Printable View
Nick, isn't the draft supposed to be about building for the future rather than plugging in immediate needs. If thats the case, shouldn't the rams just take whoever they think is the best prospect whether it is Curry or Smith/Monroe. Btw, I am a Monroe fan so don't think I'm just another Curry fanatic.
If our offensive scheme called for a 60 million dollar pass protecting LT (ala Orlando Pace) chances are he'd still be here. And I'd be all for drafting Monroe or Smith with the 2nd pick as his replacement.
However, my understanding of our projected offensive scheme calls more for a dominate run blocker (which Monroe isn't) and an adequate pass protector.
To my knowledge, we will be a running team, with a quick hitting passing game, which means the line won't need to sustain their blocks as long in most instances.
If this is the case, then it makes all the sense in the world to draft Curry, and maybe even a DT in the second round and continue putting the pieces in place, that will make this a great defense for years to come..
I appreciate the additional responses; thanks guys!! :)
I apologize then, as it seemed to me that your response was asking questions rather than providing specific answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Mob 71
But regarding your answers, Barron at LT may or may not work out, but I agree it's certainly an option in 2009. For the long-term? Well, the problem I have with Barron as the long term fit there is, if he plays well this year, it will make him one of those players who magically doesn't get it until money is on the line. Many of those players play well to earn their new contract and then return back to mediocrity once they're signed long term and already have that bonus money.
Given Barron's questionable work ethic, concentration issues, and attitude, I suspect he'll become one of these players. I would not be thrilled to watch the Rams pay Barron top left tackle money because he underachieved for four seasons and then magically put it together in his contract year. I would prefer the team let him walk (or tag-and-trade him, if he plays well in '09) and go another route in the future. We can agree to disagree there.
At right tackle, Loadholt doesn't fit the character profile of this team. He has two previous off the field incidents: a disorderly conduct charge from 2006 and an arrest in 2008 on suspicion of driving under the influence and transporting an open container of beer. Do you think the Rams would still consider him with this history?
Beatty's a possibility but also has some concerning weaknesses of his own. Do you feel comfortable replacing Alex Barron with a player of questionable work ethic, toughness, and who has concentration issues? If we're going to replace Alex Barron, I'd prefer it not to be with someone who shares the weak points that have contributed to him being a disappointment thus far. And I've previously been an advocate of Beatty as a second round option. But I must admit the specific concerns I find with deeper research stand out to me as rather alarming and not much of a fit towards what the Rams are looking for personality-wise.
Regarding our current roster, Bell on the right side looks like a smokescreen at this point, since he didn't spend any time there during the first minicamp. Neither did Greco from what I hear, who at this point I think has settled in at guard. Maybe they get work there later, but I don't think they're very good fits. Do you? If so, why?
Finally, if you draft a tackle in the top five, I would assume he'll play on the left side and move Barron back to the right side. Or worst case scenario, he plays RT for one year before moving to LT in 2010. He's not going to be a RT his entire career.
I would assume that GMs could find tackles in a round other than the first as well. But the Rams really need someone capable of making an immediate impact, unless you like hearing Adam Goldberg's name in the starting line-up. And when it comes to finding a tackle prospect who can make an immediate impact, players drafted outside the first round rarely contribute in that manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
Last year, only one of fourteen tackles drafted outside of the first round started for his team at the position. In 2007, only one of nineteen non-first round tackles made an immediate impact for their team that season at tackle. Can we agree that finding a guy outside of the first round who can step in and contribute at tackle is a rather difficult task, even for experienced NFL GMs? Knowing that poor success rate when it comes to non-first round tackles making immediate impacts for their team, what makes you feel that third round options Kropog, Tupou, and Cadogan could be the exception rather than the rule?
As for your specific second round options, I have to ask - one of the reasons you say you prefer Jason Smith over Eugene Monroe is because you feel Monroe lacks a killer instinct and that reminds you in some manner of Barron. Why then is Beatty a good option for the second round, when his work ethic, attitude, and concentration are even bigger similarities to Barron? You also said there are several choices in round two, but aside from the three guys I mentioned and analyzed in my original post, I'm not sure who else qualifies as a second round offensive tackle prospect. Could you elaborate?
