What is a "true #1 WR"??

[iced]

OK let's just agree that neither of us is going to change our position on this and we'll just have to wait and see what happens

lol k

 

[RamFan503]

I don't know what a true #1 wr is, I just know we don't have one.

Or DO you?

 

[Tron]

Or DO you?

OOOOOOOO, you got me!!! :bow:

 

[RamFan503]

Again - it's not like he was constantly nicked up or missing games here and there. Hell i don't remember him even being questionable for games.. He's not a Rogger Saffold, Donnie Avery, or Danario Alexander. He started 15 games, 1 short of a full season. Fisher knows how to handle his vets.

At this point I'm not concerned about Long's longevity - and considering the exhaustive physical the Rams put him through, I doubt they're concerned now.

We have an LT for atleast 3 more years as of now - and there are much bigger areas that need to be addressed..

We have a talented starter at LT, right now - there are other positions on this team that we can't say the same thing for, let alone playing at an extremely high level

The problem IMO is that you see one stellar LT - our best O-lineman - (coming off injury and keeping in mind he WAS a #1 overall pick) and a RT that couldn't even make the Raiduh squad of ineptness, a 33 year old oft injured Center, a practice squad LG, a 4th rounder that couldn't crack the line-up even with all the rotations we saw last year, and a couple cast-offs and you see WR as a much bigger need. Think about how many O-linemen snaps occur during a game and compare that to WR.

We have a receiver corp with 4 receivers taken in the first three rounds and another in the 4th and the most veteran of all of them is Pettis coming into year 4. And the biggest need you see is a 6'1" receiver that barely outplayed our 6' - 4th rounder in college. A player that would likely mean we'd be cutting a 2nd or 3rd rounder that I'm going to guess becomes a starter where ever he ends up.

Long has been a great LT and we would all love to see him continue to be. But the idea of taking another stud Tackle as being a wasted pick because we have ONE O-lineman that would likely start on any other team is hard to get behind for me. Why would you only want a Rookie starting at LT if we were to draft one? I think the timing is perfect to get that future LT. There's no accident behind the structure of Long's contract. It's designed with the acknowledgement that Long has been injured more than anyone is comfortable with. The guy is a former #1 pick overall and has multiple Probowls. If he weren't an injury risk, there is no way we would have gotten him with that contract.

Don't many first round LTs start at either RT or Guard? Do they hurt their team either from a cap position or a O-line strength position? Or do they strengthen that unit until they take over as a Tackle and further strengthen their team? Everyone keeps talking about building through the draft. Why in the heck is the O-line any different? Dpes anyone really consider building through the draft and think late round picks for your elite talent? If we pass on one of the top Tackle prospects, can you really say ANY of your likely studs at any position along the line will be there when you pick in say - round 3? Or are we once again relegated to taking someone who has absolutely no chance of starting in this league because someone else needed a Guard and picked ahead of us?

Do you think we will be picking anywhere near this high in the future? When do we have any chance of getting a first selection Tackle again? Which have been garnering the highest picks lately? WR or Tackle? The odds are that we will be in much better position to take the best WR in a subsequent draft than be anywhere near being able to take the best tackle. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it is extremely likely that the first round WRs available next year and the year after will be better and have more elite measurables than Watkins.

Think about the pattern Bradford was on before he went down. Add to that the drops - drops we saw from Kendricks and other receiving threats early on in their rookie campaigns. Apparently our receivers were good enough to make a fair number of plays with very poor run blocking and little time for plays to develop. What would we have seen if we had real talent on that line?

And BTW - we have talented starters at WR right now. There - I said it.

 

[Alan]

That was long winded. But very cogent. :notworthy: :bow:

You need to learn how to be pithy. Pithiness comes with age and wisdom.

Just saying.

 

[iced]

The problem IMO is that you see one stellar LT - our best O-lineman - (coming off injury and keeping in mind he WAS a #1 overall pick) and a RT that couldn't even make the Raiduh squad of ineptness, a 33 year old oft injured Center, a practice squad LG, a 4th rounder that couldn't crack the line-up even with all the rotations we saw last year, and a couple cast-offs and you see WR as a much bigger need. Think about how many O-linemen snaps occur during a game and compare that to WR.

