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

[xander47]

As for a number 1 receiver being absolutely necessary? How's that working out for the Lions? I'd prefer the Rams' WR unit over the Lions' WR unit any day.

Instead of looking for a number 1 receiver, how about looking at the offense has a whole completely, and looking to see what weapons there are: as in what defenses look to stop. Run game is good enough albeit some stops against the NFBest (some healthy new body in the o-line). The next thing defensive coordinators stop is the explosiveness of Austin.

Using Austin correctly opens up the game for everyone else (my definition of a number one receiver) the way he changes the game is to me more than just a regular receiver would as he's a threat to score every time he touches the ball:
http://ramsondemand.com/threads/tavon-austin-wrong-approach.22568/


With ball:

Without ball:

PS
Austin Pettis has a place on this team. He screams Ricky Proehl to me. I'd prefer him in the slot and get the tough yards at the first down marker as Austin can be distraction deep.
Am I the only one who sees this and just reminded of the '99 NFC championship game?

 

[jjab360]

As for a number 1 receiver being absolutely necessary? How's that working out for the Lions? I'd prefer the Rams' WR unit over the Lions' WR unit any day.

You're crazy lol. Gimme Megatron any Sunday, I don't even care who the other receivers are. Too bad Sammy's not Megatron, though, not even close..

 

[Boffo97]

As for a number 1 receiver being absolutely necessary? How's that working out for the Lions? I'd prefer the Rams' WR unit over the Lions' WR unit any day.

Instead of looking for a number 1 receiver, how about looking at the offense has a whole completely, and looking to see what weapons there are: as in what defenses look to stop. Run game is good enough albeit some stops against the NFBest (some healthy new body in the o-line). The next thing defensive coordinators stop is the explosiveness of Austin.

Obviously a number 1 receiver doesn't fix all the problems by himself, but it makes the offense better.

A redundant LT playing out of position as a RT or a G only fills a hole that someone further down the board could have filled just as well or even better (by playing in their natural position).

 

[xander47]

Obviously a number 1 receiver doesn't fix all the problems by himself, but it makes the offense better.

A redundant LT playing out of position as a RT or a G only fills a hole that someone further down the board could have filled just as well or even better (by playing in their natural position).

Wait so when does a rookie WR play well his first year? And just because the OLman is playing out of position, it's really a matter will he still play better than said person in the 2nd/3rd round, now and future. Really I just want the BP 10 years from now. As Snead says, they're looking for HOFers. If they see that in Watkins, then so be it. I just don't see WR as a need.

 

[Boffo97]

Wait so when does a rookie WR play well his first year? And just because the OLman is playing out of position, it's really a matter will he still play better than said person in the 2nd/3rd round, now and future. Really I just want the BP 10 years from now. As Snead says, they're looking for HOFers. If they see that in Watkins, then so be it. I just don't see WR as a need.

If Watkins doesn't have #1 potential, then I would agree with not picking him. If he does, it'd be a crime not to. And I wouldn't require him to live up to that in his first year.

On the other hand, I don't see your #2 (or slightly later) overall drafted RT or G playing those positions any better than people we could draft in the appropriate rounds for that. At least for the next year, we would have 2nd pick overall player (or slightly less) filling a role than a 34th overall (or even less) could fill just as well. And if Jake Long doesn't retire after next year, that's an even longer time we've picked a redundant player rather than someone who is helping us at value commensurate with his draft position.

I agree you want people who are great players 10 years down the road, but Robinson is a gamble because of his rawness, and Matthews (by what I've heard) seems like he'd be solid but unspectacular at best. If you want a tackle because it's a "safe" pick, then we might be looking at Jason Smith v2.0... especially with Robinson. Except this time, we had a choice.

If Watkins isn't #1 WR material, I'd trade down and stock up mid 1st round picks, 2nd round picks, and hopefully next year picks rather than take either of the tackles (or Clowney). It'd be a different story if we didn't have a left tackle. We do. LT is not a need. #1 WR, even if some offenses are successful without one, is something we lack on this team.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Obviously a number 1 receiver doesn't fix all the problems by himself, but it makes the offense better.

A redundant LT playing out of position as a RT or a G only fills a hole that someone further down the board could have filled just as well or even better (by playing in their natural position).