Well for starters I'd--Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
Oh, uhh, okay... :o ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
Definitely, but isn't adding a premier OT a way to build for the future as well? I mean, we're addressing both immediate and future needs with either position. So I'm not sure I see the problem here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampage39
Barron is a free agent after this season, and we have nothing at right tackle right now. I'd say this is a pretty significant move for the future as well as immediate need.
BPA is great in theory, but from a practical standpoint, I don't believe any team ever uses it at the top of the first round without factoring in other considerations as well. And when you're picking that high and spending so much money on a player, immediate impact is very much a consideration. So is contract size relative to positional importance. By that I mean it's a lot easier to shell out $30 million guaranteed as part of a $60 million contract to a premier position like OT than it is a 4-3 MLB.
If the Rams truly just cut a $60 million pass protecting LT, then it wouldn't have taken Pace over three weeks to find a new job. The fact that Pace sat around on the market well into April illustrates that his skills have slipped since his Pro Bowl days and he was no longer the $60 million tackle of days past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater
As for the Rams' offensive scheme, we really don't know what it calls for at this point. All we have to go on is talk about the West Coast offense combined with Shurmur's own coaching history. The term West Coast offense though is so broad that it could refer to any number of specific schematic choices within the system.
I think the easiest way to look at what Shurmur may want to do offensively is to look at where he's come from. He spent ten years as an assistant on the Eagles coaching staff, I believe seven of which were spent as QBs coach. During that span, Shurmur's passers have been protected by three-time Pro Bowl and former first round left tackle Tra Thomas. The Eagles also spent a second round pick on Winston Justice to groom as Thomas' eventual replacement. Justice has since not worked out, and the Eagles currently have a hole at tackle.
More recently, ESPN's Michael Smith reports that the Eagles have "engaged in serious discussions" with the Bills about LT Jason Peters. There has also been talk about moving Shawn Andrews - the Eagles best blocker - out to left tackle this season. So I think it's pretty safe to say that the Eagles place a pretty high value on the left tackle position, even in their version of the WCO. A version that Shurmur will probably draw heavily from when shaping his offense in St. Louis.
Additionally, there are plenty of teams who put a focus on running the ball but have spent high resources on securing a franchise left tackle. For instance, Carolina threw the fewest amount of passes in the NFL last year with 414 attempts, and finished 24th in attempts the year before. But that didn't stop them from retaining their former first-round offensive tackle Jordan Gross to a huge deal this offseason to make sure they have him lined up for the future. Gross signed a $60 million deal with over $30 million in guaranteed money, making him one of the highest paid tackles in the game.
Whether you're a passing team or a running team, a West Coast offense or an Air Coryell offense, the blind-side tackle is a position of critical importance. If you look over the last decade of positions taken in the top three picks, offensive tackle is second only to quarterback, and there's a reason why. Just as there's a reason why eight offensive tackles were drafted in the first round last year. A shift to the West Coast offense is going to mean a shift in emphasis regarding faster releases and shorter drops, and that will help our blockers. But it doesn't erase the need for an athletic wall of a blocker protecting the quarterback's blind side.
Again, I would refer you back to the Eagles' offense. Over the last five years, Phialdelphia's version of the WCO never ranked outside of the top ten when it came to pass attempts. It's an offense that liked to pass the ball quite a lot, even though they largely did not have ideal receivers on the perimeter in the passing game. While I expect the Rams to make running the ball a priority in their scheme as well, this isn't a team that's suddenly going to become the Ravens or Panthers in terms of passing the ball 42-45% of the time. I just don't see it happening.
And while a West Coast scheme will likely feature quicker releases and shorter drop backs, linemen still have to block long enough for those passes to be made. Which means having the athletic ability and lateral quickness to shield off the edge from a quick speed rusher who doesn't need a quarterback to drop back seven steps in order to pose a threat. It means having the physical strength as well as lower body strength to get proper leverage on a bull rush and stonewall a guy rather than get shoved back into the pocket where even a three step drop can be disrupted. It means having the strong initial hand punch to rock a guy off his path and force him to adjust rather than a player who is constantly playing defense and trying to make up lost ground protecting his quarterback.
Cutting down on the amount of time it takes to drop back and get the ball out of the pocket can certainly help an offensive line in the protection department, but it isn't a way to subvert the need for high quality blocking. If it was, every team in the NFL would switch to a scheme that allowed them to lessen the priority of offensive tackles. But that's not what's happening. Instead, we saw a draft last year where eight tackles went in the first round, and we'll likely see one this year where five if not more have their names called in the first 32 picks.