We have a receiver corp with 4 receivers taken in the first three rounds and another in the 4th and the most veteran of all of them is Pettis coming into year 4. And the biggest need you see is a 6'1" receiver that barely outplayed our 6' - 4th rounder in college. A player that would likely mean we'd be cutting a 2nd or 3rd rounder that I'm going to guess becomes a starter where ever he ends up

that RT that couldn't even make the Raiduh squad as you put it played at a pretty high level at Right tackle. He definitely graded as one of better RT's so no, that wouldn't be a need to me.

I'm so curious to know what you see in our receiving corps that gives you faith - considering our corps is coming off a franchise-low record of receptions and we haven't had a 700+ yard receiver since Torry Holt. That's not setting the bar high - hell that's not even setting the bar medium. 1,000 yards seems to be the target number in this day and age - in a passing league at that. Our o-line isn't coming off a franchise low - they were actually one of the better o-lines in the league

As much as I don't want Scott Wells at his salary, that's not my call. It's looking like Long at LT, Wells at Center, and Barksdale at RT is your o-line for now. I bet Williams is your LG if they don't sign a 2nd one in FA and whoever they get in FA (I'd guess Schwartz from KC) is your RG.

Long has been a great LT and we would all love to see him continue to be. But the idea of taking another stud Tackle as being a wasted pick because we have ONE O-lineman that would likely start on any other team is hard to get behind for me. Why would you only want a Rookie starting at LT if we were to draft one? I think the timing is perfect to get that future LT. There's no accident behind the structure of Long's contract. It's designed with the acknowledgement that Long has been injured more than anyone is comfortable with. The guy is a former #1 pick overall and has multiple Probowls. If he weren't an injury risk, there is no way we would have gotten him with that contract.

Don't many first round LTs start at either RT or Guard? Do they hurt their team either from a cap position or a O-line strength position? Or do they strengthen that unit until they take over as a Tackle and further strengthen their team? Everyone keeps talking about building through the draft. Why in the heck is the O-line any different? Dpes anyone really consider building through the draft and think late round picks for your elite talent? If we pass on one of the top Tackle prospects, can you really say ANY of your likely studs at any position along the line will be there when you pick in say - round 3? Or are we once again relegated to taking someone who has absolutely no chance of starting in this league because someone else needed a Guard and picked ahead of us?

Those Tackles that start out at either RT/Guard are done so with the plan on them moving to LT after their first season. That's not the same here. The O-line isn't any different. Why does it HAVE to be a Top 5 pick to justify fixing the o-line? Why do we have to have to spend a premium pick on a position that already has a premium player? I'd rather get a guard in the 2nd or later in the first if we can trade down and have that Guard spot set for years to come. And yea, there are plenty of guards who will be around in the 2nd. Can you say any of them will NOT be there?

Do you think we will be picking anywhere near this high in the future? When do we have any chance of getting a first selection Tackle again? Which have been garnering the highest picks lately? WR or Tackle?

Irrelevant - every draft is different and strength of positions vary from draft to draft.

Think about the pattern Bradford was on before he went down. Add to that the drops - drops we saw from Kendricks and other receiving threats early on in their rookie campaigns. Apparently our receivers were good enough to make a fair number of plays with very poor run blocking and little time for plays to develop. What would we have seen if we had real talent on that line?

And BTW - we have talented starters at WR right now. There - I said it.

The run blocking was actually pretty good when the whole line was in there, especially when they ran behind Long. The line wasn't the issue when Daryl Richardson was back there - they opened plenty of big holes for Cunningham and Stacy. The issue was Richardson's vision and his consistency of running directly into the backs of o-linemen.

The O-line was not as bad as you're making it out to be. They wouldn't have been 7th best at protecting . In fact football outsiders has the Rams ranked 12th in run blocking and 14th in pass blocking - that's pretty good considering all the shuffling.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Our receivers needed all day and still couldn't get open - especially against SF and Seattle.

 

[RamFan503]

That was long winded. But very cogent. :notworthy: :bow:

You need to learn how to be pithy. Pithiness comes with age and wisdom.

Just saying.

Sometimes my long-winded cogentness gets the better of my pithiness. I'll try to do better.

 

[Alan]

Good man. There seems to be hope for you yet.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Again - it's not like he was constantly nicked up or missing games here and there. Hell i don't remember him even being questionable for games.. He's not a Rogger Saffold, Donnie Avery, or Danario Alexander. He started 15 games, 1 short of a full season. Fisher knows how to handle his vets.

