Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

  1. #46
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,615
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Yeah, I'm not exactly overflowing with confidence in a backfield consisting of three guys who were all rookies this year without any meaningful starts on their résumé.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson is gone as well - the writing is pretty clearly on the wall for him to leave - but I do believe the Rams will bring in a veteran at least for camp to compete, if only to add some leadership and experience at the position. Because the line-up you named is severely lacking both.




    Actually, no, and that was clear in the sentence right after the one you quoted as well as the phrasing of the paragraph prior.




    Okay, but none of this answers my question. Do you agree that we were hoping to see something more positive so far from guys like Kendricks, Quick, and Pead, and Kendricks? Judging by the fact that your comments about the latter two are basically, "Hopefully they do better next year," maybe I can guess the answer.

    As for Kendricks, according to PFF's breakdown of offensive snaps, Kendricks actually stayed in to block on pass plays on average more last year than this year. So let's throw the "blame the OL" excuse out the window in this case.

    While Kendricks is catching more passes on average per game, he's not being used very dynamically. Only three of his receptions have occurred further than 10 yards down the field. And he's playing under a coordinator that knew how to help Dustin Keller get 40-50 yards per game in New York, so it also isn't the scheme either.




    I do think it's unfair to expect a rookie to come in on Day One and be a superstar, but when you're selecting guys in the second round, I think it's safe to say you expect more impact in Year One than what the Rams have gotten out of Quick and Pead. That's the balance.

    Yes, on a good team where there's more talent and fewer holes, rookies don't get as many opportunities. You bring up the *****, which is interesting because not only did the ***** try to help their WR unit by spending a first round pick on a receiver, but they also brought in two veterans as well.

    So while they're building long-term through the draft, they also understand the value of veteran personnel to fill immediate holes while those rookies develop.

    The Rams were not willing to pony up the dough for any of the top free agent names at receiver this year, and instead got Steve Smith. I've always liked Smith as a player, but as you pointed out, he's been a non-factor. So at least in his case, the "Why pay big money for a top receiver when we could get Steve Smith for cheaper?" didn't exactly translate to success.

    Okay, but none of this answers my question. Do you agree that we were hoping to see something more positive so far from guys like Kendricks, Quick, and Pead,
    and Kendricks? Judging by the fact that your comments about the latter two are basically, "Hopefully they do better next year," maybe I can guess the answer.
    Sure I would always like more to see more.

    Kendrick IMO it's more scheme issue then his lack abilities, he is a huge part of the blocking in the running game. I would like to see him targeted more sure. Pead, got off to a slow start due to school and fell behind DR. If DR was not playing well and we had to pick up a vet off the street because Pead looks so bad then I might be concerned. We both agree SJ will be gone, so next year we will see Pead. I missed on my exceptions for Quick by a long shot, but hearing Bruce talk about his own struggles coming from a small school helps understand it's normal and part of the process.


    Yeah, I'm not exactly overflowing with confidence in a backfield consisting of three guys who were all rookies this year without any meaningful starts on their résumé.
    I'm not worried look at what some of these young backs are doing Trent Richardson, Alfred Morris, Doug Martin.

    I do think it's unfair to expect a rookie to come in on Day One and be a superstar, but when you're selecting guys in the second round, I think it's safe to say you expect more impact in Year One than what the Rams have gotten out of Quick and Pead. That's the balance.
    Like I said if DR was not playing so well and Pead just looked really bad then I'm with you. I think Pead was always a long term play. He was not going to come in and start over SJ. The best he could do was what DR is doing. There is only so many reps and only one ball. Quick is what he is, the kid is struggling to learn the plays and play at this level. The Rams FO where looking at Quick as having higher upside then a Rueben Randle who is more NFL ready. Lets see if they got it right.


    The Rams were not willing to pony up the dough for any of the top free agent names at receiver this year, and instead got Steve Smith. I've always liked Smith as a player, but as you pointed out, he's been a non-factor. So at least in his case, the "Why pay big money for a top receiver when we could get Steve Smith for cheaper?" didn't exactly translate to success.
    If you ask me I think Fisher thought he could win more games and stay in more games by spending the money on the defense. Finn 50 Mil. Kendall Langford 24 Mil. Locked up Long and JL. Used the first pick one defense. Looking at the draft class and not seeing a Jones or Green. I would not be shocked if we went with two more defensive players in the first round, trying to get really good on one side of the ball.

    I don't think they thought of Smith as a big upgrade not sure he had proved he was healthy until camp was over. I'm not saying the Rams will be cheap, they spent all they had on what they thought would make us competitive the fastest. If we had promoted McD he would have gone offense I'm sure.
    Last edited by Rambos; -11-20-2012 at 04:50 PM.


  2. #47
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,925
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Kendrick IMO it's more scheme issue then his lack abilities, he is a huge part of the blocking in the running game. I would like to see him targeted more sure.
    What about his performance as a blocker in the running game is hindering his ability to be a weapon when a pass play is called?

    The scheme argument really doesn't make much sense to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I'm not worried look at what some of these young backs are doing Trent Richardson, Alfred Morris, Doug Martin.
    Good for them, but I don't anticipate any of them being on the 2013 Rams roster. Besides, every player you named is part of a backfield that includes another running back with more experience than them.

    The point I'm making is that the three names you've projected to form the Rams RB unit in 2013 are all rookies this season. If that doesn't worry you, okay. But a lack of veteran leadership at the position concerns me.

  3. #48
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,615
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    What about his performance as a blocker in the running game is hindering his ability to be a weapon when a pass play is called?


    The scheme argument really doesn't make much sense to me.

