JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. Bruce & Holt & ?

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Rep Power

    Bruce & Holt & ?

    I have been preaching Defense, Defense for the upcoming draft and available free agents. While reading all of the draft/free agent threads and posts I've been surprised by the requests/predictions that a WR is a need. Thinking to myself why? We need DEFENSE! We need pass rushing, run stopping defensive players, PERIOD! Well I guess I'm a member of the slow class? The WR need finally sunk in and my curiosity took over. Still wondering why anyone would suggest or hint that we need a WR/WR's?? So I went into my research mode. After refreshing my memory by looking at the RAMS depth chart for the 2006 season a "BRIGHT LIGHT" went on in my head. We need a WR/WR's!!!!!

    With all the talk about Kevin Curtis and Shaun MacDonald probably leaving the team to pursue larger roles and more money, the WR position needs to be looked at. I mean Isaac Bruce is going to be almost 35 years old when the 2007 season rolls around. Torry Holt and Dane Looker will be 31 years old. Now I'm not sure of the average age of an NFL receiver when the performance on the field starts to decline but I would say 35 is a number of concern if not 31. Also considering Kevin Curtis and Shaun MacDonald were 3rd and 4th on the 2006 depth chart respectively. We need a WR/WR's!!!!!

    Obviously the durability of Holt and more importantly the aging Bruce are as much of a major concern as always. The concern is greater if in fact Curtis and MacDonald leave the team. Why? Next in line on the depth chart are Willie Ponder and Dane Looker that's why. They would become the 3rd and 4th receivers on the depth chart (in no particular order). During the 2006 season Ponder and Looker combined for "ZERO" receptions which equals "ZERO" receiving yards that means "ZERO" TD's. Willie Ponder? Yeah he's fast but what about his hands? Dane Looker has the hands but no speed, more of a possession type guy. Curtis and MacDonald combined for 53 receptions, 615 receiving yards and 5 TD's. Will Looker and Ponder be to fill those shoes? Maybe? Maybe not!

    The bigger and more important question is could Looker or Ponder fill in for a Bruce or a Holt? Even if it's for just 1 game? We have known in recent seasons that Curtis could handle a fill in role and even MacDonald could create a threat. Looker and/or Ponder? I know we can't go into the 2007 predicting that Bruce or Holt will be injured but we must be prepared for it. We need that security blanket.

    Last season Bruce, Holt and Jackson combined for 257 of the 371 receptions or 69.3% of the passing game. The trio also combined for 3,092 receiving yards out of the 4,328 total receiving yards the team had which equals 71.4% of the passing game. Not to mention the 16 TD receptions. Obviously Head Coach Scott Linehan relied on the big 3 all season and was fortunate that they were able to stay healthy enough to play the whole season. Jackson is already saying he would welcome some help by giving up a few plays a game. With Stephen Davis saying he would like to stay and Tony Fisher hopefully coming back heathly combined with the Marshall Faulk dilemma I'm not as concerned about the RB position. After all if Steven Jackson was asked to do it all he would and could.

    Again the Bruce and Holt durability questions come to mind. Having a guy like Curtis is like having an ace up our sleeve. Even MacDonald could help in certain spots. So I ask, Ponder? Looker? a little scary if you ask me.

    Since the "Greatest Show On Turf" days we have become accustomed to our RAMS throwing the ball all over the field with a high percentage of success. So duh! I guess we better keep our eyes and ears open for some WR help.

  2. #2
    itsguud's Avatar
    itsguud is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Rep Power

    Re: Bruce & Holt & ?

    I was of the exact same mind-set... D, D, D!! I have also followed the WR problem arising however, and have the same opinion. I think that letting Curtis go would be the same now as letting the future go. I don't see the Rams drafting a WR not with their problems on D. So I say give Curtis a Long term contract now and lock him up to be the number 2 guy possibly next year and years after. At least then we can worry about our failed D.

  3. #3
    BigDaddyPace Guest

    Re: Bruce & Holt & ?

    Well, I think that it is definitely a concern, but not this offeseason. I think that Ike is gonna buy us another year before it becomes a real big problem. We need to focus on defense this offseason and spend a high draft pick next year on a WR. But the odvious way to cure all this is simply resigning Curtis and having him be our #2 guy for years to come.

  4. #4
    twelveli Guest

    Re: Bruce & Holt & ?

    If Dwayne Jarret is still available at the 13th spot, u grab him. We can improve our d through free agency. No reason to panic on that. But if Jarrett is available we grab him. I can already see him and holt beasting it up on the field. Plus, he'll be a GREAT redzone target. The man is a beast. I don't care wat scouts say, everyone has seen him play and he's just a BEAST!

  5. #5
    Stlskaterprep696 Guest

    Re: Bruce & Holt & ?

    I agree we need defense but what were probably gonna get three nice people like we did last season and will that really help???, i see ur point b/c our defense loses our games for us. I can see how people want offense i heard a rumor that tony gonzalez whats wanting to come to st.louis how sweet would that be. Maybe bulger wouldn't b sacked so many times and our offense would b complete again... But back to our defense i think our key is time, its the offseason we need to work w/ who we got were not gonna get a total game changer , no1 player on defense can make ur defense good or stable enough to win a championship LIKE WE ALL WANT. I've just seen big name defenders get traded to the rams in recent years and not play as well as they did the years b4... coincidence or is it our defense coaching... not only coaching but our effort, i totally agree w/ bulgers actions to come out and said that people didn't have effort... yes that was for the offensive line but if thats so who knows if its other positions too. Sure i want a champ bailey or ed reed on defense but if they came to our team we wouldn't improve the way we should. we need to get chemistry like the bears, ravens and patriots defense. idk but acouple years ago i didn't know who the patriots defenders were or bears but practically ever1 on their defense are big name players now thats my point, and i stand by it and i hope the rams can find the right chemistry amongst the players we have and get in the draft.

  6. #6
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Rep Power

    Re: Bruce & Holt & ?

    Honestly, in the first round where we are situated (13th), take the best player available regardless of position.

    Then, in the middle rounds, draft for depth.

  7. #7
    Stlskaterprep696 Guest

    Re: Bruce & Holt & ?

    Yes I agree highly of your statement if a dewayne jarrett was still there i would like to pick him up b/c atleast he would probably start, if we get sum rookie defender he will probably be a backup and it won't improve us. the rams defense needs chemistry, discipline and a new game plan 1-3 players aren't gonna help us like we need it, we can utilize the talent we have and become superbowl champs once again...


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts