Rams rumor

[Ltrautman]

Before everyone continues to lose their head over this, let's remember that there was a rumor about us drafting Johnny Manziel last year and that was not even close to happening

 

[8to12]

No, Fairley's main question is if he can stay out of trouble on and off the field (because it'll result in suspensions, and our defensive tackle depth is thin as it is). He also needs to prove that he won't come into camp out of shape and/or overweight. Health is also a concern. And there is absolutely no guarantee that Fairley won't bolt after a good year. We at least know that Brockers wants to stay.

I have an opinion on this. But, I want to leave Fairley out of the equation. I only want to speak about Brockers. My only complaint about Brockers is he is inconsistent for how high he was drafted. I think back to game 2 seasons ago. In the same series.... these 3 plays in sequence.... 1) gets single blocking and gets around O-lineman but QB dumps ball out to flat... 2) gets double teamed and gets pushed 5 yards up field. 3) Gets single blocked, doesn't get blown off the line but turned sideways and sealed off from the running play. This is how I remember Brocker's. When compared to Langford, Brockers always looked like a rookie. YOu hardly ever saw Langford get pushed backward, even on double teams, and he always strung out running plays allowing the LB's to flow to the ball. And, he even got penetration now & then.
I don't want to trade Brockers, but I would like to see improved, consistent play.

 

[Mackeyser]

That's just it. He wouldn't draw double teams if he hadn't improved. No coach says, "hey, block Brockers with a double even though a single would do it cuz he's bigger. I know that Donald kid's kicking our ass, but we gotta double the bigger guy..." Space eaters eat space because they TAKE that space.

This past season, I saw Brockers in position to make a lot of plays only to have him watch Donald make the play behind the LOS...which Brockers help set up.

Fairley and Donald are basically the same guy, except Donald is better. Suh ate the doubles in Detroit for the most part. Few have ever been that combination of fast and strong as Suh. If ever...

I'll love to see Fairley and Donald next to one another but at that point, Fairley isn't replacing Brockers, he's replacing Hayes in the pass rush set where Hayes moves inside.

 

[WestCoastRam]

That's just it. He wouldn't draw double teams if he hadn't improved. No coach says, "hey, block Brockers with a double even though a single would do it cuz he's bigger. I know that Donald kid's kicking our ass, but we gotta double the bigger guy..." Space eaters eat space because they TAKE that space.

This past season, I saw Brockers in position to make a lot of plays only to have him watch Donald make the play behind the LOS...which Brockers help set up.

Fairley and Donald are basically the same guy, except Donald is better. Suh ate the doubles in Detroit for the most part. Few have ever been that combination of fast and strong as Suh. If ever...

I'll love to see Fairley and Donald next to one another but at that point, Fairley isn't replacing Brockers, he's replacing Hayes in the pass rush set where Hayes moves inside.

Good stuff but I'd like to add that taking on double teams is as much about where the nose tackle aligns (outside shoulder of center, over guard, often slamming down at a slant - or reverse this), thereby requiring a center to attend to him and impeding the guards movement. Now if the nose sucks, then the offense doesn't have to double but it's not just that he's good enough to draw double teams.

I'm a fan of Brockers but I don't think he's indispensable and now that we're committed to highlighting Donald's play as a 3-tech, I do think a less athletic and talented guy could do Brockers job in the middle. It's a risk though, I'm not sure we have that guy on the roster.

 

[Boston Ram]

Good stuff but I'd like to add that taking on double teams is as much about where the nose tackle aligns, thereby requiring a guard and center to attend to him. Now if the nose sucks, then the offense doesn't have to double but it's not just that he's good enough to draw double teams.

I'm a fan of Brockers but I don't think he's indispensable and now that we're committed to highlighting Donald's play as a 3-tech, I do think a less athletic and talented guy could do Brockers job in the middle. It's a risk though, I'm not sure we have that guy on the roster.

Well said, could not agree more!

 

[WestCoastRam]

And many times it's not the nose tackle taking on the "double team" that frees the 3-tech to blow up the run play. The 3-tech is too far removed from what the nose is doing, the nose is ensuing that linebackers will not be reached by taking on the "double team" so LBs can shoot gaps and chase the RB without a hand on them. The nose is really just keeping the guard from getting out to the second level as he's also taking on the center. When a 3-tech blows up a run play, a lot of times it's just Donald blowing through his gap... Brockers wouldn't have had anything to do with that.

 

[jrry32]

Fairly can probably do same and get to qb more.

