What is a "true #1 WR"??

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

blackbart

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
6,211
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #201
really? what were you expecting? tell me the logic behind that comment- curious.
I was expecting to get one of Verner most likely or Byrd or one of the FA guards that went today.

The logic, we don't have enough NFL talent to field an O Line right now.
 

tbux

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
497
We also don't have the money some of those teams have- we aren't going to win bidding wars with teams that are WAY under the cap. Our philosophy has always been to build through the draft, and supplement with FA- many players still out there- be patient- I didn't expect a day one signing- simply hoping we could land one at a fair price- but that is rare on day one. We have good draft picks coming, and only need a few players via FA. be patient- we will be fine. no need to overpay.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
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.

I'm not making anything personal.

There is no #1 overall QB. Our QB's name is Sam Bradford. And to argue that he's not being used correctly if our offense is run-centric is a bad argument imo.

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.

I can stand a debate with another person with an opposing view, what I can't stand is a victim act. There wasn't a single instance of name-calling in my post. You weren't insulted. The closest I came to that was saying that at worst, you were being dishonest with the point you were making.

I don't care to have a discussion with a person that's going to act like they're being persecuted if I think their argument is incorrect. So, please, cut it out or I'm not going to continue on with this discussion.

You're not limiting anyone's ceiling. Sam doesn't need to throw the ball 600 times to be effective. Russell Wilson did quite well this year despite being on a run-centric team. Steve McNair did quite well during his time in Tennessee on a run-centric team. Nick Foles led the NFL in QB Rating in 2013 on the #1 team in the NFL in rushing yardage.

Sam Bradford will not be restricted by us using a run-centric offense. If anything, having a strong running game will help make him a more efficient player statistically.

And the idea that a journeyman QB can do the job just as well as Sam in a run-centric offense is PREPOSTEROUS.

E) The Seahawks and 49ers are both succeeding because of their defense right now.

Seahawks - 8th in PPG Scored
49ers - 11th in PPG Scored

Obviously, their offenses are doing something right.

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.

Well, if it were me, I wouldn't give a rat's tookus what the media or fans took it as. Because they won't be complaining when Long and Matthews/Robinson are blowing open massive holes on the left side of the OL and giving Sam Bradford ample time to throw.

The idea that we wait and draft a LT when we need to is poor strategic planning. It ignores a few important facts:
1. We may not be in position to get one.
2. There may not be any good prospects available.
3. Will that rookie be ready to step in as a LT immediately and start?

I prefer not to fly by the seat of my pants in scenarios like this. We have a shot at a blue chip talent that can start right away at a position of need(LG) and then move over to LT when Long goes. That sounds ideal to me.

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.

And a great guard might emerge from a lower round...but it's very unlikely. Because when you take a player in the lower round, the odds of you hitting on the pick decrease significantly. So frankly, the Saints finding Carl Nicks in the 5th round does jackshit for us when we draft Rokevious Watkins.

It's a bad argument. You can find a #1 WR in the mid to late rounds. You can find a great OG in the mid to late rounds. But the odds of you finding either one are not high. They're quite low.

In fact, lets take a look at the modern era Guards in the HOF:
Larry Allen -> 2nd round
Larry Little -> UDFA
Tom Mack -> 1st round(#2)
John Hannah -> 1st round(#4)
Russ Grimm -> 3rd round
Gene Upshaw -> 1st round(#1)
Billy Shaw -> 2nd round
Mike Munchak -> 1st round(#8)
Randall McDaniel -> 1st round(#19)
Bruce Matthews -> 1st round(#9)

Interesting. All but one were drafted in the first 3 rounds. 6 out of the 10 were drafted in the first round.

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.

If we don't sign a starting caliber OL in FA, hell freaking yeah I would draft both Matthews and Robinson if we could swing it.

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.

I wasn't meaning a bust. I was meaning unpredictable as in even successful NFL players are hit and miss as rookies.

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.

Understandable. You have every right to disagree. I don't pretend my stance here is a popular one. I feel quite differently about OGs than most. I don't oppose Watkins as a player, I think he's a plenty talented kid. I just have my board set and prefer certain players over him.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Unfortunately, this part really negates any point in responding to the rest of your post other than saying I disagree with you.