If a team has a vacancy at the left tackle position and has a chance to add not only a top talent but a player who has great intangibles and work ethic as both Smith and Monroe do, I don't think there are many teams who would pass on that opportunity and put off that kind of decision until the mid rounds. Especially knowing how much of a gamble it is to get any kind of immediate results from such a pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
I wasn't necessarily referring to Orlando Pace in his current state, but rather the type of Tackle he has been his entire career. An excellent pass protector, but not exactly a dominate run blocker.
Nick we've gone round and round on this issue in several threads, and I am still holding out hopes that we draft Aaron Curry. I believe he is simply the best and most complete player, and has the best chance of making an immediate impact of all the players in the draft. I respect your opinion, and would not be terribly disappointed if we drafted Monroe or Smith. I just believe Curry in the 1st, a full-size DT or OT in the second is the way to go if we keep our picks.
About as much as I like hearing Chris Draft's name in the starting line-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
And is that from lack of ability or lack of opportunity? That is, how many of those players would have received starting experience were they drafted by a team with as much need as the Rams?Quote:
Last year, only one of fourteen tackles drafted outside of the first round started for his team at the position. In 2007, only one of nineteen non-first round tackles made an immediate impact for their team that season at tackle.
Of course Duane Brown was a third round option last year until draft day. Not saying there WILL be a Duane Brown at 35, but it's not impossible either.Quote:
what makes you feel that third round options Kropog, Tupou, and Cadogan could be the exception rather than the rule?
I wouldn't compare Beatty to Monroe. As you said there are work ethic concerns with Beatty; I don't think anyone would question Monroe's ethic. However, the reason Beatty is a 2nd round option is because it is the 2nd round. You're going to get a lesser player with more question marks the later you go. That's true of any position, I don't deny that. And if there were a Smith to Beatty's Monroe in this comparison, I would prefer him as well. However, there's not at this point.Quote:
As for your specific second round options, I have to ask - one of the reasons you say you prefer Jason Smith over Eugene Monroe is because you feel Monroe lacks a killer instinct and that reminds you in some manner of Barron. Why then is Beatty a good option for the second round, when his work ethic, attitude, and concentration are even bigger similarities to Barron?
Because I disagree with the assertion that only Beatty, Merideth, & Loadholt would bring value at 35. It is possible that what you call 3rd round options would be good picks in the 2nd. And if they truly are 3rd rounders, then get the BPA at 35, and pick up the OT of choice in the 3rd.Quote:
You also said there are several choices in round two, but aside from the three guys I mentioned and analyzed in my original post, I'm not sure who else qualifies as a second round offensive tackle prospect. Could you elaborate?
Again, if Smith or Monroe are the choice......great. Either will contribute day 1. However, I'm still of the notion that the sky would remain in place were Curry to be the pick.
I see what you're saying, and I've maintained that I'd be happy adding Curry to this team as long as we have a plan for addressing our need at OT. The point in starting this thread was to try and get some opinions of what specifically that plan may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater
But so far, the options I've heard haven't been incredibly inspiring or all that reassuring, at least in my opinion. The options that many seem to be pointing to are ones I already analyzed in my original post and found some rather concerning problems with.
That's why, to me, Curry remains third on my list behind the two tackles. I'd be happy with any of the three, but in Curry's case, I'd also be nervous about how the Rams are going to then turn around and addressing OT.
I don't understand that at all. I'd much rather depend on Chris Draft as a two-down MLB who is subbed off in passing situations than depend on Adam Goldberg being on the field for every single offensive snap at RT.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
IMO Draft has more experience as a starter, has more athletically to contribute as a starter, and has more potential as a starter since he's playing under a coordinator who knows how to use him.
Whereas Goldberg is a swing-man better served as a back-up with the second-team unit. I really wouldn't put them on par with each other in terms of being concerned about them, so we can agree to disagree there.
The reasons as to why those players failed to contribute likely vary depending on the player. I'm sure at least some of the other teams who drafted those 33 tackles in the last two years had a need at the position, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
When only two of 33 players over the last two years find a way to make an immediate impact, I feel as if we can draw a pretty reasonable conclusion about the chances a non-first round player gets on the field at tackle in year one and makes an immediate contributions.
