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

[Faceplant]

Ugh. The term "#1 WR" is officially the most annoying thing uttered on this board as of now. The good teams spread the ball around. We should be no different. That and the fact that, in spite of some peoples wishes...THIS TEAM DOES NOT APPEAR INTERESTED IN BEING AN OFFENSIVE JUGGERNAUT!! Not saying we shouldn't find ways to score more points (duh), but I think the light may have come on for Schott once we got the running game involved. The Superbowl should have been enough of a wake up call for what type of team we need to emulate/beat in order to take the next step. Fisherball is seldom pretty or fancy, but it may be perfect for this division. Get used to it.

 

[bluecollarram]

Ugh. The term "#1 WR" is officially the most annoying thing uttered on this board as of now. The good teams spread the ball around. We should be no different. That and the fact that, in spite of some peoples wishes...THIS TEAM DOES NOT APPEAR INTERESTED IN BEING AN OFFENSIVE JUGGERNAUT!! Not saying we shouldn't find ways to score more points (duh), but I think the light may have come on for Schott once we got the running game involved. The Superbowl should have been enough of a wake up call for what type of team we need to emulate/beat in order to take the next step. Fisherball is seldom pretty or fancy, but it may be perfect for this division. Get used to it.

I love Fisherball already am "used to it", #1 WR isn't a term for me it's a description.

Fisher said himself they need to score more points. That doesn't translate into JUGGERNAUT!! to me just a factual statement from the HC.

 

[bluecollarram]

Nope. I'm saying what I've always said. That type of player, while great to have, isn't necessary to have a good offensive unit and team. Even the Super Bowl Champion Seahawks (amongst others) just made that pretty clear.

And even if Watkins is the top rated WR (subject to opinion) in a deep WR class. That doesn't mean that he's the only good WR or potential #1 WR in that class. Especially if the class is DEEP (which seems to be getting ignored). Andre Johnson's class had Anquan Boldin. Braylon Edwards class had Roddy White and Vincent Jackson. Santonio Holmes class had Greg Jennings and Brandon Marshall. Calvin Johnson's class had Dwayne Bowe and Sidney Rice (inj). Crabtree's class had Hakeem Hicks and Mike Wallace. And on and on. Have the former listed top rated players in their class really made that much more of a difference on their teams than the later listed players (if at all in some cases)??

Edit: And this would probably be a non issue if the Rams took Alshon Jeffrey from the Justin Blackmon draft class (or Quick developed faster).

So with Jeffery or Blackmon being #1 WR's you'd be alright with that just not Watkins?

 

[Boffo97]

Ugh. The term "#1 WR" is officially the most annoying thing uttered on this board as of now. The good teams spread the ball around. We should be no different. That and the fact that, in spite of some peoples wishes...THIS TEAM DOES NOT APPEAR INTERESTED IN BEING AN OFFENSIVE JUGGERNAUT!! Not saying we shouldn't find ways to score more points (duh), but I think the light may have come on for Schott once we got the running game involved. The Superbowl should have been enough of a wake up call for what type of team we need to emulate/beat in order to take the next step. Fisherball is seldom pretty or fancy, but it may be perfect for this division. Get used to it.

And historically, Fisher has not picked offensive linemen early, and Snead has a history of being involved with picking talented WRs.

Even if we're not going to be the GSOT redux, having a #1 WR is a good thing, and I think brings much more to the team than an overdrafted RT or G. A few people here say it's a bad idea to pick a WR because we picked one (one that was never intended to be a #1) last year, but we also signed a former #1 overall LT last year too. Our offensive line is a problem, but it's the guards, not the tackles.

Having a #1 WR just does so much more to help this team than having an overdrafted RT or G does.

Now if we had a need at LT (again, we do not unless it comes out that Long is done), I'd be very happy picking Matthews. Robinson's rawness is scary.

 

[Memphis Ram]

So with Jeffery or Blackmon being #1 WR's you'd be alright with that just not Watkins?

Quite frankly, while nice to have, I don't believe that the Rams NEED any of them. IMO, they've got enough young targets (including TEs) on the roster now who either need time to develop or were probably not being used as well as they perhaps should have been, IMO. Again, if pass happy Mike Martz were running the show, then I might think differently. But, this is Jeff Fisher's team and he plans to run more of a run first/balanced attack.