At this point I'm not concerned about Long's longevity - and considering the exhaustive physical the Rams put him through, I doubt they're concerned now.

We have an LT for atleast 3 more years as of now - and there are much bigger areas that need to be addressed..

We have a talented starter at LT, right now - there are other positions on this team that we can't say the same thing for, let alone playing at an extremely high level

2013 Torn ACL & MCL (Got hurt in both 49ers games btw - Concussion / Knee)
2012 Torn Triceps / Mild MCL Sprain
2011 Torn Shoulder Labrum

He's also had back issues off and on throughout his career and isn't getting any younger. Again, that is why he got the smaller contract that he received. In fact, that's why he was even available in free agency in the first place.

Seems to me that Jake Long catches a break with you on the injury front because his main issues have occurred during the final quarter of the last 3 seasons (and training camp), but Saffold doesn't because his have typically occurred during the middle of the season? They've both been prone to injury, it's just been that Long has had better timing, so far.

Again, the 2014 NFL Draft is not just about the 2014 NFL Season and there are no guarantees that this team will be in position to obtain a quality LT in the near future as team needs don't influence player availability each year. Sorry, but not all franchise LTs started at LT during their rookie seasons.

 

[Boffo97]

I'd make responses here, but for the most part, iced stole my brain and made them for me. (Gonna need that back, iced. Otherwise, I might have to become a Patriots fan. )

Make no mistake, if we don't do something about our Guard situation, we've failed. I just don't think drafting a Tackle #2 (or shortly thereafter) and playing him as Guard is the best way to go about it. (Especially Robinson, with his pass blocking questions, I wonder if he'd end up being a Guard forever, and unless he's Hall of Fame level there, that's an absolute overdraft). We can either trade down from #13 or up from the 2nd round and still get a great Guard.

And sure, we'll need one eventually, but by that logic, why not draft Clowney who IS seen as the once in a decade type since our OTHER Long with the same amount of NFL experience as this one will leave someday?

 

[iced]

2013 Torn ACL & MCL (Got hurt in both 49ers games btw - Concussion / Knee)
2012 Torn Triceps / Mild MCL Sprain
2011 Torn Shoulder Labrum

He's also had back issues off and on throughout his career and isn't getting any younger. Again, that is why he got the smaller contract that he received. In fact, that's why he was even available in free agency in the first place.

Seems to me that Jake Long catches a break with you on the injury front because his main issues have occurred during the final quarter of the last 3 seasons (and training camp), but Saffold doesn't because his have typically occurred during the middle of the season? They've both been prone to injury, it's just been that Long has had better timing, so far.

Again, the 2014 NFL Draft is not just about the 2014 NFL Season and there are no guarantees that this team will be in position to obtain a quality LT in the near future as team needs don't influence player availability each year. Sorry, but not all franchise LTs started at LT during their rookie seasons.

Uhhh middle of season for Saffold? I've seen him go down within the first few weeks... Saffold injury wise isn't even the same league or Ball park as Jake Long since they've both been Rams.

I never said all franchise LT's started at LT during their rookie seasons - that's not my issue. I expect/hope (barring some freak injury) Jake Long to be at LT for atleast 2 or 3 more seasons.

You're right - it's not about just the 2014 season. That's my friggin' point. There are other positions that need something now - positions that don't have quality starters as it is.

I think this offense gets greater improvement by taking a stud WR with the first and getting a guard within the next 2 picks (assuming they sign schwartz or another FA). You solidfy more positions this way for the long term, beyond 2014, 15, 16,etc.

Otherwise you're drafting a player based on *if* his starting position (Long) goes down. Address the position that doesn't have a question mark - receiver. Watkins/Evans would be starters - not if Givens gets hurt, nor are they being asked to play out of position.

 

[Boffo97]

As far as the "We don't know yet what we have at WR" argument goes, I think we know enough that we have to treat the idea that one of them MIGHT step up to #1 WR level as we would a lottery win. If it happens, GREAT! But we have to assume it won't.

If we draft Robinson or Matthews, we'll very likely not have a #1 WR.

If we draft Watkins, we will have an LT.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Uhhh middle of season for Saffold? I've seen him go down within the first few weeks... Saffold injury wise isn't even the same league or Ball park as Jake Long since they've both been Rams.

I never said all franchise LT's started at LT during their rookie seasons - that's not my issue. I expect/hope (barring some freak injury) Jake Long to be at LT for atleast 2 or 3 more seasons.

