Very Disappointing If True: "rams Gm Doesn't Believe No. 1 Wr Is A Need"

[RFIP]

I feel sick...

This all comes down to Quick. If he passes on Watkins because he thinks Quick is so good then that's a strike for me.

Could not agree more. IF they pass on Watkins and Quick still sucks we are sunk!

Simple as that.

We've already seen good defenses shut down our run game...and these wr's (GIvens? Quick? Pettis? <puke>)

Wow, please dear God let him be lying!

 

[LesBaker]

Everyone should know immediately what this disinformation means. We are seriously considering taking a WR in the 1st round. Probably Watkins.

That's what Snead wants people to think. Or the opposite. It depends of course.

(See how easy it is Lol)

 

[Alan]

RFIP having trouble with his memory:
Could not agree more. IF they pass on Watkins and Quick still sucks we are sunk!

We've already seen good defenses shut down our run game...and these wr's (GIvens? Quick? Pettis? <puke>)

I don't agree with that and one of the main reasons for my disagreement is the three players you forgot to mention.
Stedman Bailey
Tavon Austin.
Jared Cook.

The situation looks a little better when you add those into the mix.

Plus of course, you're forgetting something even more important. Sam Bradford.

I think it's way too optimistic to assume that Watkins will be unlike 95% of all first year WRs and excel immediately. I guess that means we're already sunk eh? :wink:

The only thing that will "sink" us IMO is a crappy O-line.

 

[Alan]

Don't make me quote that excerpt from The Princess Bride again Les. :wink:

 

[RFIP]

I don't agree with that and one of the main reasons for my disagreement is the three players you forgot to mention.
Stedman Bailey
Tavon Austin.
Jared Cook.

The situation looks a little better when you add those into the mix.

Plus of course, you're forgetting something even more important. Sam Bradford.

I think it's way too optimistic to assume that Watkins will be unlike 95% of all first year WRs and excel immediately. I guess that means we're already sunk eh? :wink:

The only thing that will "sink" us IMO is a crappy O-line.

Cook is a figment of peoples imagination, nothing more. He has no fight in his game whatsoever.

And Austin and Stedman NEED a #1 to play off of. This should be crystal clear by now.

If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

 

[Alan]

RFIP responding with:
If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

An argument can be made that it doesn't need to excel.

 

[Yamahopper]

Everyone should know immediately what this disinformation means. We are seriously considering taking a WR in the 1st round. Probably Watkins.

I'm not gonna argue with you on that one.
If we listen to all of Sneed's interviews were not really interested in QB's, DE's, DT's OL's early, LB's, RB's and he likes our DB"s too. Now WR's.
So I guess we're not drafting anyone this year.....

 

[…..]

Snead is right....and some of you need to back away from the ledge.

This report is merely saying that they want to trust thier evaluations. I dont blame them.

I heard the interview in question. He has a grasp of the current situation.

If you think one rookie WR will single handedly make the Rams legit contenders, then I question YOU way before I question Les Snead.

 

[blackbart]

Cook is a figment of peoples imagination, nothing more. He has no fight in his game whatsoever.

And Austin and Stedman NEED a #1 to play off of. This should be crystal clear by now.

If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

Maybe you should go take a look at Bradford's numbers before he was injured this year. I could post them for you but I'm sure you are capable of looking them up.

Your putting way too much into Watkins he is just another guy with potential, he looked very good in college but he is not going to "save our offense". This team is not going to operate with one go to guy at WR, that part is obvious.

 

[RamFan503]

we cannot have another receiver around here and we're going to be a good football team."

So in Les' world, this can mean absolutely nothing. It may mean that he thinks WR is not a need or it could mean that they are targeting one or two in particular WRs but if they don't get one of them, we are still going to be a good football team.

I wouldn't get too bound up by what is said leading up to the draft unless your team is picking first and makes it clear who they are taking. I know a lot of people have said that Fisher has never taken an O-lineman in the first but I get the feeling with this regime that NO position aside from kicker or punter is truly off limits if the player they value is sitting there. The question would really be if there is a difference maker sitting there within reach. This is also why I have a hard time getting too wrapped up in pre-draft hype.

 

[max]

Snead is approaching this draft from the standpoint of adding 2 HOF players. He spoke about it with Burwell and others recently, raising the examples of the Bears and Ravens drafting 2 HOF players. That's what he said he has tasked his scouts to do.

So Snead does not want to limit his scope to one particular position. He is searching for greatness at any position. And if Watkins is deemed to have greatness in him, they will pick him. Simple as that.

I got the impression that Snead doesn't want to trade down too far, and by consequence isn't looking for a 2015 first rounder. I got the impression that he sees this draft as being ripe for picking great players, more so than last year and quite possible more so than next year. It's important to him not to miss out on the opportunity to pick great players this year just to get a first rounder next year. That's the impression I got listening to him, anyway.

 

[…..]

I dont think Snead has closed the book on Watkins.

I also dont think he's opened the book on Watkins.

They're probably just now organizing notes and planning. They also have extremely important personell decision that need to be made, which will then dictate somewhat our draft direction.

Its the old Daddy Bull theory. The son says "Hey dad, lets run down there and f_ck us a cow!!!" and the Daddy Bull replies "No son, lets walk down... and f_ck them all."

I believe Les Snead is walking.

 

[Pancake]

Cook is a figment of peoples imagination, nothing more. He has no fight in his game whatsoever.

And Austin and Stedman NEED a #1 to play off of. This should be crystal clear by now.