Greg Robinson (a former high school guard) is the best run blocker to come out in the draft that I've seen in years and would be a load at guard while waiting for the Jake Long era to end. He is no Jason Smith. He'd be a perfect fit for a run first/balanced attack type offense. HOFs guys like Chris Hinton and Jonathan Ogden followed the same path to start their NFL careers.

BTW, it works both ways. One could argue that the WR class, that even you admit is DEEP, could field a potential #1 WR that could be had later, too. And by someone who could do just as well or even better. In yet another example, the same class that had top rated Dez Bryant also had Demaryius Thomas.

On top of all of that, the Rams have 5-6 young guys under contract at the position and still may not have a complete picutre on them given their youth and Clemons limitations. Oline? Just about everyone is a free agent, hurt, or a potential cap casualty.

In the end, the game is won and loss in the trenches. As great a WR as Calvin Johnson is, he's played on one winning team in entire NFL career. IMO, the Lions would be better with better OLine play and improved rushing attack.

 

[BigRamFan]

PS
Austin Pettis has a place on this team. He screams Ricky Proehl to me. I'd prefer him in the slot and get the tough yards at the first down marker as Austin can be distraction deep.
Am I the only one who sees this and just reminded of the '99 NFC championship game?

Couldn't agree with you more here. Pettis is never going to be a "#1" receiver but he was not drafted to be nor does he need to be. Every team needs a #4 WR as well and Pettis could very well be one of the best #4 WRs in the league; tough, good routes, great hands.

 

[iced]

Can't believe I'm seeing so much defense for a WR corps who's starting #1 receiver failed to record a single touchdown (104 other receivers managed to grab one)..

I can't speak for anyone else when using the term #1 Receiver but I gotta re-emphasize - #1 is not part of a characteristic group that mandates being a giant or super rare ability. a #1 receiver is the best receiver on your team, and a go to guy - a playmaker. It's 3rd down, everyone knows where the ball is going - and the guy can make the play... He's a nightmare to coordinate games for (we had 2 of these receivers at one point, in Holt and Bruce.) Some of you, as far as I can tell, by "your standards of a #1 receiver" wouldn't include Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce but IMO - they are. They get open, the consistently separate, they catch the ball. They're the Go To guy... And they can give some of the better corners in the league (2 of whom are in the NFC West) srtuggles. Does that mean they're going to go over 100 yards every game against Patrick Peterson? No. But if it comes down to making that one catch that makes or breaks the game, I want a guy at receiver who I know can do it... More importantly, someone Sam Bradford can have confidence in outwide.

Does said receiver exist on this team? *crickets*

 

[Memphis Ram]

Can't believe I'm seeing so much defense for a WR corps who's starting #1 receiver failed to record a single touchdown (104 other receivers managed to grab one)..

I can't speak for anyone else when using the term #1 Receiver but I gotta re-emphasize - #1 is not part of a characteristic group that mandates being a giant or super rare ability. a #1 receiver is the best receiver on your team, and a go to guy - a playmaker. It's 3rd down, everyone knows where the ball is going - and the guy can make the play... He's a nightmare to coordinate games for (we had 2 of these receivers at one point, in Holt and Bruce.) Some of you, as far as I can tell, by "your standards of a #1 receiver" wouldn't include Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce but IMO - they are. They get open, the consistently separate, they catch the ball. They're the Go To guy... And they can give some of the better corners in the league (2 of whom are in the NFC West) srtuggles. Does that mean they're going to go over 100 yards every game against Patrick Peterson? No. But if it comes down to making that one catch that makes or breaks the game, I want a guy at receiver who I know can do it... More importantly, someone Sam Bradford can have confidence in outwide.

Does said receiver exist on this team? *crickets*

We don't know yet. That's one of the main points. Bradford missed half the season and the team is littered with young guys still developing their crafts. Should the team keep on adding young WRs to the mix every year a developing kid on the roster doesn't go against, what is actually the norm, and instantly become that guy in his 1st or 2nd season?

I can see it now. The Rams draft Watkins and he doesn't light it up LIKE MOST ROOKIES. The 2015 Offseason would then be littered with posts regarding picking up the next top rated name in the draft (along with dumping Bradford threads).