You're right - it's not about just the 2014 season. That's my friggin' point. There are other positions that need something now - positions that don't have quality starters as it is.

I think this offense gets greater improvement by taking a stud WR with the first and getting a guard within the next 2 picks (assuming they sign schwartz or another FA). You solidfy more positions this way for the long term, beyond 2014, 15, 16,etc.

Otherwise you're drafting a player based *if* his starting position goes down. Address the position that doesn't have a question mark - receiver. Watkins/Evans wouldn't be starters if Givens gets hurt, nor are they being asked to play out of position.

Middle of the season? First few weeks? Doesn't matter. The point is that Long seems to get a pass from you because his significant injuries have occurred during the final quarter of the past 3 seasons/training camp.

And since we appear to be banking on rookies to fill holes, selecting one of Matthews or Robinson does address a position the team needs now. OLinemen. And that's whether they are starting at G or T. The best 5 guys are going to start. The main difference in what others are saying and what you present is that guys like Matthews and Robinson have the ALL so very important potential versatility to be studs at OG AND OT, now AND in the future. That's going to be much harder to find later in the draft. Unlike the WR position in what has been called the DEEPEST WR draft class in years.

And I can't imagine how anyone doesn't see that the OLine has a FAR bigger question marks than the WR core. At least the latter has young developing players, plus a WR in a TEs body in Jared Cook. It's amazing to me that so many seem to believe to know their end so early when these guys typically take 2-3 years to develop (And that development timetable would probably include Watkins and Evans if they were selected). On top of that, this is a Jeff Fisher team. Not a pass happy Martz attack. Building a strong (not just decent) OLine and rushing attack is FAR more important to they way he has done things in the past and appears to be working on now.

 

[Memphis Ram]

As far as the "We don't know yet what we have at WR" argument goes, I think we know enough that we have to treat the idea that one of them MIGHT step up to #1 WR level as we would a lottery win. If it happens, GREAT! But we have to assume it won't.

If we draft Robinson or Matthews, we'll very likely not have a #1 WR.

If we draft Watkins, we will have an LT.

You seem to know enough. But, I don't. And I question if the Rams do. OR if they even believe that they need to have this so-called #1 WR.

Despite those ill results, general manager Les Snead doesn't believe the Rams need to hunt for a proven No. 1 receiver.

"I go back to this and the answer is really 'no' on that,"Snead said last week, per Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com.

Fisher put up double digit wins for many years without one. Why are so many in the fan base so consumed with this notion that one is so desperately needed? And especially with the way he has run his past teams and how he ran things after the 49ers game last year (when he went back to his roots, sort of speak)? That just baffles me.

 

[iced]

Middle of the season? First few weeks? Doesn't matter. The point is that Long seems to get a pass from you because his significant injuries have occurred during the final quarter of the past 3 seasons/training camp.

He doesn't get a pass, but to act like his situation is the same as Saffolds is wrong. Saffold is routinely injured often, like Donnie Avery. Seemed like every other week it was some other ailment, and he would miss games. Long has been a different story since signing with us.

And since we appear to be banking on rookies to fill holes, selecting one of Matthews or Robinson does address a position the team needs now. OLinemen. And that's whether they are starting at G or T. The best 5 guys are going to start. The main difference in what others are saying and what you present is that guys like Matthews and Robinson have the ALL so very important potential versatility to be studs at OG AND OT, now AND in the future. That's going to be much harder to find later in the draft. Unlike the WR position in what has been called the DEEPEST WR draft class in years.

And I can't imagine how anyone doesn't see that the OLine has a FAR bigger question marks than the WR core. At least the latter has young developing players, plus a WR in a TEs body in Jared Cook. It's amazing to me that so many seem to believe to know their end so early when these guys typically take 2-3 years to develop (And that development timetable would probably include Watkins and Evans if they were selected). On top of that, this is a Jeff Fisher team. Not a pass happy Martz attack. Building a strong (not just decent) OLine and rushing attack is FAR more important to they way he has done things in the past and appears to be working on now.

Fisher also knows you gotta have something out wide - and for the majority of his coaching career, his offensive lineman have mostly been Veterans. He brought the same trend when he came here - Signed Wells, Long, Williams, etc.

