Rams not going Oline in round 1?
- Thread starter Elmgrovegnome
- 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.
Perhaps you have and never noticed. Typically, they are defensive tweeners (DL to LB, LB to S, CB/S) and OTs where ability to remain there in NFL is questioned. (Might even get a college QB listed as a WR from time to time). For example, just off the top of my head, I'm sure most every list, even from the site you referenced, probably listed Barkevious Mingo as an OLB even though he was a college DE.
Also some of these players have played more that one position making their NFL projection in the eye of the beholder.
For example, I've seen Clemson's Brandon Thomas who played LT the past two seasons listed as a guard. I've seen Dakota Dozier is listed as a guard even though he a college OT. Jaylen Watkins is listed as a CB but, he played S last year. Jeremiah Attaochu is listed as an OLB, but played DE his final season. Utah CB Keith McGill was a safety who has only played CB one year. Trent Murphy's primary position at Stanford was OLB, but he's listed as a DE, etc..
Last edited:
You're correct in thinking that I might have missed some tweeners especially considering my vision problems. Players who played multiple positions would also be subject to the whims of the list compiler and I have seen that happen.
Having said that, I believe that you are still talking about a tiny fraction of the players. Statistically insignificant IMO. I stand by everything I said and I'm still willing to sift through the data of any list you find that you think would change my contention. If you find a list you think is promising, just send me the url in a PM and I'll take it from there.
You're correct in thinking that I might have missed some tweeners especially considering my vision problems. Players who played multiple positions would also be subject to the whims of the list compiler and I have seen that happen.
Having said that, I believe that you are still talking about a tiny fraction of the players. Statistically insignificant IMO. I stand by everything I said and I'm still willing to sift through the data of any list you find that you think would change my contention. If you find a list you think is promising, just send me the url in a PM and I'll take it from there.
It's a fruitless proposition, IMO. We don't agree on what makes a significant difference in positional or total numbers. And your whole premise is based upon how players are listed on the CBS site when many have played more than one position and/or can have a different NFL positional projections via the eye of the beholder.
Found one of the things I remember reading.
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/4016/barrett-jones-patiently-waiting-for-chance
This isn't some "hindsight" or "Revisionist" history - it was a common theme going on around. They kept saying entering the season he needed time for his foot surgery, and Fisher wanted him to gain strength. If you believe that he was "really in the mix" and he was actively involved in the battle from the get go , I'd love to see something that backs it up - everything so far contradicts.
Barrett:
"I’m not frustrated," Jones said. "I’ve just kind of used this as a growth year, a year to kind of adjust to the NFL, really have some experience in the scheme and get faster and stronger, and I think I’ve made the most of it. I’m working really hard off the field, in the film room and the weight room so I feel really good about being ready when my time comes."
Writer:
"Before giving Jones a chance, the Rams have wanted to be sure he's ready. A serious foot injury and lack of strength kept him inactive in the first 12 games."
Fisher:
"Barrett has done a real good job in the weight room, and he’s gained a lot of strength," coach Jeff Fisher said. "So, he’ll be ready to go. Obviously, he’ll know what to do and how to do it, he just hasn’t had an opportunity.”
I know that you think it was common but it isn't borne out by the facts or anything in that article. Both statements by the actual people involved made zero mention of an injury. The statement by the writer was just an opinion (not supported by the facts) and even then, he mentioned Barrett's lack of strength as a problem.
he stood by on the side lines watching the other draftees play because he wasn't good enough to be made active until Wells got injured. That has nothing to do with an injury.
I'm sorry, I may have missed all those facts that contradict my viewpoint because of my vision problems because I don't see a single one. There are however, several facts supporting my viewpoint. In addition to the facts I've already given you, think back to the many TC reports posted here at the ROD by many of our own such as CoachO. I apologize to all those who pasted camp reports who I didn't mention by name.
The only facts are the ones I quoted in my post above and one that you posted:
Jones passed his physical prior to TC. Obviously no injury there. This is NOT an opinion, it's a fact.
Jones participated fully in TC practices. Obviously no injury there. This is NOT an opinion, it's a fact.
Jones was seriously in need of strengthening. A repeated quote from your post. This is a subjective opinion but obviously true due to the parties saying it. I'm not including the writer either.
BTW, it was noted during his Combine weigh in that he appeared to be pudgy. That was hardly a result of the layoff from the time of his surgery to the start of TC.
In any case, it's all water under the bridge. Let's hope he plays well enough this year to earn a starting job.
Last edited:
OK, I just read that article again and I missed this the first time I read it:
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/4016/barrett-jones-patiently-waiting-for-chance
"Upon arrival in St. Louis after the team used a fourth-round pick on him in April, Jones already had a good idea that the Lisfranc injury in his foot was going to take some time to heal. He said the Rams were honest with him right away about his chances for playing this season, and let him know they wanted him to fully heal and add muscle to his 308-pound frame.