 

[bluecollarram]

You stated this would be a non issue with those WR's which by implication means the Rams would be better with a top WR.

I agree with you that they can win with the group they have but it would be nice to watch a "game changer" at WR again.

Like the guys they have, just want to see that group turn into a strength on offense.

 

[Memphis Ram]

You stated this would be a non issue with those WR's which by implication means the Rams would be better with a top WR.

I agree with you that they can win with the group they have but it would be nice to watch a "game changer" at WR again.

Like the guys they have, just want to see that group turn into a strength on offense.

I merely meant that if Quick had developed as quickly (if he does) as Jeffrey, my guess is that most wouldn't even have such a woody for Watkins.

 

[bluecollarram]

I merely meant that if Quick had developed as quickly (if he does) as Jeffrey, my guess is that most wouldn't even have such a woody for Watkins.

Agreed, but if my aunt had balls...

 

[bluecollarram]

I merely meant that if Quick had developed as quickly (if he does) as Jeffrey, my guess is that most wouldn't even have such a woody for Watkins.

BTW Memphis, I'm new to this fan board thing. I've read them for years just never bothered to join. I love talking football especially Rams football so I thank you for this back and forth on this topic. Isn't it great to play armchair GM?

 

[RamFan503]

Memphis, you're still going to have to scheme these plays open a#1 breaks down defenses with skill.

A "go to" player, when every body in the stadium knows where they are going with the ball and they still make the play.

Wouldn't that definition have meant that Danny was a #1 receiver? I know that's not what you mean but....

If I thought Watkins was that sure fire #1, I'd probably be all over it. But I'm just not that convinced. He strikes me as a bit of a tweener. If we take him I will be behind the pick all the way. If we don't, I sure hope I'm right.

Bottom line is though that several teams have big time receivers yet didn't make it to the playoffs. There are also receivers that no one - I mean NO ONE would have guessed would be league leaders. Look at Josh Gordon. 721 career yards at of all places, pass happy Baylor.

I am of the thinking that we are thin on our offensive line. We have some pretty good young talent in our receiver corp. Personally, I think our offensive play calling and schemes flat out sucked last year. When Bradford went down it just made us scale back the passing game even more and we were only competitive because we were starting to put together a decent running game. But honestly, I saw so many pass plays that could have been had by our current receivers if we had a QB that could get them the ball that I have a hard time thinking they are really the problem. How many short curls and stop routes do we need to see before we get that yards after the catch are a near impossibility? When someone shut down our running game, we were toast. That to me was a result of a subpar O-line.

I understand the want to have a true #1 receiver. But in our offense, if we can't run the ball, he is just going to be another wasted pick. Boudreau is a very good O-line coach. How about we give him some blue chip talent to work with and see what he can really do.

Quick can get open and is a big body down the sideline. Bailey can get separation with his route running - which IMO is far better than Sammy's. Tavon can... well? be Tavon. Cook can get open in the middle. Kendricks and Harkey both have good receiving skills and are also pretty good blockers. Give Sam a clean pocket and he will pick defenses apart. Go at any of the teams in the NFC West with a mediocre O-line and the addition of Watkins and IMO - we're still screwed.

Now maybe we can get what we need on the O-line with later picks. But how 'bout we try something new. The more I think about it, the more I want one of the top OTs AND one of the top Guards. Real rancid beef up front for years to come. I am so freaking tired of needing 1 or 2 yards on 3rd down or having 1st and goal on the two and losing that battle.

 

[RamFan503]

Are you saying that since that type of player is hard to find you shouldn't look for him?

Watkins is the top rated WR in a deep WR class that is no accident.

No. But maybe you shouldn't fabricate him.

 

[bluecollarram]

I said #1 WR is a description not a definition don't think anyone would use DA as a description of a #1.
As far as OL goes I agree with that as well, more than one way to win a game. I don't think the OL was mediocre last year and I'm not sure, as none of us are, what Snisher have in mind going forward as I have said before we may have 4 OL spots already in place therefore MY speculation on taking a WR. If I were going by top rated overall I'd go with JD Clowney.

