd and 3rd (like Larry Warford in last draft, whom was an alternate target for the Rams at #30 if ogletree wasn't there)

 

[blackbart]

This is the mentality I don't get.... its first round or nothin for o-linemen, despite a lot of quality starting guards come out of the 2nd and 3rd (like Larry Warford in last draft, whom was an alternate target for the Rams at #30 if ogletree wasn't there)

If you are a good team you don't get a lot of opportunities to draft guys like Matthews/Robinson. When your Oline is a problem it would be a good idea to fix it with more than a band aid. Football is won and lost by controlling the Oline. I don't understand the mentality that thinks JAGs can get that done.

 

[BonifayRam]

Maybe yes and maybe no. Barksdale isn't likely to move to guard but Matthews can. You want your 5 best guys out there and that could easily mean having Matthews playing LG.

You know Alan, Boudreau may be concerned about that open OG post but I have the feeling that if Jake Matthews was a Ram he would get a ton of work exclusive to the OT posts. IMO it would be a priority to have JM ready to play & start @ OLT IF there was a setback or a slowdown with Jake Long rehabbing event. Meaning a bunch of action in TC & pre season @ OLT reason who else would be the OLT if Jake Long was removed from the equation? Boudreau has a little more experience @ OG.

I posted this yesterday where the Swing OT's were & is a great need for the Rams in 2012/2013 and 2014. Boudreau had to use four in 2012 & three in 2013. So in my conclusion Matthews would see very little OG. If you were to insert Gerald Robinson into the same spot as Jake Matthews it would be a totally different situation. I agree with you & your thinking that JM could handle and start @ OG .....ABSOLUTELY! just that the rookie JM's learning curve will be @ OT not OG. The other thing is the pending UFA'cy of the starting Right OT in 2015. The simple fact Boudreau has no other OT candidates.

Lets remember that Barksdale was not awarded the starting ORT last season until & after Harvey Dahl's injury and Shelley Smith failure @ ORG. Barksdale who has been highly praised here on this forum & it was just and due but if Jake Long was to make it back on time or near on time and Jake Matthews is not cemented @ OLT post ....if JM was rotated with JB like they did with Saffold & JB it would not be long before JB would be returned to his early 2013 designation...as Swing OT. Matthews will be the starting ORT very soon in 2014.

If Scott Wells is retained & makes the 2014 53 player master roster...then Barrett Jones becomes a free floating OL'er.....along with Tim Barnes, Brandon Washington, Mike Persons and the new drafted rookie OG will be the OL'ers fighting for that open OG post. I will also say this if Jake Matthews starts @ OLT then Rodger Saffold will be the starting OLG next to Matthews & the open post would be the ORG.

 

[Alan]

BonifayRam with words of wisdom:
You know Alan, Boudreau may be concerned about that open OG post but I have the feeling that if Jake Matthews was a Ram he would get a ton of work exclusive to the OT posts. IMO it would be a priority to have JM ready to play & start @ OLT IF there was a setback or a slowdown with Jake Long rehabbing event. Meaning a bunch of action in TC & pre season @ OLT reason who else would be the OLT if Jake Long was removed from the equation? Boudreau has a little more experience @ OG.

I posted this yesterday where the Swing OT's were & is a great need for the Rams in 2012/2013 and 2014. Boudreau had to use four in 2012 & three in 2013. So in my conclusion Matthews would see very little OG. If you were to insert Gerald Robinson into the same spot as Jake Matthews it would be a totally different situation. I agree with you & your thinking that JM could handle and start @ OG .....ABSOLUTELY! just that the rookie JM learning curve will be @ OT not OG. The other thing is the pending UFA'cy of the starting Right OT in 2015.

Lets remember that Barksdale was not awarded the starting ORT last season until & after Harvey Dahl's injury and Shelley Smith failure @ ORG. Barksdale who has been highly praised here on this forum & it was just and due but if Jake Long was to make it back on time or near on time and Jake Matthews is not cemented @ OLT post ....if JM was rotated with JB like they did with Saffold & JB it would not be long before JB would be returned to his early 2013 designation...as Swing OT. Matthews will be the starting ORT very soon in 2014.

