So the Rams were in talks with Baltimore to move up and get Zack Martin

  • 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.

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
ROD Credit 2025
20
What's everyone's thoughts on this? Really emphasizing oline. Must've had a pretty damn high grade on Martin. From Fish "It would’ve been pricey but worth it. It was a good pick for the Cowboys.”

Damn. I don't like giving up extra picks in such a deep draft, but I love the effort to build a dominate Oline. I liked Martin as a prospect too, and the versatility, but damn. This team is exciting in the draft lol.
 
Username said:
What's everyone's thoughts on this? Really emphasizing oline. Must've had a pretty damn high grade on Martin. From Fish "It would’ve been pricey but worth it. It was a good pick for the Cowboys.”

Damn. I don't like giving up extra picks in such a deep draft, but I love the effort to build a dominate Oline. I liked Martin as a prospect too, and the versatility, but damn. This team is exciting in the draft lol.
Click to expand...

I just don't know where we would have put him. I mean Barrette Jones probably won't crack the line up until an injury happens.
 
That is very surprising given Fishers history with drafting 1st round O line help. I liked Martin a lot but glad we are keeping some pix handy as I'd love to move up to round 2-3 with impunity for multiple picks.
 
Not to belabor this... but I really really hope we won't go there in at least the 2nd round.

The OL should be set right now: Long/Robinson/Wells (or Jones)/Saffold/Barksdale.

We can get depth later. We need an immediate starter with the 2nd round pick.

3rd round, that will be a little more understandable.
 
Boffo97 said:
Not to belabor this... but I really really hope we won't go there in at least the 2nd round.

The OL should be set right now: Long/Robinson/Wells (or Jones)/Saffold/Barksdale.

We can get depth later. We need an immediate starter with the 2nd round pick.

3rd round, that will be a little more understandable.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree that at #44 we should probably lean more towards the skill positions(DB/WR) but so far the Rams board appears to have been solid. We definitely need a solid pick there. Snishers 2nd rd picks have produced ummm...mixed results so far.
 
Agreed. I wonder where he would play. Maybe he was to be the ORT, or Robinson was going to be ORT and Martin the LG with Barksdale as swingman.


I like that they thought a player was a great value and attempted to get him despite position.

And we can Finally put the idea to bed that Fishr does not use first round picks on Olinemen! Amen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjab360 and jrry32
Mojo Ram said:
I tend to agree that at #44 we should probably lean more towards the skill positions(DB/WR) but so far the Rams board appears to have been solid. We definitely need a solid pick there. Snishers 2nd rd picks have produced ummm...mixed results so far.
Click to expand...
I'm not so much hooked on skill positions (and as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure there's an upgrade to our WR corps left) so much as whoever we pick has to be a day one starter without forcing someone talented onto the bench. I don't see that on OL with Robinson plugging our major need hole.

...that sounded less dirty in my head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mojo Ram
Slappy967 said:
That is very surprising given Fishers history with drafting 1st round O line help. I liked Martin a lot but glad we are keeping some pix handy as I'd love to move up to round 2-3 with impunity for multiple picks.
Click to expand...

Given that coach Fish did not have control of drafts in Tenn, not really sure how surprising.
Just hard to tell where coach will go in the draft when he's never had much control until now.
 
Fix units as a whole. They're probably not planning on signing Barksdale after this season

Future line:

LT: Robinson
LG: unknown
C: Wells
RG: Saffold
RT: Martin (if we had gotten him) [whoever they decide to draft]
 
Last edited:
I actually would have really liked this the more that I think about it. Probably would have had to give up a future first, though.
 
Martin was one of the two guys I wanted at #13 before Donald dropped so I'm not surprised at all. I'm actually glad we didn't have the opportunity to trade up for him though. We have too many other holes to fill. Tavon wasn't worth two starters last year and Martin isn't in Tavon's class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhinobean
Aren't 12 picks a lot in one draft? Maybe they wanted a little more quality and a little less quantity?
 
Alan said:
Martin was one of the two guys I wanted at #13 before Donald dropped so I'm not surprised at all. I'm actually glad we didn't have the opportunity to trade up for him though. We have too many other holes to fill. Tavon wasn't worth two starters last year and Martin isn't in Tavon's class.
Click to expand...

As a receiver I agree that Zack Martin isn't in Tavon Austin's class.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alan
I hear a lot of what guys are saying but...........maybe it wasn't the position. It might have been that particular player. Martin (in the coaches and FO's eyes ...) had an ability that no one else on the board did or does...... So I'm not sure just because his skill set is "blah blah blah" doesn't mean we are looking for that type of player. It may have meant....we wanted that player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCK363 and rhinobean
moklerman liking quality over quantity:
Aren't 12 picks a lot in one draft? Maybe they wanted a little more quality and a little less quantity?
Click to expand...
SF has 12 picks also. but the majority of their picks are 4th round and higher. Even in this deep draft I only expect to get starters in the top 3 1/2 rounds. Do you really think that three 7th round and two 6th round picks are worth very much? That comprises almost half our picks. So yeah, I wanted quality myself, which is why I'm glad we didn't "waste" any trading up. Do you think anyone would have traded their 17th pick in the draft for our 44th plus three 7ths, two 6ths, one 5th and even a 4th rounder? I doubt that. We'd probably have had to give up a 2nd rounder in next years draft plus this years 2nd. At the very least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhinobean
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back