Right Tackle Opinions

[iced]

For the love of god do not draft a RT in the first round...

 

[V3]

I like Barrett Jones as a developmental guy inside. I think this team goes OT in the first round with one of those picks.

At this point I wouldn't be opposed to taking a RT with our second pick but I don't see Fisher doing that.

Our first pick has to(and most likely will) be CB, IMO. Maneuver any way you can to get a shut down guy because Finnegan is done. After that I'd take a RT or S. I'm leaning RT because you might be able to move Finnegan to S to salvage something from that contract.

 

[V3]

For the love of god do not draft a RT in the first round...

I'm usually like that but it's getting ridiculous. If Barksdale can't perform I think the Rams almost have to take one. Our O-line is a revolving door. No one can last or they are just mediocre.

 

[iced]

For the love of god do not draft a RT in the first round...

I'm usually like that but it's getting ridiculous. If Barksdale can't perform I think the Rams almost have to take one. Our O-line is a revolving door. No one can last or they are just mediocre.

no, they don't have to take one. you can look for one in round 2, 3, 4, free agency, etc.

New Front office making evaluations - these are actual football men...

I sincerely hope they look more at skill positions like safety/corner/receiver/running back in the first round before a RT. I'm not opposed to a guard in the bottom half of the first round since Jones looks to be the future for Wells.. we also are going to need another guard soon with Dahl in a contract year

 

[CoachO]

For the love of god do not draft a RT in the first round...

I'm usually like that but it's getting ridiculous. If Barksdale can't perform I think the Rams almost have to take one. Our O-line is a revolving door. No one can last or they are just mediocre.

Lets revisit Rams history on this topic.

GSOT RT's?......

1999 - Fred Miller
2000 - Ryan Tucker
2001 - Ryan Tucker, John St. Clair
2002 - Grant Williams

Revolving door? or just the nature of the position?

For all we know, Joe Barksdale may very well be the RT for years to come. He's 25, and thus far has shown the ability to play when called upon.

This is the last of our concerns at this point. And the last thing they need to be throwing a 1st round draft pick on NEXT year.

 

[V3]

For the love of god do not draft a RT in the first round...

I'm usually like that but it's getting ridiculous. If Barksdale can't perform I think the Rams almost have to take one. Our O-line is a revolving door. No one can last or they are just mediocre.

Lets revisit Rams history on this topic.

GSOT RT's?......

1999 - Fred Miller
2000 - Ryan Tucker
2001 - Ryan Tucker, John St. Clair
2002 - Grant Williams

Revolving door? or just the nature of the position?

For all we know, Joe Barksdale may very well be the RT for years to come. He's 25, and thus far has shown the ability to play when called upon.

This is the last of our concerns at this point. And the last thing they need to be throwing a 1st round draft pick on NEXT year.

Barksdale has done OK. Nothing spectacular. And like I implied, I'm going to give him the rest of the season to show what he can do. If he's peaked, I'd want something better.

You many want to say it's the nature of the position but on the very good O-lines in the NFL, the same RT is there and plays well. It's not a new name every year. It'd be nice if this line could develop some chemistry for once.

I'd like it if we could use our high picks on skill positions but if we can't nail the position down, I'm not as opposed to taking a RT with our second first like I was in the past. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Angry Ram]

I'm gonna go ahead and create my own D'Anthony Thomas Rams pick 2014 bandwagon now. Take a RT in the 2nd round.

But it is way, way, way too early for the draft.

 

[V3]

I'm gonna go ahead and create my own D'Anthony Thomas Rams pick 2014 bandwagon now. Take a RT in the 2nd round.

But it is way, way, way too early for the draft.

I think it's way too early to start naming players you want in the draft but I can already see what positions the Rams need to address in the upcoming draft.

Priority #1 CB

 

[albefree69]

iced making a confusing statement:
I sincerely hope they look more at skill positions like safety/corner/receiver/running back in the first round before a RT.

This question has nothing to do with my position on this subject but I really don't understand the sentence above. Up till now, I always thought that the term "skill position" players referred to players who who touch the ball all the time like WRs, RBs, TE's and QBs. When you include Ss and CBs I no longer understand you. It seems, on the surface, like you just picked positions where you think we need help more than RT. Can you clear up my confusion concerning this?

 

[V3]

iced making a confusing statement:
I sincerely hope they look more at skill positions like safety/corner/receiver/running back in the first round before a RT.

This question has nothing to do with my position on this subject but I really don't understand the sentence above. Up till now, I always thought that the term "skill position" players referred to players who who touch the ball all the time like WRs, RBs, TE's and QBs. When you include Ss and CBs I no longer understand you. It seems, on the surface, like you just picked positions where you think we need help more than RT. Can you clear up my confusion concerning this?

