Stuck at 2

  • 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.

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,101
With the depth of this draft I think there may be multiple teams looking to trade down and not many looking to trade up. The Rams may have better luck moving down from 13 if they decide to. If the Rams are stuck at 2 (there are much worse places to be stuck) their choice boils down to 3 picks in my estimation.
Matthews, Watkins or Clowney.
Matthews is game day ready week one and can play T or G. He can provide a massive upgrade at LG if Long is good to go and provide great T depth to both left and right tackle spots. He can also be viewed as the LT of the future and or replace Barksdale after this season if he leaves. Very few concerns with Matthews, provides an immediate upgrade and long term stability.

Watkins would potentially give the Rams something no one in the division really has anymore....a true dominant receiver. Fitz is in decline Boldin is one dimensional (it is a good dimension). The closest thing in the West to me is Davis but he tends to disappear in big games. I think Watkins is pretty much week 1 ready as well. Being able to place Watkins, Cook and Austin in the same formation could create mismatches everywhere. The Rams D is close to being at the same level of their West rivals Watkins would give the Rams the ability to attack those teams in a way they cannot attack others.

Clowney is the physical freak. It is both bad, telling and exciting when a guy can sit at the top of the draft board and have people ask if he tries. I think visions of a Clowney/Watt pairing have him going number one. That brings me to how the Rams would use him. I could see a situation where he employed all over. He certainly stands to get stronger in the NFL and should hold up well vs the run. Subbing for either Quinn or Long on first down, moving inside with Hayes on passing downs or even moving to OLB on some downs if he can turn and run with TE. You need to neutralize a TE? Clowney. Kap and Wilson would certainly double check before taking off on the run. A passrush with Quinn/Hayes/Clowney/Long could be something to behold. Fearsomefour reborn (Hayes can play the role of Lundy). A front seven with Quinn, Long, Clowney, Ogletree....amazing speed and athleticism. Add in depth at DE and very good talent that would become second thoughts game planning (Brockers, JL, Dunbar, Langford) and the D could be very special very fast.
I see good and compelling cases for all three.
 

Yamahopper

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,838
While I don't think the Rams are stuck at 2 , there's just not the one sure player teams will pay a bounty of picks for.
 

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,101
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
While I don't think the Rams are stuck at 2 , there's just not the one sure player teams will pay a bounty of picks for.
Watkins, Matthews maybe Mack. But with the draft deep at all those spots I don't see a windfall coming either.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
Robinson. I'm officially stuck on drafting him.

I'd be happy with Matthews.
 

MerlinJones

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
1,020
If drafting at 2 follow these three easy steps:

1. Draft Matthews/Robinson (whichever you prefer)
2. Insert into line-up
3. Don't worry about LT (barring injuries of course) for eight to ten years
 

Flipper_336

Starter
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
592
Name
Carl
If drafting at 2 follow these three easy steps:

1. Draft Matthews/Robinson (whichever you prefer)
2. Insert into line-up
3. Don't worry about LT (barring injuries of course) for eight to ten years
You forgot step 2a) At left guard until 2015, when we can cut Jake Long more cost-effectively.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
Flipper_336 pointing out side benefits:
You forgot step 2a) At left guard until 2015, when we can cut Jake Long more cost-effectively.
Certainly gives us that future option doesn't it. Just another great reason to draft one of the top OTs.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
If you can't trade down and Clowney is there, I think you have to go for it. Adding Clowney would be a nightmare for opposing offensive lines. I would love a go to receiver, but the Rams can score without one. I trust in Bradford, Stacy, Austin, Bailey, Kendricks, Cook, and Givens. They would have to find line talent, safeties, CBs 2nd pick and beyond.

Quinn / Clowney could be game wreckers week in and week out. How do teams stop them both? They don't. Not without leaving TEs, FBs, and/or RBs blocking every down and that still wouldn't work.
 

Flipper_336

Starter
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
592
Name
Carl
If you can't trade down and Clowney is there, I think you have to go for it. Adding Clowney would be a nightmare for opposing offensive lines. I would love a go to receiver, but the Rams can score without one. I trust in Bradford, Stacy, Austin, Bailey, Kendricks, Cook, and Givens. They would have to find line talent, safeties, CBs 2nd pick and beyond.

Quinn / Clowney could be game wreckers week in and week out. How do teams stop them both? They don't. Not without leaving TEs, FBs, and/or RBs blocking every down and that still wouldn't work.
You obviously didn't get the memo: Clowney is going to be a bust, apparently.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
Two questions:

1. Who is the Viking's QB?
2. Who is the Raiders QB?

Those two questions mean we can trade down.
 

BigRamFan

Super Bowl XXXVI was rigged!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
2,890
Name
Craig
Two questions:

1. Who is the Viking's QB?
2. Who is the Raiders QB?

Those two questions mean we can trade down.
My concern with this is the Raiders being the Raiders they will probably be content to take whoever slides to them. I don't think their FO is competent enough to have figured our who "their" guy is.

Also, not so sure about trading down with MINN to #8. Chances are we miss out on both of the top OTs at that point.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
My concern with this is the Raiders being the Raiders they will probably be content to take whoever slides to them. I don't think their FO is competent enough to have figured our who "their" guy is.

Also, not so sure about trading down with MINN to #8. Chances are we miss out on both of the top OTs at that point.

The Raiders will offer 4 1st round picks, only to figure out that the QB they take has "health problems"

And you don't have to trade down with them, just create the illusion of trading down with them.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
Too many issues with Robinsons development to take at 2 for me. After a trade down maybe.

I don't wanna take anyone at 2, man. Everything I propose is after a trade down. I have no issues with Robinson starting his career at OG.

I do beleive Matthews is Snisher's pick of the two of which I'm fine with.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,692
If that highly unlikely situation happened, I'd go either Clowney or Robinson.
 

OnceARam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
3,370
How to you sign both Clowney and Quinn to long term deals??? Basically in approx. four years we're forced to trade or cut one of them. With an OL (or WR) we have room for a #1.

Basically no NFL team can afford two #1's per position grouping (in the long run). And if you have two #1's in one position grouping (DL) that means that you are most likely suffering a lack of talent at other position groupings, which we clearly are. This is how teams suffer years of ineptitude...