 

[iced]

We don't know yet. That's one of the main points. Bradford missed half the season and the team is littered with young guys still developing their crafts. Should the team keep on adding young WRs to the mix every year a developing kid on the roster doesn't go against, what is actually the norm, and instantly become that guy in his 1st or 2nd season?

I can see it now. The Rams draft Watkins and he doesn't light it up LIKE MOST ROOKIES. The 2015 Offseason would then be littered with posts regarding picking up the next top rated name in the draft (along with dumping Bradford threads).

Talented receivers still produce on the field even with backup qb's - happens all the time. Of course not as high,but you can still tell they're playing at a high level. They're getting open, running crisp routes, etc.

To act like our receivers are in even that echelon is not even remotely accurate, nor is it realistic to expect to win in the NFC West with the current crop.

 

[Warner4Prez]

We don't know yet. That's one of the main points. Bradford missed half the season and the team is littered with young guys still developing their crafts. Should the team keep on adding young WRs to the mix every year a developing kid on the roster doesn't go against, what is actually the norm, and instantly become that guy in his 1st or 2nd season?

I can see it now. The Rams draft Watkins and he doesn't light it up LIKE MOST ROOKIES. The 2015 Offseason would then be littered with posts regarding picking up the next top rated name in the draft (along with dumping Bradford threads).

I'm with you. I know the old line, "it takes receivers three years to develop" gets stale. Truth is, it still holds true. Michael Crabtree, Roddy White, Victor Cruz, Golden Taint, Miles Austin, Brian Hartline--all pretty good receivers that took at least 2 or 3 full seasons to catch up and most of them had the advantage of REGULAR playing time.

Sure there are quite a few players breaking out their rookie years, but this team hasn't been in a position to take receivers at the top of the draft with other glaring holes to fill.

 

[Boffo97]

We don't know yet. That's one of the main points. Bradford missed half the season and the team is littered with young guys still developing their crafts. Should the team keep on adding young WRs to the mix every year a developing kid on the roster doesn't go against, what is actually the norm, and instantly become that guy in his 1st or 2nd season?

I can see it now. The Rams draft Watkins and he doesn't light it up LIKE MOST ROOKIES. The 2015 Offseason would then be littered with posts regarding picking up the next top rated name in the draft (along with dumping Bradford threads).

We don't know how the line will turn out yet either. Should we continue adding high priced tackle talent even though we just signed a high priced tackle last year? That goes both ways.

If we did pick Watkins, I wouldn't be calling be for another #1 type right away. But you ARE calling for another high priced tackle right away. (Remember, Austin isn't really a #1 type, but a specialized weapon.)

 

[Memphis Ram]

We don't know how the line will turn out yet either. Should we continue adding high priced tackle talent even though we just signed a high priced tackle last year? That goes both ways.

If we did pick Watkins, I wouldn't be calling be for another #1 type right away. But you ARE calling for another high priced tackle right away. (Remember, Austin isn't really a #1 type, but a specialized weapon.)

The problem with that argument is that there are potentially fewer bodies on the Oline in comparison to the WR core as Saffold, Dahl, and Wells could all be gone this offseason and Long may not be ready early in the season. AND you have to have those guys in the trenches for the WRs to even have a chance at getting the football. Watkins helps no one if Bradford is on his back and/or the team can't run the rock.

BTW, I'm not calling for another high priced OT. I want the team to select the BPA irregardless of position.
And to date my imaginary draft board goes in this order:

1) Clowney
2) Mack
3) Robinson
4) Watkins

 

[Boffo97]

The problem with that argument is that there are potentially fewer bodies on the Oline in comparison to the WR core as Saffold, Dahl, and Wells could all be gone this offseason and Long may not be ready early in the season. AND you have to have those guys in the trenches for the WRs to even have a chance at getting the football. Watkins helps no one if Bradford is on his back and/or the team can't run the rock.

BTW, I'm not calling for another high priced OT. I want the team to select the BPA irregardless of position.
And to date my imaginary draft board goes in this order:

1) Clowney
2) Mack
3) Robinson
4) Watkins

That begs a question: If need doesn't come into it for you (Yes, we have issues on the INTERIOR line, but we can address those without adding a TACKLE), why not pound the table for Clowney instead?

 

[Memphis Ram]

Talented receivers still produce on the field even with backup qb's - happens all the time. Of course not as high,but you can still tell they're playing at a high level. They're getting open, running crisp routes, etc.