I've always thought it referred to the positions that are most important that require high skill. So DE, CB, S, LT would be included in that. Maybe I've been thinking of it all wrong? It's a good question. Now I'm wondering.

Sorry if this is sorta hijacking the thread.

 

[BonifayRam]

Seems to be some resistance to utilizing a top pick for the ORT position. Why? I don not see the ORT any less critical than the OLT post in today's NFL.

Our own ROD'mer jrry32 made that argument wonderfully early this year in a post on the subject (OLT vs ORT) & I fully agreed with him. Snead & Fisher felt the RIGHT OT post was a top priority that they flipped our best Ram OL'er Saffold into that position & went out & purchased big $$$ an all pro OLT. So our own GM & HC feels strongly about this position. But I still see where we just see no real bonified need to use a top pick to secure Sam Bradford a top talent right side protector? Guess protecting Sam is just not that important when compared to the many other posts.

I see where the Rams have invested top first & second day draft picks since 2010....QB, RB, OLT, TE, WR's, DE, DT, OLB, CB's & safety. I also see big $$$ purchases made @ two DE's, DT, MLB, TE, CB, ORG, OC & OLT.

Missing positions from the above would be two OL positions OLG & ORT & you could say another safety & OLB'er would follow. So its not like the Rams have invested recently in UFA big $$$ or priceless draft picks @ ORT.

You might want to argue that Saffold was drafted for the ORT post but Saffold was never a ORT. He was always a OLT. Saffold became the starter @ OLT very early in TC 2010.

Now my personal thoughts currently is a replacement for CB Cortland Finnegan is under consideration but Trumaine Johnson is no jag here boys & we do have drafted rookie Brandon McGee in here too. Take the safety post we have 2nd yr McLeod, veterans Stewart & Giordano plus Cody Davis & injured Matt Daniels so it looks to be in better shape than what we have @ ORT to me. Same could be said about OLB'er where rookies Ray Ray Armstrong, Bates & possibly Jo Lunn Dunbar if need be can be returned once gain looks good to me.

Why so much resistance for consideration of a RIGHT OT with one of our top picks to protect our biggest investment named Sam Bradford?

 

[iced]

iced making a confusing statement:
I sincerely hope they look more at skill positions like safety/corner/receiver/running back in the first round before a RT.

This question has nothing to do with my position on this subject but I really don't understand the sentence above. Up till now, I always thought that the term "skill position" players referred to players who who touch the ball all the time like WRs, RBs, TE's and QBs. When you include Ss and CBs I no longer understand you. It seems, on the surface, like you just picked positions where you think we need help more than RT. Can you clear up my confusion concerning this?

I've always thought it referred to the positions that are most important that require high skill. So DE, CB, S, LT would be included in that. Maybe I've been thinking of it all wrong? It's a good question. Now I'm wondering.

Sorry if this is sorta hijacking the thread.

I always saw the offensive positions who touch the ball the most as the skill positions, as well as corners and id safeties (or whoever has to 'cover' those positions in man to man)... either way i outlined the 4 i liked to help avoid the confusion

 

[albefree69]

iced with his response:
I always saw the offensive positions who touch the ball the most as the skill positions, as well as corners and id safeties (or whoever has to 'cover' those positions in man to man)... either way i outlined the 4 i liked to help avoid the confusion

Don't all the D-linemen have to "cover" the RBs in man to man?

So I think I was correct in thinking that the 4 you mentioned were the areas that A) you feel are more in need of upgrade and/or B) areas you think require top picks to fill.

I realize that in the past, many teams felt that you could get great guards, centers and O-liners in general later in the draft. I believe that those days are long gone. One need only look at the last draft to see that view is no longer held by many (if any) GMs and HCs. I believe that at one time your view was widely held in the NFL but it's no longer the case and why is that? My belief is that it's because you don't need that much athleticism to run block but you do need it for pass blocking. The NFL is a passing league and no longer run based. Great O-liners, LBs who can cover and Safeties whose first priority is defending the pass are all examples of the changes needed to be successful in this new environment.

2013 draft:
OT picks: #1, #3, #11 (a RT), #19
C: #31
OG: #7, #10, #20

That works out to 25% of the first round picks and 5 of the top 11. Two of those top ten were OGs. Times have changed IMO.

Can you get good O-line players later in the draft? Sure, but with no higher success rate than at any other position. That of course means that the longer you wait the less chance you have of getting a good player.

As for your priorities, they might wind up being our top needs at the end of the year. Right now I don't see it but they are certainly in the mix. I don't know what positions I will want to fill early in the next draft but if the draft was tomorrow I'd want to pick an OT, CB and OG with our first three picks. That could easily change though.