"I knew these things kind of take about a year to feel 100 percent," Jones said. "I didn’t know exactly what the situation was going to be. But they have been really great and been up front with me the whole time, so I have no complaints and I’m excited about the future."
That casts a slightly different slant on this but there is no evidence that what Barrett said here had any effect on his winning a starting job. Had the Rams felt his injury was affecting him they would have limited him in practice and they didn't. That quote appears to have been made shortly after having been drafted and arriving in St. Louis. I do see why you have your opinion on this though.
It doesn't change my opinion about this at all though and I addressed the possibility that you might find a supporting article in one of my earlier posts. He remains just another 4th round pick fighting for a starting job.
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/4016/barrett-jones-patiently-waiting-for-chance
"Upon arrival in St. Louis after the team used a fourth-round pick on him in April, Jones already had a good idea that the Lisfranc injury in his foot was going to take some time to heal. He said the Rams were honest with him right away about his chances for playing this season, and let him know they wanted him to fully heal and add muscle to his 308-pound frame.
"I knew these things kind of take about a year to feel 100 percent," Jones said. "I didn’t know exactly what the situation was going to be. But they have been really great and been up front with me the whole time, so I have no complaints and I’m excited about the future."
That casts a slightly different slant on this but there is no evidence that what Barrett said here had any effect on his winning a starting job. Had the Rams felt his injury was affecting him they would have limited him in practice and they didn't. That quote appears to have been made shortly after having been drafted and arriving in St. Louis. I do see why you have your opinion on this though.
It doesn't change my opinion about this at all though and I addressed the possibility that you might find a supporting article in one of my earlier posts. He remains just another 4th round pick fighting for a starting job.
Yes.
The problem is that you've limited your scope to a number you've chosen (96 players) listed on one site in this draft class with apparently little to no consideration of other draft classes to be compared in determining the draft's overall and positional depth. But consider one year you might see a draft class that teams may determine, for example, only have 75-100 or so blue-chip down to solid rated prospects. Yet, in a deeper draft class, you might have what teams may consider, for example, to have over 100-150 or so that fit the criteria.
The depth of the class isn't determined by an arbitrary number one decides to use. In other words, some players that made one year's so-called top 96 might not have made another year's so-called top 96. But, in general that doesn't make them any less of a talent as making the list in their class makes them more of one. Couple that with the varying NFL positional projections and the whole debate seems to be fruitless to me.
BTW, I took a look the reference site you've chosen, and I'm pretty sure that some of the guys are lower rated due to injury and not talent.
Last edited:
Barrett was never in contention for a starting job - he wasn't ready. He was inactive for 3/4 of the season.
It's fine man - it doesn't change my opinion either. This just confirms what I heard all training camp and season long - they wanted him to heal and add strength.
Last edited:
Apparently you've gotten yourself completely lost here Memphis. Let me refresh your memory.
Here is what I said in my original post on this subject:
"So what does it tell us about this "deep" draft? To me it says that it's deep at some positions. It is not deep at all at the purple positions so no one should just throw that "deep draft" comment around without some context."
Here is what I said to you personally in a later post:
"Here it is again: This draft is only deep at certain positions and not at all of them."
I took the trouble to increase the font size of the critical word that would explain why I don't care about other drafts. You must have thought i was comparing this draft to others. I wasn't. Past drafts would not in anyway affect the relative deepness of any draft at various positions since the relative part is in comparison to other positions and not other drafts. That's why I said
"no one should just throw that "deep draft" comment around without some context."
So while this draft might be deep at some positions, it isn't deep at others. Two of which are OGs and FSs. That's why I want to draft one of each in the top 3 rounds. At no time did I say this wasn't a deep draft. I don't know whether it is or not because to know that I would have to compare it to other drafts and I'm not going to do that. That would be a monumental task for any of us to do. I'm going under the assumption that deep drafts are cyclical. Some years the draft is deep and in others it isn't. The statistics that show the very low success rate for 4th round and lower draft picks was compiled over many drafts where these type of things would even out. That's why they're call averages because they smooth out the outliers.
Yep! Ya better believe the Rams' list is very different from many other teams. That's one of the reasons the popular mock drafters are always so way off on their prognostications of the Horns' expected choices.
Apparently you've gotten yourself completely lost here Memphis. Let me refresh your memory.
Here is what I said in my original post on this subject:
"So what does it tell us about this "deep" draft? To me it says that it's deep at some positions. It is not deep at all at the purple positions so no one should just throw that "deep draft" comment around without some context."
Here is what I said to you personally in a later post:
"Here it is again: This draft is only deep at certain positions and not at all of them."