The Guard position has big Question Marks - that's it, not the tackle...but to act like the OL has bigger question marks than the WR Core is a bit ridiculous. There aren't any pro bowlers or anyone with pro bowl experience at Wide receiver position - hell these guys can't even crack 700 yards. And they just came off a Franchise Low year. Did we have the same low level of play from the o-line? No. In fact they graded out in the top half of the league in both run blocking and pass pro according to football outsiders. NOT FRANCHISE LOW

If it ain't broke don't fix it - spending a premium pick where we already have a premium player vs a position where we're severely lacking a premium player would be a waste, for both now and especially the future.

I have way more faith in Bourdeau taking a Guard, even if it were 3rd or 4th rounder, and turning him into an impact player - versus what we have in this WR corps right now.

 

[Boffo97]

You seem to know enough. But, I don't. And I question if the Rams do. OR if they even believe that they need to have this so-called #1 WR.

Would you bet money on one of the current WR's developing into a #1 type? (I'm not saying with me personally since betting on the Internet in general turns into a fool's game, but if there was some offer on the table and a way to make sure the bet would be honored either way.)

As far as Snead's quote goes there, we'll see on draft day. He was part of the Atlanta program that brought in a SECOND #1 WR after all.

Fisher put up double digit wins for many years without one. Why are so many in the fan base so consumed with this notion that one is so desperately needed? And especially with the way he has run his past teams and how he ran things after the 49ers game last year (when he went back to his roots, sort of speak)? That just baffles me.

Can we win without one? Sure. Is it a huge advantage to have one? I'd say yes.

If we're honestly going to make things so run centered, that's a criminal waste of the #1 overall QB that Fisher said was one of his primary reasons for coming here.

Also... know what else Fisher did without? High draft picks on the OL.

It baffles ME how many people want a LT when we already have one, and can't understand a desire for a #1 WR when we DON'T have one.

 

[Ram_of_Old]

Probably not. But, neither do MOST teams in the league.

True, but it would still be nice...

 

[RamFan503]

that RT that couldn't even make the Raiduh squad as you put it played at a pretty high level at Right tackle. He definitely graded as one of better RT's so no, that wouldn't be a need to me.

I like Barks but he has been anything but a true strength at that position throughout his career. Hopefully - he will be. It took him until his 4th year to scratch the opening line-up. And we're going to think a rookie just moves right into the starting LT position when we decide to use a top pick on one? Or do we pay a huge contract to lure one away from another team?

I'm so curious to know what you see in our receiving corps that gives you faith - considering our corps is coming off a franchise-low record of receptions and we haven't had a 700+ yard receiver since Torry Holt. That's not setting the bar high - hell that's not even setting the bar medium. 1,000 yards seems to be the target number in this day and age - in a passing league at that. Our o-line isn't coming off a franchise low - they were actually one of the better o-lines in the league

On the franchise low part? KC with a very inaccurate arm and virtually unable to throw even medium length passes. The inability to protect the QB for any meaningful amount of time so our passing game plan contained a bunch of stops, hooks, and comebacks - none of which allow for YAC. Our entire passing game with as few attempts as were being made, was predicated on quick release. That helped the O-line look good on sacks but not so much when it came to allowing plays to develop or even allowing longer developing plays to be called. And in a passing league that is being built defensively around the pass, would you really go so far as to say that our offense was typical of the pass happy NFL? 6 of our games being played against the likes of AZ, Seattle, SF along with what... the 3rd toughest schedule in the league?

As to who shows me promise, Stedman closed out the last 5 games averaging something like 15 yards per catch. TA flashed his big play potential and would have looked even better if not for a couple penalties. He also stopped dropping passes as he got used to the NFL game. BQ before Sam went down - same with Cook. The sudden emergence of a decent RB. The fact that Pettis is our elder statesman. Givens and Cook were on track to have 1,000 yard seasons IIRC before Sam went down after running for his life for the umpteenth time.

As much as I don't want Scott Wells at his salary, that's not my call. It's looking like Long at LT, Wells at Center, and Barksdale at RT is your o-line for now. I bet Williams is your LG if they don't sign a 2nd one in FA and whoever they get in FA (I'd guess Schwartz from KC) is your RG.

Guess we'll see on FA. But that O-line with the way DCs move their pass rushers around these days, strikes little confidence with me. And I have very little confidence that Wells makes it anywhere near a full season.

