i guess picket wasnt tagged - Page 2

*general counsel* · #16 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

its an interesting question stlouisram on plays per possession. While i try to block out from my mind most of the defensive debacles during the season, i would give you the flip side of your argument. I bet we led the league in most big plays given up, especially on the run. I could be totally wrong, but my perception is that we werent terrible in the red zone but we got gashed for lots of big plays.

I agree that tackling stats are misleading, but when you lead the league its nothing to sneeze at.

Pickett was drafted very young as a project. People knew if it was going to take time. The real issue here is do you think he will improve from here or get fat once he get paid. Reasonable people can disagree on that point.

Arguably, on a better defense he would attract less double teams.

Ramming speed to all

general counsel

*Fat Pang* · #17 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

My worry GC is that what we saw was a great contract year. There's no guarantees in this league, but ordinarily after such a year the safe play would have been to tag him for a year and then see how it shakes out.

We'd have avoided being exposed to the inflationary effect of other teams interest in him as well as the embarrassment of not tagging him and watching him go elsewhere and having a great year.

As we haven't tagged him and maybe being seen as having overpaid him for a year, we are now vulnerable to an escalation in the value of his contract or seeing him go elsewhere and having a great year.

As I've said, I'm not sure he'll have that great year somewhere else as I don't think our situation last year on D was a great situation to judge anybody who was associated with it.

Am I sure about him? Hell, no, but it's that uncertainty that makes me really reluctant to fire straight out and sign him at anything like $4mil or even half that.

The best way this works out for us, is if we just sit and wait for the market to assess his value, which it then does and arrives at a fair price (Given low interest) and we end up giving him a contract for 3-4 years with incentives that could see him getting close to what he might be asking for as guaranteed money.

Winners all round, and with the lack of comment on his situation so far, I think that could well be how it works out.

**Nick** · #18 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN

Would Pickett have had as many tackles if anyone on the team other then him was playing tackle football? He had a lot of chances for tackles because no body else was tackling the guy with the ball.

How do you explain Pickett's team-leading tackles for loss? Maybe Pickett did gain a number of tackles because other players were missing some, but you don't get something like 11 tackles for loss because you aren't making some plays yourself.

*mh-i* · #19 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

No doubt that Pickett led players at his position in tackles this past season. Does that make him an "elite" player? For me the last couple of years there really hasn't been superstars at defensive tackle in the NFL. There are good players but not superstars. For instance, is Pickett even in the conversation with a guy like Warren Sapp, era 2001? I don't think he is. Pickett benifits from a weak crop at his position going into this off season. The bar is lower at the moment. I'm all for signing Pickett for less money than a franchise tag would warrant but in no way should the Rams overpay when they have alot of holes to fill on the defensive side of the ball AND also #80, in my opinion, needs to be re-signed. I am in no way a Pickett hater but I would be more comfotable about tagging him if we weren't talking about a career year, tackles wise, in a contract year.

*mh-i* · #20 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

How do you explain Pickett's team-leading tackles for loss? Maybe Pickett did gain a number of tackles because other players were missing some, but you don't get something like 11 tackles for loss because you aren't making some plays yourself.

The flip side to that is, how many missed tackles did Pickett have when the oposition broke big runs against the Rams in 2005? I know it happened more than once. Pickett had a good year but I wouldn't spend 1/3 of the Rams available cap money to keep him.

*chiguy* · #21 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

The tag is always challenging. in picketts case, if we tagged him, he could conceivably weigh 500 pounds by the time he ultimately signed the tender.

Why wouldn't this also be the concern with a long term contract? Heck, with the tag he has the incentive of being a FA the next year that he doesn't have with any contract longer than one year.

**HUbison** · #22 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

Quote:

Would Pickett have had as many tackles if anyone on the team other then him was playing tackle football?

Just one man's opinion, but I would have to say the exact opposite is true. If there were more playmakers on this defense Pickett would have had an even better year. Offenses were allowed to focus on Pickett. Hargrove was easily taken out of position, Little had his head in the clouds for most of the year, Kennedy was injured, and Lewis, well.....is Lewis. Pickett spent most of the year with double teams, so he had to work that much harder to make plays.

As for the missed tackles leading to big plays, if one were to revisit the tapes, those plays didn't come through Pickett. The big plays all have either a DE over pursuing (upfield or inside), or a LB missing a gap assignment. The missed tackles were happening beyond the line of scrimmage, ie. after the play is past Pickett.

If you ask me, a better defense would make Pickett look even better.

*majorram* · #23 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

My pennies worth, i stilll think the Rams will try to lock up Grease before FA kicks in...they just don't want to use those dollars locked up with the tag... I think it will be a mistake to let the guy go, hes matured, improved and it usually takes about 2 to 3 years for an DT to have an impact...

Like we have seen before with Fisher and Wistrom someone will throw the money at him!!! and look what happened to them!!!

steve:clanram:

*general counsel* · #24 (**permalink**) -24-02-2006

ChiGuy, i agree that there is a risk on the weight factor as well on the long term contract, but there is one big difference. when he is under contract, he is required to participate in offseason training and even more importantly, training camp itself. If tagged, he doesnt participate or report until he signs the tender, which could be towards the end of camp, meaning he is terribly out of football shape.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*adarian_too* · #25 (**permalink**) -25-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

If you ask me, a better defense would make Pickett look even better.

The interesting point here is that a better Picket would have made the defense look better. Since the defense looked like crap, it suggests that regardless of his numbers, Pickett wasn't the difference-maker that should command stupid money.

*chiguy* · #26 (**permalink**) -25-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

ChiGuy, i agree that there is a risk on the weight factor as well on the long term contract, but there is one big difference. when he is under contract, he is required to participate in offseason training and even more importantly, training camp itself. If tagged, he doesnt participate or report until he signs the tender, which could be towards the end of camp, meaning he is terribly out of football shape.

The fact that we're discussing whether or not Pickett needs training camp or contractive incentives to keep his weight now suggests to me that we probably shouldn't pay top dollar to keep him. Just my opinion, but if we're so concerned about him as a risk than that makes it even more imperative that you don't overpay just to keep him around.