This is flawed logic. Why?
A) The #1 overall pick is a sunk cost.
B) The previous regime drafted Sam at #1 overall.
C) The idea that a run-centric offense is wasting a QB is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.
D) The idea that a journeyman QB will do just as well as a legitimate QB on a run-centric offense is a laughable supposition.
E) The Seahawks and 49ers are both run-centric offenses...are they also-rans?
Just because you disagree with my logic doesn't make it flawed and certainly doesn't make it "misguided" or "dishonest". Again, I ask if we can please keep the debate on the topic and not try to make it personal.
A & B) Basically the same argument... but still, Fisher came to a team that had a #1 overall QB. If he wants the team, long term, to be running dominated, then that asset is not being used effectively. He's also being as big a control freak as the previous coach was accused of being, but I don't want to reopen that can of worms.
C & D) Also basically the same argument... and not even an argument. It's really only name calling. Sure, the highly drafted QB might be slightly better, but you're limiting his ceiling (just as you are by not giving him a #1) if you limit his job to managing a run-centric offense. You can use an expensive custom made sword to cut steak, but a common steak knife will do the job just as well and be a lot cheaper.
E) The Seahawks and 49ers are both succeeding because of their defense right now.
Jake Long is a dead man walking regardless of what they do this year. He has three years remaining on his contract and the odds that we re-up him after that are pretty minute. Hell, he may not make the end of his contract with all the injuries he had...and that pains me to say because he's a very good LT when healthy.
If he can't do the job, admit that it was a failed signing. If he can, let him do it for another year and wait to draft LT when we need to. Drafting a top ten tackle one year after signing Long is going to be seen, fairly or not, as an admission of a mistake.
Great WRs can be had later. More flawed logic.
Wow. How many times is this argument going to have to be answered? Yes, you can get good, and maybe even great WRs later. But we're not after just another WR. We're after a #1. A #1 MIGHT emerge from a lower round or what we have but it's very, very unlikely. As opposed to the vast majority of great guards throughout history who were drafted later than Top 10.
But we're drafting a man with a LT skill-set to play OG for 3 years at most. Would you have passed on Jonathan Ogden back in the day because LT was not a hole in the boat for them and great OGs can be found later?
Wow, Jonathan Ogden is being clung to like a life preserver around here lately. Yes, if we knew now what we knew then, I probably would have gone with Jonathan Ogden. And if the Rams are convinced that Robinson or Matthews has THAT level of talent, then they should make the pick too. I haven't heard that level of praise for Robinson and Matthews from the pundits and Robinson in particular scares me as a pick at that level because I worry about his unproven pass protection skills.
With this logic being presented though... the Draft a Tackle camp used to facetiously ask if people would want to draft ANOTHER WR high next year if Watkins didn't immediately dominate. I answered that we wouldn't because the only recent WR we drafted feeling that he had a great chance at being a #1 type was Quick. He's had two years and hasn't shown much. That might change next year, and if it does, that's awesome, but I wouldn't bet money on it. But the logic being used by those who want a tackles could easily apply for clamoring for another "once a decade" tackle next year even if we take Robinson or Matthews. Hell, I think a few people here would take Robinson AND Matthews if we could swing it. Smart GMing involves balancing priorities instead of focusing on one area.
Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that rookies are quite unpredictable(for the most part) in terms of early impact so drafting a guy based on what he will do/be day 1 rather than looking to the future is poor strategic planning.
This is the Not For Long league. (Although, if this league isn't for Jake, that's a good argument to replace him. Heyo!) While I agree that rookies are unpredictable in the sense that anyone we could pick could be a bust, I still think we should follow the conventional wisdom (hence name because it's conventionally wise) and not draft a tackle unless we need a tackle right now. We don't. We need guards. Drafting a tackle to play guard for 1, 2, 3 years isn't the best plan in my opinion.
You have every right to an alternate opinion. And I'll admit, there's validity to the tackle arguments. I think the Rams are going to be good either way. I just have my personal preference.