Okay, but you didn't answer my question. Nor did I ever say finding a tackle in the second round was impossible. I've simply tried to illustrate that the chances are not good.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
You seem to feel there are third round prospects in this class who can contribute right away, and I tried to get you to elaborate as to why they should be able to when so few have done so in the past. For instance, last year the Rams spent a third round pick on a tackle prospect in hopes that he'd push their starting RT for time, and it never happened.
You mentioned Kropog, Tupou, and Cadogan by name. What about them is different and will make them the exception to the rule? How can the Rams depend on a third round offensive tackle when the last two drafts' worth of tackles has included only two that made any kind of immediate impact for their team?
As for Duane Brown, he allowed 11.5 sacks as a rookie, which tied for the most by any NFL left tackle. So I'm not sure he's the example I'd cite when trying to demonstrate how the Rams can get by with a third round talent (whom I had in the mid second in my last mock that year, by the way) stepping in immediately. :)
I don't think anyone in this topic has claimed the sky would fall if Curry were the pick. I've stated more than once here at the Clan that I would be happy with the Curry pick, as long as it was accompanied by a solid plan to address OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
The point of the topic is for Curry fans to explain specifically what the plan is. If the plan includes one of the second round prospects I profiled in my original post, it'd be great if I could get some answers regarding the questions and concerns I posted. If the plan includes getting a tackle after the third round, it'd be great to hear some specifics about how the Rams can depend this season on a third round (or later) tackle when so few drafted in the past two years have made any immediate contribution.
Saying we can draft Beatty in the second round or Kropog in the third doesn't answer the specific questions and concerns I outlined about each of those directions.
Ultimately, we will have to on this one, my friend. I don't think we see the future in quite the same way. I see Curry being a career Pro-Bowler that could make us move on from London Fletcher, maybe even scare up images of Reynolds, Robertson, or Youngblood. Either of the tackles I see helping us move past Wayne Gandy, maybe even scare up images of Doug France. Just not the same impact, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
2009 is not going to be a winning year either way. I hate to tx-ish, but I just don't see a winner coming out of year 1. And IMO, a comparable OT to Smith/Monroe can be found where the Rams will be drafting in 2010. However, I don't think there's a Curry in next year's draft. That's why I am more willing to see (assuming there's no other draft pick in play at either OT or MLB) Goldberg & Curry in the 2009 starting lineup than I am Monroe/Smith & Draft. A Goldberg replacement comparable to Monroe/Smith can be had in 2010; I can't say the same about the Draft replacement being comparable to Curry.
But as I've said, on practical terms, I think the Rams go with either Monroe or Smith. And that's great. Both will contribute to this offense. And it continues with current trends of "Offensive" HCs picking defensive players and vice versa.....Linehan (3 D 1st rounders), Martz (5 D 1st rounders).
So, hey.....here's to Smith/Monroe, whichever one gets picked. Salud.
Well it doesn't appear as if we see this thread in the same way either, because my specific questions and concerns regarding the Rams' OT options seem to be taking a back seat behind further songs of Curry's praise. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
I understand Curry supporters feel he's great and view him as a Pro Bowl player, but that's not really what was in question in this thread. The idea was to take an in-depth look at what the Rams do to address their need at OT. Such an in-depth look resulted in numerous questions about these options, questions that I hoped the Curry fans would consider and try to specifically address.
For instance, I'd already recognized in the initial post that one option the Rams could pursue was to take a tackle in the second round, and I profiled a number of prospects they could consider. Part of that profile revealed more than a few concerns regarding each prospect, so I was curious to see how advocates of second round tackles would respond to those specific items. No one really has, though.
Another example would be the discussion of tackles taken in the third round or later. I devoted something like four paragraphs to the discussion of second day offensive tackles and their general inability to make any kind of immediate impact. I thought it was a pretty compelling case, but it hasn't exactly received much attention either.
Look, I think Aaron Curry is a great prospect and would love to have him on the Rams' defense. But if the Rams take him, I think it opens the door for number of other concerning questions, which I shared in my original post. Those were the kind of questions I was hoping Curry advocates would take head on and address so that a guy like me could feel a bit better about this direction. So far though, it seems the Curry contingent is simply satisfied saying, "Curry's the BPA so we'll take him and then get an OT in round two or three." Unfortunately, that kind of vague response isn't very convincing for me.