I can stand a debate with another person with an opposing view, what I can't stand is a victim act. There wasn't a single instance of name-calling in my post. You weren't insulted. The closest I came to that was saying that at worst, you were being dishonest with the point you were making.

I don't care to have a discussion with a person that's going to act like they're being persecuted if I think their argument is incorrect. So, please, cut it out or I'm not going to continue on with this discussion.
The only victim act here is what you just pulled. If you disagree with my arguments, you have every right to. You have every right to respond to them. But knock off the "flawed", "misguided", "dishonest", "laughable" crap and just tell me WHY I'm allegedly wrong. Because telling me that I'm being dishonest is definitely a shot at me personally (and why would I be dishonest here?), and the rest are just insults in lieu of arguments.

I respect you. And thus I think you're better than that. I think the insults are a crutch you don't need.

I understand that you are passionate in your belief that the Rams need to draft a tackle early. And that's fine. But the people who disagree with you aren't the enemy. They just have another opinion. We're going to be going around like this for another two months most likely, and I think we should take care to not let things get to the "You're stupid." "No, YOU'RE stupid." stage. The best way to do that is to keep things civil and reply to the argument.

I want what's best for the Rams. Same as you, brother. And it's hard to remember sometimes, but none of us have a vote in this, no matter how hard we pound the table.

I will admit though that the tea leaves are currently pointing towards you being happier on draft day than I am. And if that's the case, I'll suck it up and fervently believe that the Rams and Robinson/Matthews are going to prove me wrong.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
Well, if it were me, I wouldn't give a rat's tookus what the media or fans took it as. Because they won't be complaining when Long and Matthews/Robinson are blowing open massive holes on the left side of the OL and giving Sam Bradford ample time to throw.

The idea that we wait and draft a LT when we need to is poor strategic planning. It ignores a few important facts:
1. We may not be in position to get one.
2. There may not be any good prospects available.
3. Will that rookie be ready to step in as a LT immediately and start?

I prefer not to fly by the seat of my pants in scenarios like this. We have a shot at a blue chip talent that can start right away at a position of need(LG) and then move over to LT when Long goes. That sounds ideal to me.

This^^^

The idea that we will just be able to pick up a LT when we need him and plug him in IMO is full of holes. Look at where the top LTs have been going in the draft of late. IF there are very good Tackles available when we need one, what will we have to do to get one? Make an RGKnee type of trade up? That sounds like something we'd all like to do. But it appears we are very unlikely to have a top ten pick anytime in the near future. With where LTs are going these days, it is going to likely take quite the trade up to get one. When it comes time that we need a LT (hopefully and I mean HOPEFULLY) not this season, do we really want to plug a rookie in at that position or would we prefer to plug in a second or third year player that knows the game and the offense?

I understand the desire to have another weapon for Sam and have that weapon be a "true #1". I think we all see Watkins as a potentially good to very good receiver in this league at some point. I personally don't see him as a top 10 pick type receiver but that's just what I think I see. It just seems he has had his status lofted because he is the apparent top receiver, not because he really compares favorably to previous elite receivers. Guess we'll see.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
I will admit though that the tea leaves are currently pointing towards you being happier on draft day than I am. And if that's the case, I'll suck it up and fervently believe that the Rams and Robinson/Matthews are going to prove me wrong.

What about when they take them both? :double::D
 
Last edited:

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
I will admit though that the tea leaves are currently pointing towards you being happier on draft day than I am. And if that's the case, I'll suck it up and fervently believe that the Rams and Robinson/Matthews are going to prove me wrong.