If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

I think your a little bit too critical of Cook. He's not the all around TE we all want but he is still a pretty nice weapon to have. I'd rather have him than not.

Nothing is crystal clear about Austin or Stedman after just one year. Half of the one year was playing with a backup QB. So much more growth and development ahead for these guys. Limits are sky high IMO.

Quick didn't suck. Especially not in the second half. He was open a lot more in the last few games. Not his fault the ball isn't thrown to him. But even if he does suck the Ram O doesn't depend on Quick.

 

[-X-]

Cook is a figment of peoples imagination, nothing more. He has no fight in his game whatsoever.

And Austin and Stedman NEED a #1 to play off of. This should be crystal clear by now.

If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

What's that say about every single TE on the team for the last 30 years before him? Since he set the STL Rams' record and all...
Give him a chance to get comfortable in the offense and play with the starting QB for a while before you write him off.

 

[Lesson]

Cook is a figment of peoples imagination, nothing more. He has no fight in his game whatsoever.

And Austin and Stedman NEED a #1 to play off of. This should be crystal clear by now.

If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

Cook went through a rough stretch during the middle of the season, but he started to play better near the end of the season, IMO.

I think Austin needs to be utilized correctly. He shouldn't be viewed as a #1, but should be viewed as an offensive weapon. I think it's too early to say if Steadman's potential is or isn't a #1 WR, IMO, considering he hardly played on offense the first 8 games, but looked good when he did play offense.

I could be reading your post incorrectly, but I don't Quick was bad last year. I think he made strides in his development, as in some instances he was blocking D players to the sidelines. All of his stats are up from 2012, too, aside from TDs, which were the same in 2013 as they were in 2012. If anything, I don't think Quick received the opportunity to catch more passes due to Clemens' limitations.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't think Quick received the opportunity to catch more passes due to Clemens' limitations.

Agreed. But then again, I don't think ANY receiver received the opportunity to catch more passes due to Clemens' limitations AND the early ineptness of the offense as a whole.

 

[jrry32]

Like I just said on the PD...he might not 'need' one...doesn't mean they won't be interested if that player is sitting there begging to be picked.

Lot's of quality players at positions the Rams need. I think we will get someone good...be it WR, CB, OT...whatever.

Exactly.

 

[CoachO]

What stands out to me is just how incomplete this article really is. The author doesn't bother to take the time to really understand what those numbers actually mean. He wants to try to exaggerate the importance of the STAT and ranking as the whole basis of his article.

Two things jump out at me with this. First, he claims that "with or without Bradford" they struggled to move the ball through the air. What he fails to recognize, is that Bradford was on a pace to throw for 3900+ yards (249 YPG). Assuming they would have attained that number, they would have ranked 14th.

The other thing he glosses over, is who the teams are who finished near or below the Rams ranking.

24th (tie) - Kansas City Chiefs (11 - 5) 3340 yards passing 26.9 PPG (6th)
24th (tie) - Oakland Raiders 3340 " "
26th - Seattle Seahawks (13 -3) 3236 " " 26.1 PPG (8th)
27th - St. Louis Rams 3125 21.8 PPG (21st)
28th - Buffalo Bills 3103
29th - Carolina Panthers (12 -4) 3043 22.9 PPG (18th)
30th - San Francisco 49ers (12 - 4) 2979 25.4 PPG (11th)
31st - New York Jets 2932
32nd - Tampa Bay Bucs 2820

I think if the author would have included this list, his argument regarding a #1 WR might not be as compelling. When teams such as KC, Seattle, Carolina & SF can manage to win games without ranking high, well, isn't that what it's all about?

To say this is about the LACK of a #1 WR is shortsighted. Once Bradford went down, they completed an avg of 14 passes per game. With half of those going to TEs and RBs by design. So for this author to try to use statistics to make his case, just falls short of the true story.

And as far as the "we need a #1" myth, you can have a dynamic passing game without one. Please tell me who the "#1 receiver" is on Denver. Or New Orleans. arguably the two best passing teams in the NFL. The difference is, when ONE guy gets taken away, they have alternatives. While I will admit that upgrading the roster is really all that matters, I just don't think there any guarantees that Watkins, Evans, Lee, Benjamin, et al. will have any more impact his first year than the guys they already have.

Last year it was "we have to trade up and get the most dynamic playmaker in the draft". They did just that, and yet here we are yet again, saying the exact same thing.

 

[Alan]

Faceplant with a goodie:
Anyone who thinks this is smokescreen and that he is trying to throw teams off our scent is smokin' sumpthin THROUGH a screen. IMO Snead is NOT that smart. How many times have we heard him mutter "I'll say this...."...and then stumble all over his words and actually say nothing. Sorry, and I am not trying to "bash" our GM, I just think he is somewhat dimwitted to be honest. Hmm, I guess that isn't very nice, but I wouldn't consider it bashing, and I do NOT think he is wearing a "poker face" when he says these things. Only way I can see a WR in the first is Evans @ #13 after Matthews @ #2...assuming we keep those picks. Can't wait for this draft.....

:lol:

 

[jrry32]

Cook is a figment of peoples imagination, nothing more. He has no fight in his game whatsoever.

And Austin and Stedman NEED a #1 to play off of. This should be crystal clear by now.

If Quick sucks AGAIN our pass game has no chance to excel.

I think that's an outlandish stance to take. Our passing game was doing just fine with Sam when Stacy became the starter. If we have a reliable and good running game, Sam can make it work...even if we don't add a #1. That's assuming we also have decent protection.