Sure we have, Nick. You just disagree with them. In your heart of hearts, you might be looking more for an acknowledgement of the improbability of finding a starting OT in rounds after the 1st than a true look at all non-1st options. So to that end.......you're right, it's improbable that an OT selected after the 1st round will be as good as Smith or Monroe.Quote:
I was curious to see how advocates of second round tackles would respond to those specific items. No one really has, though.
I believe there are OTs not named Smith, Monroe, or Oher who could contribute next year. They won't be as good as those 1st round options; no doubt. However, the trade-off for having to piece together a RT position with Goldberg and 2nd round Rookie is to have the best LB prospect in over a decade (Charlie Casserly's words).
The pick is not held in a vacuum. The amount being given up (Curry) for the selection of a 1st round OT has to be factored.
Once again, I'm not against the selection of Monroe and Smith. This pick is a win-win. It's just that on the long term, I see the Curry selection being a bigger win than the Monroe/Smith selection. But a win either way.
I'm sorry HUb, but I don't think they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
For instance, those who suggested the Rams could come back and take William Beatty in the second round haven't said anything regarding the specific concerns I raised in my initial post regarding his toughness, his work ethic, his concentration. Do you take him in spite of those concerns? Do you not agree with those concerns? Do you think those are issues that coaching can correct in the future?
Those who suggested the Rams could even wait and take a tackle in the third round haven't offered much in response to the staggeringly few number of non-first round tackles who have made an immediate impact for this team. If your solution involves a mid-round tackle, then elaborate on how that player is going to make an immediate contribution for this team when so few have been able to in the past.
Again, this was a thread about specifics, and those are the specifics I'm looking for. I'm looking for something more than, "I believe there are OTs not named Smith, Monroe, or Oher who could contribute next year." I'm looking for the who's, the why's, the how's - answers to those specific issues I referenced at the beginning regarding each path.
And I'm sorry, but I simply do not see where these specific concerns have been responded to. If they had been and I simply didn't agree with the analysis, I think I'm a reasonable enough guy to at least agree that the effort had been made, no?
If you want to know what I'm looking for in my heart of hearts, that's it. No extra psychoanalysis needed. It's exactly what I've been looking for for the better part of a week now - someone to explain what their preferred plan is and address the specific concerns I brought up regarding that option in my initial post.
Ok, partner. Line by line.I agree. Those are concerns.Quote:
those who suggested the Rams could come back and take William Beatty in the second round haven't said anything regarding the specific concerns I raised in my initial post regarding his toughness, his work ethic, his concentration.
If he's the BPA or in this case BOTA....then yea.Quote:
Do you take him in spite of those concerns?
No, I do.Quote:
Do you not agree with those concerns?
Some coaches believe any issue is coachable, but I have my doubts. I'd prefer a kid like Kropog who is extremely coachable, but maybe not as talented. The NFL life expectancy on a kid like that seems to be higher.Quote:
Do you think those are issues that coaching can correct in the future?
Most likely he doesn't. Maybe he platoons with Goldberg or someone else on the roster, but from day 1.......probably not.Quote:
If your solution involves a mid-round tackle, then elaborate on how that player is going to make an immediate contribution for this team when so few have been able to in the past.
But for me, that's the price I'm willing to pay to secure a centerpiece for the Defense. I don't think the Rams will, and that's fine by me as well.
Thanks HUb for elaborating and addressing those specific questions. That's what I was hoping to see regarding my initial post as people reflected on their preferred option.
If I were looking at this scenario as a Curry advocate, I'd probably choose a similar response to yours and C-Mob's as well. Though I have plenty of concerns about him as a prospect, Beatty is "the best of the rest" when it comes to the second round tackles IMO. He's really the only one of the trio I listed that I feel I can look at as having LT potential for us.
The problem with Beatty is that it's a big gamble to sit there @ 35 and wait to see if he drops to you. I don't like the idea of trading up to secure him, because again, I have enough questions about him as it is so I don't want to spend extra resources to acquire him. But the entire scenario depends on our ability to get him. If he doesn't?
As I see it, Loadholt is not an answer on the left side but also isn't a fit for this team because of character issues. I question whether Meredith will even end up at tackle in the pros, let alone fit our offensive scheme. And as you can tell in this response, I'm not a fan of depending on a second day offensive tackle to come in and make an impact for this team.
While I personally do not have Curry so far and away above the two tackles that he has to be the pick, I believe he'll be a very good player for a long time and that's one of the reasons he's third on my list behind the two tackles. So I can certainly understand those who do view him that way. If the Rams are among that group, then we'll have added a great defensive player to our front seven.