What about when they take them both? :double::D[/QUOTE]
Then I hope Sam has a lot of protection while he waits in vain for people to get open. ;)
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
Then I hope Sam has a lot of protection while he waits in vain for people to get open. ;)
Nah - He'll just have to decide if he wants to hit Sted 20 yards down field, TA on the slant, Quick on the 9 route, or Cook up the seem. So many targets to decide on. What's a boy to do? Oh yeah. He could just grind down the clock by running Zac or Benny through that gaping hole on the left side.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Nah - He'll just have to decide if he wants to hit Sted 20 yards down field, TA on the slant, Quick on the 9 route, or Cook up the seem. So many targets to decide on. What's a boy to do? Oh yeah. He could just grind down the clock by running Zac or Benny through that gaping hole on the left side.
That's what I hope to see from a #1 WR. He'll draw the double teams or at least the attention of the top corner on the other team, making things a lot easier for the rest of the group.

I'm just not sure a tackle playing as a guard as opposed to a guard drafted later is going to create such a huge improvement that the WRs will have the time to get open they didn't before.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
Clearly we're wearing you down. In a couple days you'll be as annoying as any other convert.:D:p
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Clearly we're wearing you down. In a couple days you'll be as annoying as any other convert.:D:p
Hey, I do have to admit that going into these discussions, my thought was "Draft a left tackle... when we already have a tackle. Dumb. Next question."

I've softened from that, and I see merit in it, particularly if the Rams don't see Watkins as a #1 WR.

Outside of WR, when you look at the other top positions, here's what you see: We aren't drafting a QB, we're set at DE, our defensive scheme doesn't need another highly drafted OLB. It'd be either the draft a tackle and play him as guard early plan, or trading out of the top 10 completely for draft picks either this year or in the future.

Although I would NOT mind the luxury of having a 2nd 1st round pick again next year. Especially if whoever gives it to us pulls a Washington.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Nah - He'll just have to decide if he wants to hit Sted 20 yards down field, TA on the slant, Quick on the 9 route, or Cook up the seem. So many targets to decide on. What's a boy to do? Oh yeah. He could just grind down the clock by running Zac or Benny through that gaping hole on the left side.

You must be talking about 7 on 7 drills - cause more than likely bradford will be sacked by the time they get open, and then there's a monumental question of if even said pass reaches them, will they catch it? :D
 

Memphis Ram

Legend
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
6,668
What crap? This crap:

Let's stay focused on the actual argument and not perceived flaws in those who disagree with us? Okay? I'm not the issue. You're not the issue. Stay on the issue.

As to why I point out that we have a #1 overall QB? Because if we keep the kind of run-centric offense being advocated, that's a huge waste of draft capital. In that kind of circumstance, a journeyman QB will do just as well. Also, I think in that kind of situation, we'll be perennial also-rans.

Stacy isn't Dickerson, and even when we had Dickerson, that one dimensionality took us nowhere.

Nothing's "wrong" with it per se. It just makes less sense of a plan in my opinion than actually taking something we don't have.

And do I need to illustrate the difference between Jake Long and Wayne Gandy?

Realistically, drafting Robinson/Matthews with a Top 10 pick means Long is a dead man walking, regardless of performance. Just like the Drew Bennett signing was writing on the wall for Isaac Bruce or San Diego's pick of Phillip Rivers made Drew Brees a lame duck (bet they wish they had a takeback on that one, even though Rivers is okay.)

And you miss the point of the hole in the boat analogy. LT is currently not a hole in the boat. #1 WR is. Guard is as well, but great guards can be had later.

I want a guy that we can use from day 1 at his intended position. Matthews/Robinson are not those guys. They would have been had we not signed Long.

He made a change because we were limited by our personnel. It'd be stupid in my opinion to never want to grow out of those limitations and remain run focused in the long term.

But please remember, both of us are just guys with an opinion. You're not going to sway the Rams by shouting opposition down or pretending that both arguments don't have merit.

A "#1 overall QB being used in a run-centric offense a waste of capital? Or we talking the return of Ground Chuck or merely a balanced offense geared more towards the run. I'm referring to the later. Along with good defensive play, that's what got #1 overall picks Troy Aikman and John Elway their multiple Super Bowl rings.

Long vs. Gandy? He might have looked better with Steelers/Saints, but Gandy was a pretty good OT in his own right. Plus, the comparison has to also consider where Long was when the Rams signed him (which is why they got him so cheaply). Point remains that Rams were solid at LT when they moved up for Pace. There was no so-called hole in the boat. They took the BPA. And even moved up to do it.