If Scott Wells is retained & makes the 2014 53 player master roster...then Barrett Jones becomes a free floating OL'er.....along with Tim Barnes, Brandon Washington, Mike Persons and the new drafted rookie OG will be the OL'ers fighting for that open OG post. I will also say this if Jake Matthews starts @ OLT then Rodger Saffold will be the starting OLG next to Matthews & the open post would be the ORG.

I agree with all of that except I question the switch of Saffold to LG from his preferred (according to his own statements) G position of RG. An opening at RG or LG is the issue and I don't see anyone rushing to fill either spot. Why do you think they'd move Saffold to LG?

My thinking on this situation takes two things into consideration.

First of all, I think getting Matthews work at LT isn't going to be an issue. Unfortunately. I'm not buying that Jake will be ready the first game of the season and then we have all the OTAs and TC to consider.

Secondly, I'm not sure we have 5 starting quality O-liners on our team even if we draft Matthews. Who's going to play the hole at either LG or RG? Jones? Maybe. A newly drafted G? Again, maybe. Do you think they'll err on the side of development versus putting the best 5 on the field?

But, if good things happen and we find answers to both guard positions then yeah, I agree that Barksdale would probably be the swing T and ride the bench until something bad happens. That would make it even more likely that we'd lose him in FA next year. He'd probably accept even less money than we'd offer him for the chance to start.

 

[iced]

If you are a good team you don't get a lot of opportunities to draft guys like Matthews/Robinson. When your Oline is a problem it would be a good idea to fix it with more than a band aid. Football is won and lost by controlling the Oline. I don't understand the mentality that thinks JAGs can get that done.

good teams find depth throughout the whole draft, not just the first round.

The O-line sam has had in 2012/13 has been way better in terms of protection - bottom half of the league in sacks allowed,hits,pressures, etc.

But even in 201 at its worst - no one can dispute what a starting caliber receiver (lloyd) did for the passing game

 

[cvramsfan]

Does Pace have any sons?

 

[blackbart]

good teams find depth throughout the whole draft, not just the first round.

The O-line sam has had in 2012/13 has been way better in terms of protection - bottom half of the league in sacks allowed,hits,pressures, etc.

But even in 201 at its worst - no one can dispute what a starting caliber receiver (lloyd) did for the passing game

And that means at all positions not just the glamazons. There are better WR prospects beyond the first round than Oline prospects. I'm not going to go into another long tit for tat with you about that we understand where each stands.

 

[iced]

And that means at all positions not just the glamazons.

never said it didn't - but you were coming off as "O-line in the first otherwise no one can help"

There are better WR prospects beyond the first round than Oline prospects.

Disagree

 

[Memphis Ram]

I'm sorry, you didn't get my point. It doesn't matter where everyone has these guys rated because the top 100 should be pretty much the same. Who cares whether these guys rate Mack the best overall player and someone else rates him the 5th best. He's still one of the 96 or so best players. I seriously doubt you could find anyone's top 96 list that would appreciably change the amount of top players at a position. Which was after all, my point.

If you can find one let me know and I'll check it out.

I wasn't commenting on the top of anyone's list. My point was that top 100 lists aren't pretty much the same as there can be differences of 15-25 or more players on these lists. Best way to see this is to check several lists closer to the draft. I think you'll be surprised.

 

[BonifayRam]

I agree with all of that except I question the switch of Saffold to LG from his preferred (according to his own statements) G position of RG. An opening at RG or LG is the issue and I don't see anyone rushing to fill either spot. Why do you think they'd move Saffold to LG?

My return of Saffold to the left side is for several reasons. If I have a rookie playing OLT I want Saffold next to him...no brainer there. Saffold has played left side all his playing life until last season. If for some unknown reason Rams miss on Jake Matthews and have to settle for lesser OL'ers to play OLT you still want Saffold on that Blind left side period. In case of another disaster that would necessitate him having to start back @ OLT then I would prefer to have him working all OTA's, training camp & pre season on that left side then when needed he does not have to reverse his brain like he would moving from ORG to OLT .....OLG to OLT is a much smoother task!

The other reason is if Rams miss drafting a talented OG high then Barrett Jones who played & started two dozen Bama games @ ORG slides into a position he knows as well as center.