Those Tackles that start out at either RT/Guard are done so with the plan on them moving to LT after their first season. That's not the same here. The O-line isn't any different. Why does it HAVE to be a Top 5 pick to justify fixing the o-line? Why do we have to have to spend a premium pick on a position that already has a premium player? I'd rather get a guard in the 2nd or later in the first if we can trade down and have that Guard spot set for years to come. And yea, there are plenty of guards who will be around in the 2nd. Can you say any of them will NOT be there?

It may very well be the case that if we take a Tackle in the first round, he moves to LT in yr 2. Either via injury or as cap dictates. If not, I believe it is also not unheard of that a future LT plays at Guard or RT for a couple years. The reality of the new "pass happy" NFL is also that you better get your O-linemen early. Look at last year for example. 9 O-linemen were taken in the first round - including the two best Guards. The three best Guards were all gone by the 13th pick of the 2nd. The year before that, the 4 best Guards were all gone by that pick. What do you think that says about where the best Tackle talent went?

The problem is that anymore, you just aren't going to get top prospects by waiting until the 2nd or 3rd. Just like the RB position, draft orders have changed. So yeah - I can say that the best Guards have a very good chance of being taken before our pick in the 2nd.

In our division, if we want to dominate, it is going to take a dominant O-line that can dictate what kind of offense we run against different teams. I just believe that a team with a shutdown corner is going to be able to take Watkins out of the game with single coverage. What about him says Fitz or Johnson to you? And yet, in 2012 & 13, we did a pretty good job containing Fitz with single coverage. Seattle made him a total non-factor in both their games last year. And yet AZ still won one of them.

Irrelevant - every draft is different and strength of positions vary from draft to draft.

Possibly - but recent history suggests O-linemen will still be the hotter commodity in the first and early second.

The run blocking was actually pretty good when the whole line was in there, especially when they ran behind Long. The line wasn't the issue when Daryl Richardson was back there - they opened plenty of big holes for Cunningham and Stacy. The issue was Richardson's vision and his consistency of running directly into the backs of o-linemen.

The O-line was not as bad as you're making it out to be. They wouldn't have been 7th best at protecting . In fact football outsiders has the Rams ranked 12th in run blocking and 14th in pass blocking - that's pretty good considering all the shuffling.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Not going to defend DR. I said early that I didn't see him as any kind of an answer. And before we totally changed our scheme, none of our RBs were doing well. Look it up. We had to employ a blocking scheme that employed a lot of pulling and a FB/TE. We turned to a power scheme that drastically pulled away from opening up our passing game.

Our receivers needed all day and still couldn't get open - especially against SF and Seattle.

Our receivers had all day? I must have missed those games.

And the website you linked. Doesn't that indicate we were 14th in pass protection and much worse in run blocking? I especially have a hard time with being 25th in power run blocking. That says to me, when you really need those few yards or that goal line score, how does your O-line perform.

Good thing this debate is going to decide everything - eh?

 

[NJRamsFan]

I like Barks but he has been anything but a true strength at that position throughout his career. Hopefully - he will be. It took him until his 4th year to scratch the opening line-up. And we're going to think a rookie just moves right into the starting LT position when we decide to use a top pick on one? Or do we pay a huge contract to lure one away from another team?



On the franchise low part? KC with a very inaccurate arm and virtually unable to throw even medium length passes. The inability to protect the QB for any meaningful amount of time so our passing game plan contained a bunch of stops, hooks, and comebacks - none of which allow for YAC. Our entire passing game with as few attempts as were being made, was predicated on quick release. That helped the O-line look good on sacks but not so much when it came to allowing plays to develop or even allowing longer developing plays to be called. And in a passing league that is being built defensively around the pass, would you really go so far as to say that our offense was typical of the pass happy NFL? 6 of our games being played against the likes of AZ, Seattle, SF along with what... the 3rd toughest schedule in the league?

As to who shows me promise, Stedman closed out the last 5 games averaging something like 15 yards per catch. TA flashed his big play potential and would have looked even better if not for a couple penalties. He also stopped dropping passes as he got used to the NFL game. BQ before Sam went down - same with Cook. The sudden emergence of a decent RB. The fact that Pettis is our elder statesman. Givens and Cook were on track to have 1,000 yard seasons IIRC before Sam went down after running for his life for the umpteenth time.



Guess we'll see on FA. But that O-line with the way DCs move their pass rushers around these days, strikes little confidence with me. And I have very little confidence that Wells makes it anywhere near a full season.



