The Rams Need to Get A "Go To" WR More Than Any Other Position

[mr.stlouis]

You're overrating San Francisco, you're overrating Watkins, and you're underrating our WRs. How can you say we'll never overpower their front 7 with the way we dominated Sea's front on MNF when everyone on the O-line was healthy? When our O-line was together this season, they were pretty damn good, we just need to retain that talent and add a few new faces and that unit could be borderline dominant.

Watkins is a big body? He's around the same size as Givens, neither one is going to physically overpower many corners in this league. I will say that he has much better hands and ball skills, but he doesn't have better hands than Bailey, and he isn't tougher than Bailey either. As for speed, he's about as fast as Givens and a notch below Tavon.

As you can see we already have talent on this team. The problem is that they were all in their first or second year, and as you said were overwhelmed at times especially in the bright lights on TNF, though Bailey didn't even play in that game. Don't be fooled, Watkins will have growing pains too, just as they did, he's not some otherworldly player that will immediately set the world on fire. Even Megatron failed to reach 800 yards his rookie year, and Watkins isn't near that kind of prospect.

Yes, we dominated SEA early on and got dominated in their house, dominated in ARZ, and dominated twice by SF. That means we played two out of six games well against our division. You picked the one cherry off the cake.

The think with Watkins is he plays much bigger than what he is. Thats a trait only Bailey has out of our whole WR core. Like you said, Watkins has better ball skills and hands than Givens and is about as fast. Givens catches the ball when he's open and is below average in traffic. It's part of the reason why Cook and Austin can be bracketed easily. It's not good enough!

Speaking of not good enough, there isn't an OG worthy of even a top 12 pick. We have tackles and need to work on our depth. You don't pick a depth guy at #2. The second round is where you target OG's this year unless you wanna trade #13 and then draft one there. It's about value. Watkins is worth a 5-7 range pick. If we didn't have Long then I'd agree about drafting OL in the top 10.

I'm not wrong about SF, either. They you in the middle until you make them pay on the edge, which is still a big challenge. The only WO we have to pick up some tough yards is Bailey. That's ONE guy. Watkins is a much better fit and need.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I don't actually believe that LT is so much more important than other O-line positions anymore. I think we've seen more and more lately where OGs have actually had an almost equal impact with OTs due to giving the QB a pocket to step up into, and giving RBs room to run between the tackles. Blindside protectors will probably always hold a premium over the rest of the OL, but with how teams are willing to move their best pass rushers all around lately, I think their value has been diminished compared to an era where pretty much the only important position on the OL was the LT.

I think Robinson could be an unbelievably dominant guard with the versatility to play four O-line positions and that would be invaluable to our offense right now. Matthews would probably be better on the edge due to his flawless technique and quick feet, but like Robinson I think he could be an elite player anywhere across the O-line.

Mathews durable bloodlines are a mega appeal to me. Feels like a safer pick.

 

[F. Mulder]

I'm also going off the assumption that the Rams won't be picking at 2, I actually wouldn't value Watkins the same at 2.

My "dream" scenario is trade back to 4, then trade back to 6 with 3 QB's going top 5.

I agree about the moving back. I don't care if it is one or two trades but if they can end up around 6-10 then to me that is a much greater value for some of the players we have been discussing as well as obviously picking up some additional high picks. With that said, same as last year, if they have a particular player they MUST have above all else (like their feelings about Austin) then they are less likely to trade or trade down below 4(?)

 

[mr.stlouis]

I don't actually believe that LT is so much more important than other O-line positions anymore. I think we've seen more and more lately where OGs have actually had an almost equal impact with OTs due to giving the QB a pocket to step up into, and giving RBs room to run between the tackles. Blindside protectors will probably always hold a premium over the rest of the OL, but with how teams are willing to move their best pass rushers all around lately, I think their value has been diminished compared to an era where pretty much the only important position on the OL was the LT.

I think Robinson could be an unbelievably dominant guard with the versatility to play four O-line positions and that would be invaluable to our offense right now. Matthews would probably be better on the edge due to his flawless technique and quick feet, but like Robinson I think he could be an elite player anywhere across the O-line.

Or you could just draft an actual OG in the second round and Lewan at 13/after trade down. We aren't getting a Watkins anywhere.

Evans is pretty good, Givens is just as good in his own way.