ORT-Barksdale/Jake Matthews(R)
ORG-Barrett Jones/Persons
OC- Scott Wells/Barnes
OLG- Saffold/Washington
OLT- Jake Long/Jake Matthews(R)

 

[Alan]

Memphis Ram asking me to carry a heavy load:
I wasn't commenting on the top of anyone's list. My point was that top 100 lists aren't pretty much the same as there can be differences of 15-25 or more players on these lists. Best way to see this is to check several lists closer to the draft. I think you'll be surprised.

Since you're refuting, or trying to, something I said, I think it's up to you to find the data that conflicts with mine. I'll make you a deal though. You find a top 96 list that differs significantly from mine and I'll sift through the data to find the significant (if any) differences.

BTW, a difference of 15 players would not be a significant difference unless there was an unreasonable distribution of positions. Such as one list having 3 more OGs than another on it. Without significant changes in the numbers at the positions lacking the most depth the overall look of this draft would remain the same.

Here's my list again:
14 WRs in the top 96 players.

12 CBs in the top 96 players.

11 DTs in the top 96 players.

9 DEs in the top 96 players.

9 OTs in the top 96 players.

9 OLBs in the top 96 players.

6 QBs in the top 96 players.

5 OGs in the top 96 players.

3 FS in the top 96 players.

2 OCs in top 96 players.

Adding or subtracting one or two players from the non-bolded positions would have zero effect on my contention. So not only will you have to find a list that is significantly different from the CBS list I used, you'll also have to find one that causes a significant change in the important data that is responsible for my contention. Let me refresh your memory concerning my contention.
Here it is again: This draft is only deep at certain positions and not at all of them.

Good luck finding something to refute that. I'll be here to help you collate the data when you think you've found one.

 

[Angry Ram]

No it's not that you disagee I feel like you didn't understand my posts. Especially when you said that Jake Matthews shouldn't be drafted 5, 6 years down the line. I was saying Jake Long won't be around for that long.

We don't know what happens in his lower 30s. He may even retire, we just don't know.

RE Joe Barksdale: It doesn't mean the Rams are going re-sign him either. I feel Jake Matthews is just flat out better, even at RT. And defenses nowadays, w/ pass rushers everywhere, both OTs are = in importance. KC, Philly, even Jax all started their top 5 tackles on the right, and w/ Philly Lane Johnson is gonna be on the right for quite some time b/c Jason Peters got resigned.. Plus, tt's better than a top 5 pick at guard.

Basically, if he were to e drafted, he could contribute right away. Not a risky player that would be a rotational player here in STL (JC), not a project that needs some technique worked out (Greg Robinson), and not a player that may not be uber dominant year 1 (Sammy Watkins).

 

[iced]

No it's not that you disagee I feel like you didn't understand my posts. Especially when you said that Jake Matthews shouldn't be drafted 5, 6 years down the line. I was saying Jake Long won't be around for that long.

We don't know what happens in his lower 30s. He may even retire, we just don't know.

We do know he is signed for 3 years, with a cap friendly contract with voidable guarantees. If Long wasn't in their plans he wouldn't be here (like finnegan)

RE Joe Barksdale: It doesn't mean the Rams are going re-sign him either. I feel Jake Matthews is just flat out better, even at RT. And defenses nowadays, w/ pass rushers everywhere, both OTs are = in importance. KC, Philly, even Jax all started their top 5 tackles on the right, and w/ Philly Lane Johnson is gonna be on the right for quite some time b/c Jason Peters got resigned.. Plus, tt's better than a top 5 pick at guard.

Why would he not? And I'm not going to say a rookie matthews would be better because you don't know that, especially since Barksdale played pretty dam good among RT's. It's not like he's going to command a lot of money I'd bet either, since he's been bounced around but found his niche only last season.

Basically, if he were to e drafted, he could contribute right away. Not a risky player that would be a rotational player here in STL (JC), not a project that needs some technique worked out (Greg Robinson), and not a player that may not be uber dominant year 1 (Sammy Watkins).

You don't draft for 1 year - and there isn't a stud receiver on this roster not named Tavon. You're talking about drafting a starter where we're already set for the foreseeable future.

 

[Alan]

BonifayRam with some clarifications:
My return of Saffold to the left side is for several reasons. If I have a rookie playing OLT I want Saffold next to him...no brainer there. Saffold has played left side all his playing life until last season. If for some unknown reason Rams miss on Jake Matthews and have to settle for lesser OL'ers to play OLT you still want Saffold on that Blind left side period. In case of another disaster that would necessitate him having to start back @ OLT then I would prefer to have him working all OTA's, training camp & pre season on that left side then when needed he does not have to reverse his brain like he would moving from ORG to OLT .....OLG to OLT is a much smoother task!