I think you're proving his point. Fairley isn't the same type of player as Brockers. He is best at attacking gaps and getting into the back-field. That's Donald's role in the defense. Brockers plays the 4-3 Nose Tackle role for us. His job is to stack blockers and plug gaps in the middle of the defense to keep the LBs like Laurinaitis and Ogletree clean.

It would be like replacing a dominating run blocker with average pass pro skills with a dominating pass blocker with average run blocking skills and expecting the same results in the run game. If you replace Brockers with Fairley, you'll get more splash plays out of his spot but you'll also have more plays where teams get blockers on Ogletree and Laurinaitis and rip off huge runs up the middle. Brockers keeps guys from getting to the second level and fills gaps in the middle. He also is quite adept at pinching down on running lanes in the A and B gap to his side. You put Fairley in there and he won't be doing that. He's going to do what he does best, get up-field. Problem with that is that he'll run himself out of some plays and when you have Donald doing the same thing on the other side, that leaves you weak up the middle. So you either need LBs that can fill running lanes and stack blockers or you need a nose tackle.

And that's what we would be giving up, our nose tackle. It is something that could throw off the balance of our DL.

 

[jrry32]

And many times it's not the nose tackle taking on the "double team" that frees the 3-tech to blow up the run play. The 3-tech is too far removed from what the nose is doing, the nose is ensuing that linebackers will not be reached by taking on the "double team" so LBs can shoot gaps and chase the RB without a hand on them. The nose is really just keeping the guard from getting out to the second level as he's also taking on the center. When a 3-tech blows up a run play, a lot of times it's just Donald blowing through his gap... Brockers wouldn't have had anything to do with that.

Absolutely true. But what Brockers does from the theoretical standpoint is allows the DC more freedom to tell Donald to shoot that gap. If you have a guy that can't stack blocks up the middle to keep the LBs free, pinch down on running lanes, and plug holes, your going to have to make up for it somewhere else. And that'll likely mean giving Donald more responsibility to help out the LBs and fill those gaps and less opportunities to simply shoot a gap and make plays in the back-field.

It's all about balance. Unfortunately, with Laurinaitis and Ogletree out there, we don't have LBs who are good at stacking and shedding blocks. Which means we need someone who can keep blockers from getting to the second level.

 

[Memphis Ram]

@jrry32
Which might better explain the interest in the big Mississippi State MLB McKinney (if true).

 

[brokeu91]

I'd be okay with this. I know this forum loves him but I think he's overrated. Just don't get rid of other picks.

I don't think he's overrated at all. No he doesn't get sacks, but he takes on double blockers so that others (i.e. Quinn, Long, Donald) can

 

[Boston Ram]

@jrry32
Which might better explain the interest in the big Mississippi State MLB McKinney (if true).

It's what makes this rumor that much more believable. With or without Brockers JL was still making too many plays 5 yards downfield. Something is not working when there are so many plays like that. It's either the DT or LB or perhaps both.

 

[V3]

I don't think he's overrated at all. No he doesn't get sacks, but he takes on double blockers so that others (i.e. Quinn, Long, Donald) can

I get that he doesn't get sacks(even though right after drafting him Fisher justified picking him so high by saying they'd teach him to get sacks). I don't think he takes on double teams or pushes the pocket nearly as much as people here claim. I made it a point to watch him last year because I was losing patience with him. He was pretty bad the first half of the season. He basically did nothing. He improved a lot in the second half but he still wasn't near what people here were making him out to be. He's just an okay player. Nothing more. I think he'd be much better if he weighed as much as his bio said he does. Nick Wagoner was on the radio last season talking about how he doesn't weigh what they say he does. If he wants to play NT, he needs to be around 320/330, not the 280/290 that Nick was saying he's closer to.

 

[Noregar]

Nick Wagoner was on the radio last season talking about how he doesn't weigh what they say he does. If he wants to play NT, he needs to be around 320/330, not the 280/290 that Nick was saying he's closer to.

I was not aware of these weight issues. That is an interesting tidbit that goes a long way to providing me with a better understanding of "the why" if this trade or a derivation of it actually were to happen. I still think Brockers and the 10 is too steep a price to pay to only move up 3 spots. Donald and Fairley (at his optimal weight) are sub 300 lb DT's so if the Rams do move Brockers I would think they need to add a true bigger bodied run stuffing DT back into the mix at some point.

 

[V3]

I was not aware of these weight issues. That is an interesting tidbit that goes a long way to providing me with a better understanding of "the why" if this trade or a derivation of it actually were to happen. I still think Brockers and the 10 is too steep a price to pay to only move up 3 spots. Donald and Fairley (at his optimal weight) are sub 300 lb DT's so if the Rams do move Brockers they I would think they need to add a bigger bodied DT back into the mix at some point.