 

[jrry32]

iced making a confusing statement:
I sincerely hope they look more at skill positions like safety/corner/receiver/running back in the first round before a RT.

This question has nothing to do with my position on this subject but I really don't understand the sentence above. Up till now, I always thought that the term "skill position" players referred to players who who touch the ball all the time like WRs, RBs, TE's and QBs. When you include Ss and CBs I no longer understand you. It seems, on the surface, like you just picked positions where you think we need help more than RT. Can you clear up my confusion concerning this?

I've always thought it referred to the positions that are most important that require high skill. So DE, CB, S, LT would be included in that. Maybe I've been thinking of it all wrong? It's a good question. Now I'm wondering.

Sorry if this is sorta hijacking the thread.

Typically, skill positions are considered to be all positions on offense and defense aside from the boys in the trenches and the QB. So LB, DB, WR, TE and HB.

 

[albefree69]

jrry32 with an answer:
Typically, skill positions are considered to be all positions on offense and defense aside from the boys in the trenches and the QB. So LB, DB, WR, TE and HB.

Thanks jrry.

I wonder how that came to be? Seems like that's changed big time especially at the OT and DE positions.

 

[iced]

Don't all the D-linemen have to "cover" the RBs in man to man?

No that's usually a OLB, MLB, or Safety depending on the formation and play call. Linemen go after the QB, especially in our Defense. I think if you were calling say a Cover 1 (FS plays zone deep, MLB is in Zone), one of the OLB's would cover (depending on the offensive alinement as well)..

but d-linemen do not cover rb's usually

 

[albefree69]

I put cover in quotation marks because what I meant by cover was that they had to defend them (as in tackle them). I don't see much difference between the two except the DB usually has to run farther.

 

[jrry32]

jrry32 with an answer:
Typically, skill positions are considered to be all positions on offense and defense aside from the boys in the trenches and the QB. So LB, DB, WR, TE and HB.

Thanks jrry.

I wonder how that came to be? Seems like that's changed big time especially at the OT and DE positions.

Some people also QB to be a skill position while others give QBs their own distinction.

But skill position are considered to be the positions most directly responsible for putting up and keeping points off the board. That's why OLs and DLs don't get the skill position "love". :lol:

And the phrase comes from them having skills other than just size and power such as catching the ball.

But yea, it's a bit outdated. And not exactly true.

 

[albefree69]

jrry32 further qualified:
But skill position are considered to be the positions most directly responsible for putting up and keeping points off the board.

That's where I made my mistake. I was just considering the offensive players.

Good to know for future conversations. Of course I disagree with that definition but at least I'll know what people are saying with they use that term. :bg:

 

[paceram]

Seems to be some resistance to utilizing a top pick for the ORT position. Why? I don not see the ORT any less critical than the OLT post in today's NFL.

Our own ROD'mer jrry32 made that argument wonderfully early this year in a post on the subject (OLT vs ORT) & I fully agreed with him. Snead & Fisher felt the RIGHT OT post was a top priority that they flipped our best Ram OL'er Saffold into that position & went out & purchased big $$$ an all pro OLT. So our own GM & HC feels strongly about this position. But I still see where we just see no real bonified need to use a top pick to secure Sam Bradford a top talent right side protector? Guess protecting Sam is just not that important when compared to the many other posts.

I see where the Rams have invested top first & second day draft picks since 2010....QB, RB, OLT, TE, WR's, DE, DT, OLB, CB's & safety. I also see big $$$ purchases made @ two DE's, DT, MLB, TE, CB, ORG, OC & OLT.

Missing positions from the above would be two OL positions OLG & ORT & you could say another safety & OLB'er would follow. So its not like the Rams have invested recently in UFA big $$$ or priceless draft picks @ ORT.

You might want to argue that Saffold was drafted for the ORT post but Saffold was never a ORT. He was always a OLT. Saffold became the starter @ OLT very early in TC 2010.

Now my personal thoughts currently is a replacement for CB Cortland Finnegan is under consideration but Trumaine Johnson is no jag here boys & we do have drafted rookie Brandon McGee in here too. Take the safety post we have 2nd yr McLeod, veterans Stewart & Giordano plus Cody Davis & injured Matt Daniels so it looks to be in better shape than what we have @ ORT to me. Same could be said about OLB'er where rookies Ray Ray Armstrong, Bates & possibly Jo Lunn Dunbar if need be can be returned once gain looks good to me.

Why so much resistance for consideration of a RIGHT OT with one of our top picks to protect our biggest investment named Sam Bradford?

Depending on what the Rams needs are and who is available when they draft I would have to think Jake Matthews would have to be very tempting IF he was still available (And, if, the Redskins keep losing that could be possible).