Lee=Quick

 

[EliteRam]

Seahawks just won a Super Bowl without a "go-to" WR. Having good "#2ish" WRs that rarely drop passes is better than having a dominant #1 who will demand a lot of money.

 

[Rams and Gators]

Yes, we dominated SEA early on and got dominated in their house, dominated in ARZ, and dominated twice by SF. That means we played two out of six games well against our division. You picked the one cherry off the cake.

The think with Watkins is he plays much bigger than what he is. Thats a trait only Bailey has out of our whole WR core. Like you said, Watkins has better ball skills and hands than Givens and is about as fast. Givens catches the ball when he's open and is below average in traffic. It's part of the reason why Cook and Austin can be bracketed easily. It's not good enough!

Speaking of not good enough, there isn't an OG worthy of even a top 12 pick. We have tackles and need to work on our depth. You don't pick a depth guy at #2. The second round is where you target OG's this year unless you wanna trade #13 and then draft one there. It's about value. Watkins is worth a 5-7 range pick. If we didn't have Long then I'd agree about drafting OL in the top 10.

I'm not wrong about SF, either. They you in the middle until you make them pay on the edge, which is still a big challenge. The only WO we have to pick up some tough yards is Bailey. That's ONE guy. Watkins is a much better fit and need.

Who do you start at LT in game 1? I'm not saying you should use a top 10 pick just because your LT has shown an inability to stay healthy, and is coming off a massive injury, I'm just curious who you'd go with?

 

[Boffo97]

Who do you start at LT in game 1? I'm not saying you should use a top 10 pick just because your LT has shown an inability to stay healthy, and is coming off a massive injury, I'm just curious who you'd go with?

Long should be ready by that point. If he isn't, then hopefully we resigned Saffold. If we didn't, then Barksdale or whoever we draft later on at Tackle.

As opposed to the issue where if we draft an OT first, then Long comes back, and we have too much talent at T and not enough in other places.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Who do you start at LT in game 1? I'm not saying you should use a top 10 pick just because your LT has shown an inability to stay healthy, and is coming off a massive injury, I'm just curious who you'd go with?

You go with your starter. Jake Long is who you start and draft a depth guy like Lewan. Our coaches have said Jake will ready for the start of next year so why should I doubt them?

We're paying him the big bucks so why draft a replacement? He got hurt, he's not dead.

Saffold isn't gone yet and neither is Wells. Those could be two starters right there. IDK about Dahl...

 

[jjab360]

Or you could just draft an actual OG in the second round and Lewan at 13/after trade down. We aren't getting a Watkins anywhere.

Evans is pretty good, Givens is just as good in his own way.

Lee=Quick

There isn't an OG in this draft with nearly Robinson's combination of power, athleticism, and versatility. He's one of the most physically dominant OL prospects I've seen since I started following the NFL draft. I wouldn't pass up on that for a Sammy Watkins, personally.

 

[Rams and Gators]

Long should be ready by that point. If he isn't, then hopefully we resigned Saffold. If we didn't, then Barksdale or whoever we draft later on at Tackle.

As opposed to the issue where if we draft an OT first, then Long comes back, and we have too much talent at T and not enough in other places.

There's a chance Long is back, but I'd guess there's a higher chance that he isn't. When was the last time Saffold finished a game he started playing OT? Can Joe B play LT? He played 2 in 2012 and we only gave up 5 sacks over the two games, I suppose we could get lucky and end up with a David Bakhtiari, are we happy taking that chance?

 

[Rams and Gators]

You go with your starter. Jake Long is who you start and draft a depth guy like Lewan. Our coaches have said Jake will ready for the start of next year so why should I doubt them?

We're paying him the big bucks so why draft a replacement? He got hurt, he's not dead.

Saffold isn't gone yet and neither is Wells. Those could be two starters right there. IDK about Dahl...

Didn't they also say they believe in Brian Quick? Why doubt that?

 

[mr.stlouis]

Seahawks just won a Super Bowl without a "go-to" WR. Having good "#2ish" WRs that rarely drop passes is better than having a dominant #1 who will demand a lot of money.

Why settle? We could have it all.