I agree but I think it's relatively easy to find big, fat 2 down NT's to stop the run in the later rounds.

Also, the thing to remember about draft pick value and moving up is that all drafts are different. You can't just go off the draft chart. In some drafts, certain draft spots are more valuable than in other years. In this year's draft, it's been said there are about 7 elite players and after that, there's a drop off in talent. If teams want to get up to the elite talent spots, they're going to have to pay a little more. After those premium spots, you could probably go off the draft chart more closely. Also, the Rams are probably willing to part ways with Brockers because they know they probably aren't going to be able to pay him and all the other players that are going to get 2nd contracts after this season. Some players are going to have to go. Might as well get something for him while they still can.

 

[Noregar]

With the Rams now a week and half into their offseason conditioning program I guess they know which Brockers showed up. The 320 lb guy or the 290 lb guy from early last year and they have also had a good look at Fairley and his conditioning.

I for one like Brockers but I doubt the Rams need 3 sub 300 lb DTs sitting on their roster (all with sizeable contracts). Donald is definitely on the no-trade list and Fairly is not tradable either with his 1 year prove it deal so that only leaves Brockers with any tradability.........assuming this thing has any real legs at all. It will be interesting to see if this actually plays out.

It is not a good thing to wish your life away but a part of me cannot wait for tomorrow night to get here. Of course then it will be over in the blink of an eye.

 

[Memento]

I get that he doesn't get sacks(even though right after drafting him Fisher justified picking him so high by saying they'd teach him to get sacks). I don't think he takes on double teams or pushes the pocket nearly as much as people here claim. I made it a point to watch him last year because I was losing patience with him. He was pretty bad the first half of the season. He basically did nothing. He improved a lot in the second half but he still wasn't near what people here were making him out to be. He's just an okay player. Nothing more. I think he'd be much better if he weighed as much as his bio said he does. Nick Wagoner was on the radio last season talking about how he doesn't weigh what they say he does. If he wants to play NT, he needs to be around 320/330, not the 280/290 that Nick was saying he's closer to.

I want to see where he played at 280-290. As far as I know, Brockers was 311 lbs. Not nose tackle weight, but certainly not below 300 lbs.

Let's not forget that Wagoner is incredibly far removed from the Rams. Ever since he came to ESPN, he's pretty much said what every other national media person has said about the Rams. He's far from infallible.

 

[ChrisW]

I don't think he's overrated at all. No he doesn't get sacks, but he takes on double blockers so that others (i.e. Quinn, Long, Donald) can

This is wishful thinking. Can anyone provide video of Brockers taking on multiple blockers? I'm pretty sure the double teams went to Donald and Quinn.

 

[V3]

I want to see where he played at 280-290. As far as I know, Brockers was 311 lbs. Not nose tackle weight, but certainly not below 300 lbs.

Let's not forget that Wagoner is incredibly far removed from the Rams. Ever since he came to ESPN, he's pretty much said what every other national media person has said about the Rams. He's far from infallible.

Wagoner is in that locker room, at their training camp, at the games, etc. I trust what he says. Beyond that, just going from what I saw from him, he didn't look over 300 lbs to me. He was getting pushed around too much to be what I'd consider a very good NT.

You made your point though. You love him. Great. I don't. I think he's expendable and easily replaced. I'd rather get value from him while we still can and sign the other players next year.

 

[Memento]

Wagoner is in that locker room, at their training camp, at the games, etc. I trust what he says. Beyond that, just going from what I saw from him, he didn't look over 300 lbs to me. He was getting pushed around too much to be what I'd consider a very good NT.

You made your point though. You love him. Great. I don't. I think he's expendable and easily replaced. I'd rather get value from him while we still can and sign the other players next year.

Because we all know how reliable the good old-fashioned eye test is.

And when's the last time that Wagoner has actually broken news about the Rams that was true? Remember what he was saying during the Foles trade? Remember what everyone was saying about the Foles trade, that we have to give up Bradford, a future second, and a future fourth?

Wagoner is good, but he's not infallible. His word is not the written gospel.

 

[jrry32]

@jrry32
Which might better explain the interest in the big Mississippi State MLB McKinney (if true).

While possible, I think that's something a bit different. I think McKinney is more likely being view as a Sam and a pass rusher in the short term. Kind of like Akeem Ayers. You know Williams and his subpackages.