I took the trouble to increase the font size of the critical word that would explain why I don't care about other drafts. You must have thought i was comparing this draft to others. I wasn't. Past drafts would not in anyway affect the relative deepness of any draft at various positions since the relative part is in comparison to other positions and not other drafts. That's why I said
"no one should just throw that "deep draft" comment around without some context."
So while this draft might be deep at some positions, it isn't deep at others. Two of which are OGs and FSs. That's why I want to draft one of each in the top 3 rounds. At no time did I say this wasn't a deep draft. I don't know whether it is or not because to know that I would have to compare it to other drafts and I'm not going to do that. That would be a monumental task for any of us to do. I'm going under the assumption that deep drafts are cyclical. Some years the draft is deep and in others it isn't. The statistics that show the very low success rate for 4th round and lower draft picks was compiled over many drafts where these type of things would even out. That's why they're call averages because they smooth out the outliers.
Sorry, but my points remain. Any draft is going to be deeper at some positions vs. other positions.
However when discussing the depth of a draft (overall OR positional) the context has to be vs. other draft classes whether one wants it to be or not. Statistics are going to show a lower success rate for 4th round and lower picks over many drafts. But, averages are not to be relied upon given that each draft class is different. The fewer deeper draft classes don't stand a chance vs. the other draft classes.
And again, ignoring the positional flexibility of many of the players and relying upon an arbitrary number to stop looking for talent makes the discussion fruitless to me. One draft class may say stop at, let's say 96 when looking for guys who are at least solid. Another may say, stop at 150. And in that, one could find other players that can play the positions said to lack depth who could typically be rated higher if they were in the weaker draft class.
Agreed. 32 different teams with 32 different draft boards/ratings. Some players rated high by one team or draftniks wouldn't be touched by another (taken off their board). That's why every year there are so called reaches and steals to media and fans because the media driven draftnik boards relied upon are based on far less information gathered and provided to NFL teams (medical, interviews, background, measurables of non-combine participants, etc...).
No problem Memphis, because diversity of opinion is what makes this (and any other forum) a joy to post on.:seizure: :cheers:
Agreed.
BTW, even if I agreed with your premise, I'd be disappointed if the Rams selected a safety and/or guard in the first 3 rounds over a higher rated player at some of the other positions. I'm a firm believer that teams needs don't influence player availability and it's best to draft the BPA within reason and use free agency to fill perceived holes.
Your method is one that many professionals ascribe too. My problem with that is two fold and I'll address your statement in reverse order.
You've probably read quite a few articles about FA this year and the common recurring thread among all of them is that it doesn't seem to have very good results. I think the results could best be described as mixed. I'm not going to list a whole bunch of players the Rams have picked up in FA that have been monumental failures because you would just list a bunch of acquisitions that were a success. Although, I think a dispassionate view of the Rams history (which mirrors the results seen by most of the other teams) would come the conclusion that it's been largely unsuccessful.
A prime example of what I'm talking about would be Jake Long. The Phins let him go because he couldn't stay on the field and his many injuries caused a degradation in his performance when he was on the field. So we sign him for a very reasonable price and he performs great until...the issues that caused the Phins to let him go cropped up again. Now where are we? Can we count on him not only this year but for the next few years? Nobody knows. What we do know is that it is having a huge affect on our draft strategy. So mixed bag and many, including me would call his acquisition a success. Many highly successful teams do almost nothing during FA. I don't know which method is the best but history seems to be leaning on the side of the teams that don't do much in FA. Who is most active in FA? I would say the teams in the bottom half of the standings. Your first thought when you read that is probably duh, of course they are because they have the most holes. A closer look at the history of the successful teams would show you that they don't use FA to fill holes even in their bad years. Look at the Steelers for an example.
IMO, FA should be used primarily to achieve depth rather than fill holes. All the issues that caused teams to let that player go to FA aren't usually an issue when they're just depth. FAs frequently just give you the illusion that you've filled a hole.
As for the draft, what is BPA? I know you said within reason so I won't delve into this very deeply but this issue is so subjective that I think it's a mistake to even use that term. So, your team makes a completely subjective decision on a player, which as you yourself said, varies wildly among the different teams. They then assign a grade to that player and then, if you listen to the common wisdom, they should try and remain "true to their board", which completely ignores the biases they've already built into their grades and the even larger bias they have when comparing that 91 grade on the CB to the 93 grade they gave to that RB. Their boards are already heavily slanted to each teams biases concerning their perceived needs and the relative values they have for each position. Remaining "true to your board" doesn't mean you're taking the best player available. Should you deviate from the biases you've already built into your board? I'd agree with your contention that you shouldn't. But that doesn't really have the meaning you're assigning to it. Although I'm just guessing about what your actual definition is. An educated guess but still a guess.
