Robert Rochell Playing Time

[swmizzou83]

I'm not sure it's anything against Rochelle as much as we have a couple super impressive rookies that have passed him in the depth chart

 

[Noregar]

From what little I saw of Rochelle in the preseason he showed that he has a lot of upside and did not look lost. Rochelle is really raw and probably needs more seasoning. Way too early to write him off. The two Rooks have played well for rookies and are a better fit right now. This Defense would be top tier if it had a better pass rush. The secondary is much better than last year's unfortunately the pass rush has declined significantly and is the bane of the defense even with the great AD up front. Historically teams with a below average Pass rush and below average offensive lines do not win championships and those are our Rams' biggest weaknesses.

 

[Tano]

From what little I saw of Rochelle in the preseason he showed that he has a lot of upside and did not look lost. Rochelle is really raw and probably needs more seasoning. Way too early to write him off. The two Rooks have played well for rookies and are a better fit right now. This Defense would be top tier if it had a better pass rush. The secondary is much better than last year's unfortunately the pass rush has declined significantly and is the bane of the defense even with the great AD up front. Historically teams with a below average Pass rush and below average offensive lines do not win championships and those are our Rams' biggest weaknesses.

Kinda hard to put pressure on a QB when the QB is getting rid of the ball on what I believe averages 2.5 seconds

Is there a stat out there that shows teams defenses and opposing QBs getting rid of the ball on average

I think that would be an eye opening stat.

 

[Merlin]

Rochell is the poster child of a Rams draft that took a sharp left turn into Upsideville. Which is a miserable little town where oversized egos subscribe to the belief they can get more out of the player than his previous coaches. But in today's NFL the teams that chase the best veteran players require actual production from the picks they are left holding after all these blockbuster deals. And such teams, IMO, are not in a position to dispense picks on boom/bust selections who will require 50% of their first contract to start producing.

There is still time for him to figure things out and start producing. And I hope he does. But talking in general here, in the Rams' approach, I think that type of pick should be avoided. Now thankfully they took Jones and Skow in that class. But it's going to go down as one of Snead's worst drafts IMO and the reason is because they erred a little too much on upside.

I will admit, btw, that draft could have been a specific one-time strategy due to the factors surrounding it. From it being looked at as a poor draft or whatever, or because of COVID affecting snaps and opportunity for the players. But the end result is what matters.

This past draft was far better and you could see more of a focus on production in the selections. Bruss was physical and had plenty of tape producing. Durant was a small school stud who single handedly turned games around. Kendrick had flags and poor athleticism but by God the boy can play. And so on. In fact the "upside" pick in this draft, which was Hardy, was an appropriate late rounder with crazy raw athleticism for the position.

 

[Soul Surfer]

I knew he was supposed to be raw, but to be passed up by Durant, Kendrick and Haley has been a bit of a surprise.

Kendrick has been a really GREAT bit of a surprise.

He looks like a fast learner.
Sort of like Ernest Jones.

But at this point of the season I guarantee you Morris is playing the players he thinks are going to win for him.

 

[Kupped]

Maybe but I agree with Old that Rochelle is a man to man CB and not a zone CB and since Morris defense is mostly zone defense that Rochelle does not match up with Morris.

We could be wrong about Rochelle but I have seen many players not match up for specific coaches.

As an example, Kevin Greene was a 3-4 OLB and when forced to play 4-3 diminished his skills tremendously.

Rochell is the poster child of a Rams draft that took a sharp left turn into Upsideville. Which is a miserable little town where oversized egos subscribe to the belief they can get more out of the player than his previous coaches. But in today's NFL the teams that chase the best veteran players require actual production from the picks they are left holding after all these blockbuster deals. And such teams, IMO, are not in a position to dispense picks on boom/bust selections who will require 50% of their first contract to start producing.

There is still time for him to figure things out and start producing. And I hope he does. But talking in general here, in the Rams' approach, I think that type of pick should be avoided. Now thankfully they took Jones and Skow in that class. But it's going to go down as one of Snead's worst drafts IMO and the reason is because they erred a little too much on upside.

I will admit, btw, that draft could have been a specific one-time strategy due to the factors surrounding it. From it being looked at as a poor draft or whatever, or because of COVID affecting snaps and opportunity for the players. But the end result is what matters.

This past draft was far better and you could see more of a focus on production in the selections. Bruss was physical and had plenty of tape producing. Durant was a small school stud who single handedly turned games around. Kendrick had flags and poor athleticism but by God the boy can play. And so on. In fact the "upside" pick in this draft, which was Hardy, was an appropriate late rounder with crazy raw athleticism for the position.

I don’t know… I think you take some swings at upside.
For example.. Tariq Woolen this year.
To me… you balance that out by having a lot of steadier swings.

And I have no idea how last year’s class will play out… the Tutu thing looks like a disaster for multiple reasons…. Jones is a STUD.. Skow is a productive role player.
Rochell? He’s contributing on teams, at least.. who knows if he figures it out. And we’re about to see what year 2 of Bobby Brown looks like.

A lot of tbd, imo.

 

[Merlin]

Upside in general = development time. Mathematically speaking, if you were to make an equation of the Rams' approach, the variable for upside would be related to dev time which cuts into your effective years of your "average" drafted players. Who are window dressing.

So occasionally taking a shot on a big upside type is fine. But to win as many games as possible the Rams should be after drafted players who can perform in a role for as many of those first contract years as possible.

If, for example, they were to draft ten players outside round 1, they would undoubtedly win more games and field better teams each year if their average is say 3.4 years of contribution vs 1.8. Rochell is a good example of this. Now if you hit on him it helps counter that. But as a general approach I think upside needs to take a back seat to first contract functionality is all.

 

[rdlkgliders]

So occasionally taking a shot on a big upside type is fine. But to win as many games as possible the Rams should be after drafted players who can perform in a role for as many of those first contract years as possible.

100% grooming players is great to a degree, getting players to finally contribute meaningful minutes in the final half or 3rd of their rookie contracts is a dicey proposition in today's cap-driven league.
Great for the player, but not always friendly to the team that developed them.

 

[Kupped]

Upside in general = development time. Mathematically speaking, if you were to make an equation of the Rams' approach, the variable for upside would be related to dev time which cuts into your effective years of your "average" drafted players. Who are window dressing.

So occasionally taking a shot on a big upside type is fine. But to win as many games as possible the Rams should be after drafted players who can perform in a role for as many of those first contract years as possible.

If, for example, they were to draft ten players outside round 1, they would undoubtedly win more games and field better teams each year if their average is say 3.4 years of contribution vs 1.8. Rochell is a good example of this. Now if you hit on him it helps counter that. But as a general approach I think upside needs to take a back seat to first contract functionality is all.

Rounds 1-2.. and probably 3... you should be able to get starting within the first two seasons. 4th and lower? To me.. much less certainty.. that's why I'm okay with going for a swing in a round like that for a player like Rochell. If you get even 1.5 seasons starting from him and they're really good... I think you're in good shape.
On top of that.. if you've developed him into a really good player.. you'll get back some draft compensation. Interestingly enough.. the Rams may end up getting a higher pick back for SJD than what they used on him.

 

[Merlin]

Probably should have foreseen the need to define contribution. Contribution would be a player who can perform in a given role they drafted him for. So not necessarily a starter, but if say he's drafted to be a gunner then be a core teams player. If he's drafted to backup the center spot then do that.