Seattle got beat by ARZ down the stretch, too. I know this is obvious but they don't play against their own secondary. We play against it! Ours secondary isn't even close to theirs. They can get away from passing the ball when Lynch is rolling and can rely on their defense. They didn't need a #1 to do it. We need a #1 because they'll target our running game, again, and we'll be sunk... AGAIN! Why do we wanna repeat the same mistakes?

 

[mr.stlouis]

Didn't they also say they believe in Brian Quick? Why doubt that?

Well I'd hope they'd not write him off in his second year. Why would they say they didn't is the better question. I'm sure they beleive in all their players.

I'm not saying cut Quick, I just want to pair Sammy with him.

 

[tonyl711]

Seahawks just won a Super Bowl without a "go-to" WR. Having good "#2ish" WRs that rarely drop passes is better than having a dominant #1 who will demand a lot of money.

the seahawks won because of their defense, if they don't have a top 2 defense the need for scoring more points comes into play, and then you do need a #1 WR, do you think that offense would have gotten them to a SB with a #12 defense? not very likely.

 

[mr.stlouis]

There isn't an OG in this draft with nearly Robinson's combination of power, athleticism, and versatility. He's one of the most physically dominant OL prospects I've seen since I started following the NFL draft. I wouldn't pass up on that for a Sammy Watkins, personally.

Robinson would get chewed up but the fleet of foot DE in this division. We can draft an actual guard, with power, in the second round. Honestly Saffold is irreplaceable for us. Robinson will not do it in his first year. We need a couple guys... after Watkins.

You know Barks actually did pretty good at LT when given the chance.

At the end of the day, Clowney or Watkins will be our pick. Fisher likes playmakers and DL'man I the first round.

 

[jjab360]

Why settle? We could have it all.

Seattle got beat by ARZ down the stretch, too. I know this is obvious but they don't play against their own secondary. We play against it! Ours secondary isn't even close to theirs. They can get away from passing the ball when Lynch is rolling and can rely on their defense. They didn't need a #1 to do it. We need a #1 because they'll target our running game, again, and we'll be sunk... AGAIN! Why do we wanna repeat the same mistakes?

You seem to be forgetting that our no.1 mistake was entering the season in a pass-first, spread offense in an attempt to get all of our young receivers on the field at the same time. We started the season in a hole because of that, and were never able to recover. I suppose that's why I don't view receiver as a big of a need as the OP does, we need to focus on what worked well for us and that was a run-first, ball control offense. Like Gregg Williams said, accentuate your strengths, hide your weaknesses.

 

[Rams and Gators]

Well I'd hope they'd not write him off in his second year. Why would they say they didn't is the better question. I'm sure they beleive in all their players.

I'm not saying cut Quick, I just want to pair Sammy with him.

Cutting or not you're giving up on someone if you draft Watkins, if they really do believe in Quick then they won't draft Watkins.

As for Long being healthy game 1 I pray that he is because if not there's going to be a whole forum of people over at the PD celebrating the end of the Bradford Era.

 

[MFaulk107]

I also don't understand why people think we need a "#1" receiver.
This is a huge year for every one on this team, it's time for everyone to step up!
Either a receiver will emerge as our number 1, or we will be elite, even with out a #1!
The focus needs to be on the line so Bradford is safe, and we need great to elite DBs.

 

[Boffo97]

Cutting or not you're giving up on someone if you draft Watkins, if they really do believe in Quick then they won't draft Watkins.

As for Long being healthy game 1 I pray that he is because if not there's going to be a whole forum of people over at the PD celebrating the end of the Bradford Era.

I would personally think they'd be giving up on Pettis rather than Quick if they draft Watkins.

And Pettis has had more time than anyone else to show he has something and really has not done so.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Cutting or not you're giving up on someone if you draft Watkins, if they really do believe in Quick then they won't draft Watkins.

As for Long being healthy game 1 I pray that he is because if not there's going to be a whole forum of people over at the PD celebrating the end of the Bradford Era.

So if Fisher doesnt draft OL high and we're not getting Watkins then that narrows it down to...

We pick Clowney
We stock pile a bunch of blue chip picks but no one "elite".

Honestly, im starting to think Clowney alone is good enough for a blockbuster trade. The guy is undeniably incredible on film. He's like the Calvin Johnson of DE's coming out. I don't know how you pass on him unless you're getting a big trade proposal. He makes OT's look foolish, guards are even slower. Our defense would be so incredible...