The other reason is if Rams miss drafting a talented OG high then Barrett Jones who played & started two dozen Bama games @ ORG slides into a position he knows as well as center.

ORT-Barksdale/Jake Matthews(R)
ORG-Barrett Jones/Persons
OC- Scott Wells/Barnes
OLG- Saffold/Washington
OLT- Jake Long/Jake Matthews(R)

Lots of interesting stuff to sift though here.
Everything you say here is well thought out and reasonable, so I'm not going to disagree with any of it. What I am going to do is put forth some equally valid alternatives (I hope) to each of your points.

Saffold:
The fact that Saffold has played on the left side for most of his career is really beside the point when you consider that he didn't actually find his true calling until he moved to the right side and at G. So it could be looked at as him being misused in the past and he has found his new and correct home on the right side at G.

Saffold isn't needed to help a new rookie at LT named Matthews. If we draft Robinson/someone else it's a different ball of wax and I'm not sure what I'd have to say about it.

Drafting a new OG:
Who knows if we will or not and even if we do, will he be good enough to start? That is a complete unknown unless it's a stud like Matthews (or others)

Your O-line depth chart:
Barrett Jones has also spent time on the left side so it's not like we'd be throwing him into the deep end there.

Barrett Jones is a completely unknown quantity. Despite the many upheavals on the O-line last year, he wasn't able to beat out any of the below standard guards and centers we had on the roster, many of which we didn't want to re-sign. Penciling him in to start at RG is a huge leap of faith under any objective criterion.

My O-line depth chart:
Here is my depth chart that doesn't involve relying on any unknowns except the assumption that Matthews will be good from day one and being good from day one is why would draft him in the first place instead of Robinson.

ORT-Barksdale/Jake Matthews(R)
ORG-Saffold/Barrett Jones/Persons
OC- Scott Wells/Barnes/Barrett Jones
OLG- Jake Matthews(R)/Washington
OLT- Jake Long/Jake Matthews(R)

 

[iced]

Your O-line depth chart:
Barrett Jones has also spent time on the left side so it's not like we'd be throwing him into the deep end there.

Barrett Jones is a completely unknown quantity. Despite the many upheavals on the O-line last year, he wasn't able to beat out any of the below standard guards and centers we had on the roster, many of which we didn't want to re-sign. Penciling him in to start at RG is a huge leap of faith under any objective criterion.

Actually it's not that "Barrett Jones couldn't beat anyone out" - he wasn't asked us too. They knew it was basically a red shirt season for him, needing him to regain strength before putting put in for competition. I don't think he ever played a snap on offense, though i did see one I'm guessing for specia teams vs the seahawks

 

[Alan]

iced making a strong statement:
Actually it's not that "Barrett Jones couldn't beat anyone out" - he wasn't asked too. They knew it was basically a red shirt season for him, needing him to regain strength before putting put in for competition. I don't think he ever played a snap on offense, though i did see one I'm guessing for special teams vs the seahawks

Are you basing that on your gut feeling or something a little more concrete? If you have something concrete to back that up I'd love to hear it/read it. It would really make me feel much better about our O-line going into the draft.

Pray tell us.

In addition, how is needing to get stronger not a reason why he couldn't crack the starting lineup different than any other reason?

 

[iced]

Are you basing that on your gut feeling or something a little more concrete? If you have something concrete to back that up I'd love to hear it/read it. It would really make me feel much better about our O-line going into the draft.

Pray tell us.

I'll look for it - but I thought it was a widely known fact. They've said it numerous times throughout the season and the off season.

 

[Alan]

iced quoting me too quickly:
I'll look for it - but I thought it was a widely known fact. They've said it numerous times throughout the season and the off season.

Sorry iced, you have to give me a few minutes to edit my posts before you quote them. I can't see what I'm typing until after I post it because of my vision problems. You missed the second part of my reply.

I haven't heard anybody saying anything other than speculating that the reason why he couldn't get on the field was was due to his lack of strength and/or his foot injury and I've been paying pretty close attention. I speculated about that myself.