And I couldn't disagree more with your take on the selection of Matthew or Robinson's affect on Long. As long as Jake Long is capable of playing LT at a high level, he's your starter there even with their selection. There's a new CBA remember? Rookie contracts aren't as inflated now now. The bonus happens to be that whenever he starts to decline or gets injured yet again, the Rams have a strong option to replace him ALREADY on the roster. In the meantime, they've got another good player shoring up the trenches. Again, quality LTs don't just fall from the sky whenever a team needs one. There are teams that have been looking to fill that spot for years.

You say Fisher made the change because he was limited by personnel. I say he went back to what he's always done and had success with because of the early failure. AND he recognized that the two best teams in the division and possibly the NFL are winning with the same gameplan for goodness sakes. Both Seattle and San Francisco threw the fewest passes in the NFL and it wasn't even close.

I believe that we have seen the Rams identity unfold last year and will watch the team build on it this offseason. Mike Martz is gone. Balance with a strong running game and defense are here. And to do that you have to be strong in the trenches. And what better way to do that than obtain versatile players capable of playing at a high level in more than one position while always maintaining that a difficult to fill LT position is always covered.
 
Last edited:

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Well, we'll see what happens. At this point, we're kind of going around in circles. And a huge part of my "draft Watkins" plan was signing a free agent guard... and I haven't heard of that happening yet.

We have the same goal in mind: Making the Rams better. We just have different opinions on how to best get there.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
You must be talking about 7 on 7 drills - cause more than likely bradford will be sacked by the time they get open, and then there's a monumental question of if even said pass reaches them, will they catch it? :D
True - if they don't do something about this O-line by adding some real talent, Bradford WILL be sacked or scrambling by the time they get open. We've already seen that with two more starters in place. :D

But at least if we go after Watkins, we will have yet another receiver where one of the knocks is his history of drops. I wouldn't make too much of it but the sense is out there. All it means is that this is potentially a problem with his game as he transitions to the pros. As a rookie, drops are always a concern. TA had the drops early on but seems to have gotten past it. Will Watkins have the drops as a rookie? Dunno.

WEAKNESSES: Only average height with a leaner than ideal build, lacking elite muscle definition or strength. Lacks elite speed and more of a glider. Not overly physical and won't break many tackles. Hands are steady, but he'll have his share of focus drops, especially when he hears footsteps - a few botched returns on his resume. Room to improve his reliability on 50/50 passes. Minor durability concerns. Character needs investigated - arrested in May 2012 on drug-related charges.

Production results heavily from a gimmicky offense. Routes could use some more polish. Does not consistently work the middle of the field. Could improve field awareness. Is still immature and could require some time to acclimate to an NFL playbook. Could stand to improve ball security
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
Well, we'll see what happens. At this point, we're kind of going around in circles. And a huge part of my "draft Watkins" plan was signing a free agent guard... and I haven't heard of that happening yet.

We have the same goal in mind: Making the Rams better. We just have different opinions on how to best get there.
Are there any FA Guards worth taking at this point? Not just asking you Boffo. Anyone?
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Are there any FA Guards worth taking at this point? Not just asking you Boffo. Anyone?
So far the best option I've heard is having Jones play G... maybe with or without signing Alex Mack.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
If we don't sign a starting caliber OL in FA, hell freaking yeah I would draft both Matthews and Robinson if we could swing it.
That IMO would be an absolute coups , people would have to play 9 in the box to stop our running game and FWIW I think it could happen
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,807
Name
Stu
So far the best option I've heard is having Jones play G... maybe with or without signing Alex Mack.
Do we think paying a center in the neighborhood of $11 - 12 million dollars is wise? He is guaranteed over $10 mil without even testing the market. Seems pretty steep for the one position on the line where we may have a starter AND depth. But upgrades are upgrades and if we could swing it while ending it with Wells, I'd probably be for it.

Now we don't have Williams returning and Smith may be going to the G-men. Lookin' mighty thin on that O-line.