 

[bluecollarram]

No. But maybe you shouldn't fabricate him.

Not fabrication they are all just prospects none of us knows for sure. The same holds true for those wanting OL, DE, WR, or QB.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Not a fan of Robinson, think he could end up being a bust at tackle. Just not sold on him. Easily rather have Watkins. He is a great run blocker, but not even average at pass protection. Could he develop into a great pass blocker? Maybe. But if I am taking a tackle that early, I don't want him to be half good/half a project. Grabbing Robinson and starting him at LT would be horrible for Sam. Just my opinion, try not to flame me to much.

Exactly. He's not quick enough to handle the edge rushers in this division. Matthews is a better all around prospect of the two. Trading down and drafting a raw, physically gifted, tackle is the best solution. Barksdale actually played pretty well at LT in his limited snaps.

I'd pick Clowney before I'd pick a T. He's every bit as good as the hype. Trading down and picking Watkins is the only possible justification in my eyes. I'd be happy with either scenario.

We just need an anchor of a G that won't chop block Long every other game.

 

[RamFan503]

I said #1 WR is a description not a definition don't think anyone would use DA as a description of a #1.
As far as OL goes I agree with that as well, more than one way to win a game. I don't think the OL was mediocre last year and I'm not sure, as none of us are, what Snisher have in mind going forward as I have said before we may have 4 OL spots already in place therefore MY speculation on taking a WR. If I were going by top rated overall I'd go with JD Clowney.

All I'm saying is that everyone knew Sam was going to DA and that still was exactly what happened. If he went uninjured in '12, I believe he was on pace for a 1,000 yard season - no?

So we have supposedly 4 OL spots in place. Are any of them besides Long studs? We keep hearing about competition being a great thing in pre-season. Does that not apply to the O-line? Wouldn't you LOVE to have a future LT that beats out Barksdale for the starting RT spot THIS YEAR and have Barks as that swing tackle? Or vise versa? Saffold may very well be gone. What about a plug and play guard with our 13th pick of the 2nd round? How about NOT getting Sam killed if God forbid Long goes down again. How about opening real holes so that not only does Stacey have a place to run but doesn't get squashed and nicked up by the huge beef at the line of scrimmage?

Denver had two receivers in the top 12 of the league. How did that work out against an NFC West type of defense?

I guess it boils down to my main priorities given the type of offense I think we are going to use and the type of defense we are going to see a lot of. We need to get mean - not fancy.

 

[RamFan503]

Not fabrication they are all just prospects none of us knows for sure. The same holds true for those wanting OL, DE, WR, or QB.

Yeah - I didn't mean that you were fabricating. My bad there.

I was more thinking along the lines that there always seems to have to be a must have receiver at the top of the list. In this case, I think that Watkins may be a case of media fabrication more than a receiver that is in the class of a Green or Jones or Johnson. I felt the same about the hype over Blackmon. He played better than I thought he would so maybe Watkins will as well. I just don't think that is what puts us over the top in the NFC West and I don't think he is one of those must have receivers.

 

[bluecollarram]

Defense would like to take away DA but if he is your best option you're going to have a lot of 15 play drives that result in FG's. I'd take that as DC.

I'm happy with what ever the Rams do in the draft just "banging the drum" for Sammy Watkins. JMO

 

[bluecollarram]

Yeah - I didn't mean that you were fabricating. My bad there.

I was more thinking along the lines that there always seems to have to be a must have receiver at the top of the list. In this case, I think that Watkins may be a case of media fabrication more than a receiver that is in the class of a Green or Jones or Johnson. I felt the same about the hype over Blackmon. He played better than I thought he would so maybe Watkins will as well. I just don't think that is what puts us over the top in the NFC West and I don't think he is one of those must have receivers.

The best part about all of this discussion is that we are not talking about the Rams draft pick at 13 Les Snead is the shiznit
THANKX SKINZ!

 

[bluecollarram]

 

[xander47]

I'm just going to leave this here: the threat of having a run game

And Givens' isn't even a "number 1" receiver!