It may very well be the case that if we take a Tackle in the first round, he moves to LT in yr 2. Either via injury or as cap dictates. If not, I believe it is also not unheard of that a future LT plays at Guard or RT for a couple years. The reality of the new "pass happy" NFL is also that you better get your O-linemen early. Look at last year for example. 9 O-linemen were taken in the first round - including the two best Guards. The three best Guards were all gone by the 13th pick of the 2nd. The year before that, the 4 best Guards were all gone by that pick. What do you think that says about where the best Tackle talent went?

The problem is that anymore, you just aren't going to get top prospects by waiting until the 2nd or 3rd. Just like the RB position, draft orders have changed. So yeah - I can say that the best Guards have a very good chance of being taken before our pick in the 2nd.

In our division, if we want to dominate, it is going to take a dominant O-line that can dictate what kind of offense we run against different teams. I just believe that a team with a shutdown corner is going to be able to take Watkins out of the game with single coverage. What about him says Fitz or Johnson to you? And yet, in 2012 & 13, we did a pretty good job containing Fitz with single coverage. Seattle made him a total non-factor in both their games last year. And yet AZ still won one of them.



Possibly - but recent history suggests O-linemen will still be the hotter commodity in the first and early second.



Not going to defend DR. I said early that I didn't see him as any kind of an answer. And before we totally changed our scheme, none of our RBs were doing well. Look it up. We had to employ a blocking scheme that employed a lot of pulling and a FB/TE. We turned to a power scheme that drastically pulled away from opening up our passing game.



Our receivers had all day? I must have missed those games.

And the website you linked. Doesn't that indicate we were 14th in pass protection and much worse in run blocking? I especially have a hard time with being 25th in power run blocking. That says to me, when you really need those few yards or that goal line score, how does your O-line perform.

Good thing this debate is going to decide everything - eh?

Had to give you the like just on sheer effort put into that post lol :bow:

 

[Memphis Ram]

He doesn't get a pass, but to act like his situation is the same as Saffolds is wrong. Saffold is routinely injured often, like Donnie Avery. Seemed like every other week it was some other ailment, and he would miss games. Long has been a different story since signing with us.

Fisher also knows you gotta have something out wide - and for the majority of his coaching career, his offensive lineman have mostly been Veterans. He brought the same trend when he came here - Signed Wells, Long, Williams, etc.

The Guard position has big Question Marks - that's it, not the tackle...but to act like the OL has bigger question marks than the WR Core is a bit ridiculous. There aren't any pro bowlers or anyone with pro bowl experience at Wide receiver position - hell these guys can't even crack 700 yards. And they just came off a Franchise Low year. Did we have the same low level of play from the o-line? No. In fact they graded out in the top half of the league in both run blocking and pass pro according to football outsiders. NOT FRANCHISE LOW

If it ain't broke don't fix it - spending a premium pick where we already have a premium player vs a position where we're severely lacking a premium player would be a waste, for both now and especially the future.

I have way more faith in Bourdeau taking a Guard, even if it were 3rd or 4th rounder, and turning him into an impact player - versus what we have in this WR corps right now.

Yes. Saffold would get dinged. No disputing that. My point is that I believe your tune would change if Long's injuries would have occurred earlier during the season as his were all of the season ending variety.

Everyone remembers the Fred Millers and Jon Ruyan signings, but Fisher inherited veterans (Hopkins -11 years, Matthews - 7 years, Stepnoski - 4 years, Donnally - 3 years). And others who played for man years started off as rookie depth and then sophomore starters (Zach Pillar college OT turned OG - 6 years, Benji Olson - 9 years, Eugene Amano - 5 years, etc..)

The 700 yards benchmark is absolute nonsense given that they spread the ball out so much last year. 5 guys had 32 or more receptions and Stacy had 26 himself. How often does that happen? Take away one target and chances are 1 or even 2 players could have cracked 700 yards plus. Not only that, but less than a handful of teams had fewer passing attempts that the Rams did last year (interesting enough those include two teams the Rams are trying to catch in Seattle and San Francisco. And both with 80+ fewer attempts, btw). See where the offense has gone and will probably continue to go now??

And I can't even figure out another way to explain the importance of selecting a potential franchise OT that could play G over a WR any other way but to say that one position is far more scarce than the other when it comes to studs.