But it's still dependent upon the quality of backup and the rest of the offense. And whether or not they are playing at a high level might make some happy, the scoreboard is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things. One has to do nothing but look within the division at Larry Fitzgerald to see that his constant didn't make much difference on the scoreboard minus the other parts.

 

[Memphis Ram]

That begs a question: If need doesn't come into it for you (Yes, we have issues on the INTERIOR line, but we can address those without adding a TACKLE), why not pound the table for Clowney instead?

Clowney may not be available and Robinson looks like he can be a stud at Guard AND Tackle. Versatility is HUGE in the league. Just like Ogden and Hinton of yesteryear.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Can we just get Watkins so we can all start "being happy," please? I read on another board one scout rated him higher than J. Jones coming out. Sure... I'm reading what I want. But if true how can you pass on him??? YOU CAN'T! Rams wanted Blackmon a couple drafts ago, Sammy's on another level than Blackmon.

No way we pick a T in the top ten with Long under a big contract. This is why you do your homework on developmental prospects for solid depth. Not to mention Fisher rarely picks an OL'man that high.

Did I mention we still have Jake Long and some still want a tackle, who we actually move to OG. Come on! That just doesn't make sense. Let's actually draft a GURARD to play... uhh... GUARD!

BRILLIANT!

Watkins for prez...

 

[jjab360]

Can we just get Watkins so we can all start "being happy," please? I read on another board one scout rated him higher than J. Jones coming out. Sure... I'm reading what I want. But if true how can you pass on him??? YOU CAN'T! Rams wanted Blackmon a couple drafts ago, Sammy's on another level than Blackmon.

No way we pick a T in the top ten with Long under a big contract. This is why you do your homework on developmental prospects for solid depth. Not to mention Fisher rarely picks an OL'man that high.

Did I mention we still have Jake Long and some still want a tackle, who we actually move to OG. Come on! That just doesn't make sense. Let's actually draft a GURARD to play... uhh... GUARD!

BRILLIANT!

Watkins for prez...

There's a lot of things I disagree with in this post, but in particular there's no way we can know the bolded and I point it out just because I've heard it so many times. The report said Fisher got angry when he was picked, but it could have very well been a "Darn, we had the perfect trade down lined up" moment and not an "our guy just got picked" moment. It lines up more with all the reports that say Snisher had coveted Brockers from the start. They were probably going to trade down no matter what because they felt like Brockers would fall, but they had a better trade lined up if Blackmon had fell than the one they made last second with the Cowboys. Like you, that's just my opinion of course.

 

[RamFan503]

Can we just get Watkins so we can all start "being happy," please? I read on another board one scout rated him higher than J. Jones coming out. Sure... I'm reading what I want. But if true how can you pass on him??? YOU CAN'T! Rams wanted Blackmon a couple drafts ago, Sammy's on another level than Blackmon.

No way we pick a T in the top ten with Long under a big contract. This is why you do your homework on developmental prospects for solid depth. Not to mention Fisher rarely picks an OL'man that high.

Did I mention we still have Jake Long and some still want a tackle, who we actually move to OG. Come on! That just doesn't make sense. Let's actually draft a GURARD to play... uhh... GUARD!

BRILLIANT!

Watkins for prez...

We still don't know anything more than the usual internet GMs - OK? You don't KNOW that Sammy is even special by NFL standards. Also, are you going to say that no LTs have started as RTs or Guards? Let's not get too high and mighty over our opinions - ok? Either that or post that picture you have of Snisher's draft board.

 

[Boffo97]

We still don't know anything more than the usual internet GMs - OK? You don't KNOW that Sammy is even special by NFL standards. Also, are you going to say that no LTs have started as RTs or Guards? Let's not get too high and mighty over our opinions - ok? Either that or post that picture you have of Snisher's draft board.

If this was Long's last year, I could see it... but this is his 2nd year on the Rams, and the coach who has a history of NOT drafting linemen high, and the GM who has a history of stockpiling receivers are going to use a top 10 pick on his eventual replacement? And let most of that value go to waste for at least a year (probably more) playing another position that we could have drafted someone much lower to play?

I don't see it.

If they go that route, I'll admit you were right and I'll hope for the best, but it seems like a transparently bad plan to me.