The commonly held belief among the 'experts" is that Fisher doesn't value the safety position very highly. That probably means that their board is already heavily biased against the safeties in the draft so I doubt the'll deviate very much from their board but that doesn't mean they will draft the BPA even when you throw out the positions such as QB. In addition, it's going to be too late to fill holes when the draft comes around. To say that they shouldn't deviate from their big board to fill a hole if the only player they have rated highly at that position is the last one available is unrealistic and a potentially disastrous thing to do. Can you see us going through the season relying on a 5th round CB to fill our hole?
So I'm not a firm believer that you should adhere dogmatically to your board if what's happening in the draft forces you to deviate. When there are runs at certain positions of needs in a draft you have to be flexible or else you'll pay for that during the season.
Last edited:
Quite frankly, IMO, the best way to utilize free agency is to avoid the first wave altogether and go bargain shopping in the 2nd wave and post-draft portions. It would be great if a long-term starter can be found from time to time, but I'd be fine with a much cheaper short-term stop gap at a position who can play at a decent level while a younger kid develops.
As far as a BPA within reason philosophy, I state this understanding that teams can have 2-3 draft boards in their war rooms with one being more influenced by need and fit than the other(s). But, in general, if the grades on players are close or even, then it makes sense to go with the player that has to potential to fill a need. But, if they are not, barring a trade down I'd take the highest rated player as long as there is a roster spot for him. In other words, given that team needs can change yearly, I'd take a higher rated initial backup over a lower rated potential initial starter if there is a roster spot for him. The goal is to acquire as much talent as possible.
And, IMO, reacting to runs at a position in the draft may lead to more disappointments/busts than almost anything else as it involves ignoring draft grades in hopes of filling a positional need with a lesser rated player. That player may fill a position with a body, but is the need really met? Perhaps. But, then you may have to question the grading process/personnel.
BTW, I question if Fisher, a former NFL safety himself, and whose Titans team used a first round selection on former Texas S Michael Griffin doesn't value the safety position very highly.
Last edited:
I'll say this, I've spent a couple weekends watching the Rams play while Sam Bradford was under center. I am 100% confident that Sam Bradford is not the problem, this isn't another Bradford-lover excuse, as much as it is a fact. Go watch the Rams offensive line play. Yeah, they didn't give up a sack until the Dallas game, but that's because of Sam's ability to get the ball out. The running game was non-existent against big physical defensive lines. And the offensive line was not good at picking up the blitz. If I'm the Rams, I know I have a RB, I know I have a QB, and I know I have talented WR's. What I don't have is a powerful offensive line. I'm not saying they have to address this in round 1, but I believe that offensive line is the biggest need on this team, and it doesn't matter the position. This line needs to get stronger. They were often over matched by the size of opposing lines, especially in the run game.
I'm glad to say that Chris Williams is no longer here, because his play was not very good. He struggled moving anyone off the line of scrimmage. Saffold was very good, and Jake Long was as well. However, We can upgrade RT,C, and G. If I'm St.Louis, and I want a power running game and Sam to have time to deliver bombs, give me Greg Robinson to play guard at 2, and give me Lewan to play RT at 13, and watch me go put points on the board. Robinson will play guard until Long play drops off completely. That will give him time to work on pass blocking, but allow him use his raw power and nimbleness to open holes in the run game. Saffold and Robinson flanking a center is a RB's dream combo. They are big and physical and surprisingly quick, most importantly they finish off blocks. I like Lewan because he has an edge and attitude. Matthews is a technician, but he doesn't have the killer instinct I would like for my O-line to have. Lewan may be able to move to LT and Robinson to RT. Some will argue that you don't spend the number 2 overall on a RT. I say poppy DNA rifle. A good player is a good player. And when you've been a STL Rams fan and havent seen competent O-Line play, you take good players no matter where you are. This Oline needs to play with the attitude and swagger of our D-line. Those two guys will make it happen.
I'm glad to say that Chris Williams is no longer here, because his play was not very good. He struggled moving anyone off the line of scrimmage. Saffold was very good, and Jake Long was as well. However, We can upgrade RT,C, and G. If I'm St.Louis, and I want a power running game and Sam to have time to deliver bombs, give me Greg Robinson to play guard at 2, and give me Lewan to play RT at 13, and watch me go put points on the board. Robinson will play guard until Long play drops off completely. That will give him time to work on pass blocking, but allow him use his raw power and nimbleness to open holes in the run game. Saffold and Robinson flanking a center is a RB's dream combo. They are big and physical and surprisingly quick, most importantly they finish off blocks. I like Lewan because he has an edge and attitude. Matthews is a technician, but he doesn't have the killer instinct I would like for my O-line to have. Lewan may be able to move to LT and Robinson to RT. Some will argue that you don't spend the number 2 overall on a RT. I say poppy DNA rifle. A good player is a good player. And when you've been a STL Rams fan and havent seen competent O-Line play, you take good players no matter where you are. This Oline needs to play with the attitude and swagger of our D-line. Those two guys will make it happen.