    Good for them, but I don't anticipate any of them being on the 2013 Rams roster. Besides, every player you named is part of a backfield that includes another running back with more experience than them.

    The point I'm making is that the three names you've projected to form the Rams RB unit in 2013 are all rookies this season. If that doesn't worry you, okay. But a lack of veteran leadership at the position concerns me.

    None I'm just pointing out he has become a much better blocker in his second year which shows he's getting better as a player. He's one of those players that hardly ever leaves the game on the offense.

    I think the use of the word scheme maybe used wrong by me. When the ball has been thrown his way he is catching about 77% of the passes. His drop rate has been reduce from his rookie year which was filled with drops. I see a improved player, that said is he one of the most productive TE no, can he be IMO yes, if Bradford or shotty decided to throw the ball his way more. He had another nice catch and ran over a tackler Sunday only to have it called back on a per-snap penalty.


    Considering next year they won't be rookies and SJ played just played two year with Marshal before he took the rains in his second year. Not sure Marshal said boo to SJ through. If your right and it's a real concern they will bring in a vet, well see.
    Last edited by Rambos; -11-21-2012 at 08:47 AM.

  4. #49
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,615
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Originally Posted by Nick
    and I really don't understand why Ganaway is even mentioned at this point.

    Rams waived FB Brit Miller.
    Miller goes to make room for C Scott Wells, who was activated from injured reserve this week. The Rams will apparently go with Terrance Ganaway as the new lead blocker. Nov 20 - 5:54 PM
    Source: Jim Thomas on Twitter

    Just another step in the master plan....

  5. #50
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,925
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    None I'm just pointing out he has become a much better blocker in his second year which shows he's getting better as a player. He's one of those players that hardly ever leaves the game on the offense.

    I think the use of the word scheme maybe used wrong by me. When the ball has been thrown his way he is catching about 77% of the passes. His drop rate has been reduce from his rookie year which was filled with drops. I see a improved player, that said is he one of the most productive TE no, can he be IMO yes, if Bradford or shotty decided to throw the ball his way more. He had another nice catch and ran over a tackler Sunday only to have it called back on a per-snap penalty.
    Can we put the excuses aside? First, it was Kendricks has to stay in and block more on passing plays due to the OL (he's actually pass protecting less this year than last). Then, it was the scheme (never stopped Dustin Keller). Now it's that Bradford and Schottenheimer aren't throwing his way enough.

    I think, at some point, we simply have to acknowledge that he hasn't yet become the weapon in the passing game we'd hoped he would. That's not saying he never will, but just that so far, as second round tight ends go, he's looking more like Joe Klopfenstein than Rob Gronkowski.

    As for Bradford and Schottenheimer not calling his number enough, there's probably a reason for that. It's not as if this offense is so stacked with weapons that Kendricks is just getting left out. If he truly had the potential to be one of the most productive tight ends in the league, you'd think that's something the quarterback and offensive coordinator would lean on, especially considering how much Sam loved throwing to tight end Jermaine Gresham at OU.

    But according to PFF, Kendricks remains near the bottom of the league for tight ends when ranked by targets, yards per reception, and average yards after the catch this season. While he's made big improvements as a run blocker and with his hands, he simply hasn't established himself as much of a weapon. Hopefully that changes, but if the Rams have the opportunity to upgrade, I wouldn't fault them for doing so just as they did in 2007 with Randy McMichael even though Klopfenstein had only played one season.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Just another step in the master plan....
    Right, except I believe your master plan was that he'd be part of the rotation at tailback rather than the lead blocking role Rotoworld is speculating he'll fill.

  6. #51
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,615
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Right, except I believe your master plan was that he'd be part of the rotation at tailback rather than the lead blocking role Rotoworld is speculating he'll fill.
    First off happy Thanksgiving Nick.

    I'm going to get off the Lance debate and agree to disagree. That being said I have also said I would not mind adding 6-5 TE next year.

    My master plan is reading the tea leafs... LOL he will be next year. I'm even surprised they found a way to get him on the field this year. Lets see if the up back does not get the ball in short yardage from time to time. Lets see if they don't get him the ball in the flat from time to time. My point has always been they have a plan long term and he is part of if.

    You may get your first look at a two back set that features Richardson and Ganaway Sunday.

  7. #52
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,925
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    First off happy Thanksgiving Nick.

    I'm going to get off the Lance debate and agree to disagree. That being said I have also said I would not mind adding 6-5 TE next year.

    My master plan is reading the tea leafs... LOL he will be next year. I'm even surprised they found a way to get him on the field this year. Lets see if the up back does not get the ball in short yardage from time to time. Lets see if they don't get him the ball in the flat from time to time. My point has always been they have a plan long term and he is part of if.

    You may get your first look at a two back set that features Richardson and Ganaway Sunday.
    Fair enough, perhaps I misinterpreted. I thought you were counting him among the tailbacks. If he does end up as the Rams' lead blocker as Rotoworld speculates (he's competing with Kendricks at that spot since Schotty utilizes tight ends in that H-back role at times), then that would possibly free up a spot at tailback for a cheap veteran to come in as well.

    Have a great Thanksgiving!

  8. #53
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,925
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    You may get your first look at a two back set that features Richardson and Ganaway Sunday.
    Or maybe not.
    Rambos likes this.

  9. #54
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,615
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Yeah you won that won but how about Kendricks! Just get him the damn ball more!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: -10-02-2011, 12:21 PM
  2. WR is an issue--sad to admit...
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: -12-04-2007, 05:30 PM
  3. My take on the weed issue
    By general counsel in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -04-19-2007, 01:33 PM
  4. Thread Issue
    By thoey in forum HELP
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-16-2006, 09:37 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-07-2006, 09:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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