But the second that pick is in, I'm going to be sweating bullets about what happens at OT because my gut tells me we're going to be rolling a much larger set of dice at that point in terms of addressing that position. I simply do not believe that's a position where you delay filling a hole if you have one.
First off, excellent article, Nick!
Since I'd like to see the Rams take Curry, I suppose I will throw in my two cents.
Didn't the Rams(Devaney) already address OT in the 2008 draft with John Greco?
Nick, I seem to recall you making a very strong case for this guy as the 3rd round pick.
In fact Nick, you felt so strongly about it, you posted some quote from a respected NFL person that stated the Rams had stolen Greco in the 3rd round. Indicating he had 2nd round status written all over him.
Greco now has a year of seasoning under his belt, so one would think that a 3rd round steal at OT would be able to step in and start at RT.
Greco is listed at RT on the Rams roster. I'm not sure why Goldberg was playing there during the mini?
Did the Rams waste a 3rd round pick on a perennial back-up? Certainly I would think a GM could get a perennial back-up in much later rounds? If Greco can't start, then maybe the Rams still don't know what the hell they are doing in the draft?
Regardless, the Rams could take another OT in the 2nd round this draft. Certainly they should be able to find a starting RT with two 2nd round picks(albeit one of those guys was stolen in the 3rd round) in successive years?
:helmet:
Thanks for the response, Ferter!
I don't think the Rams wasted a pick on Greco; I'd actually prefer to see Greco challenging Incognito for the starting RG job at this point. But while the Rams drafted Greco thinking that he could push Barron for time at right tackle, it would appear the further close-up evaluation has caused Greco to settle in at guard rather than tackle.
And that seems to be the case for the new regime as well, since the two options discussed as replacements for Barron at RT were Adam Goldberg and Jacob Bell, with Greco replacing Bell as the starting left guard. Turns out Bell didn't spend any time at the minicamp at tackle, which makes the Rams a bit thin there.
But again, if Greco isn't a tackle, so be it. I think he's shown good ability as a guard and should be in the mix there, perhaps taking over for Incognito after this season since Richie is a restricted free agent. The Rams thought Greco had the potential to compete at RT, and many evaluations of him agreed he could play either RT or inside at guard. Upon further evaluation of him at camp, the Rams felt he was a better fit at guard. I don't think it's a wasted pick simply because Greco hasn't worked out at tackle; if he works out at guard, that's great.
The point I was making by citing an NFL analyst in saying Greco was a steal was simply because you kept contending he was a project and better players were on the board. I still really like what Greco brings to the table, and I thought we saw some of it last year when he saw some time in place of Incognito. The only difference is he seems to have kind of settled in at guard rather than being more of a possibility at tackle. I don't think Greco has done anything to suggest we've wasted a pick on him. I think he's still a quality young player who hopefully will contribute in the near future, just not in the way the Rams may have initially envisioned.
Nick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
First, let me say that you've done an excellent job in this article and have, I believe, made a most powerful case for taking one of the LTs with the 2nd pick over Curry or any other player in this draft.
Having said that, however, I must disagree somewhat with your comments on the Rams selection of John Greco in the 3rd round of last years draft. I truly believe that the Rams would NOT have picked Greco if they had known that he would only project to the guard position. If you look at the roster the Rams had just paid $36 million for Jacob Bell plus they had Cogs and Setterstrom on the team. There really wasn't a place for Greco but at back-up when he was drafted.
I'm pretty confident that the Rams wanted someone (ANYONE!!) to light a fire under Alex Barron's back-side and hoped that Greco would be the man for the job. Alas, this didn't happen, and here we are a year later and we still are facing this same issue. IMO we just really didn't need a guard at that point in the draft; although I'm sure that he will be a decent one some day.
Another thing to consider is that the Rams gave up two picks to move up and select Roy Schuening-yet another guard-in the 5th round. I really don't think that Billy would have pulled the trigger on this trade unless he strongly believed that Greco would be a tackle and then Schuening would play at guard. It really made no sense to draft two guards within two rounds of each other, especially when both of the starter spots were already taken by young veterans like Bell and Cogs.
At any rate, here we are and what's done is done. Let's hope that it all works out for the Rams in the end. Go Rams!
WHAT SAY YE?