View Poll Results: Part of roster where Rams could afford to "stand pat"

Voters
91. You may not vote on this poll
  • Quarterbacks

    6 6.59%
  • Running Backs

    20 21.98%
  • Wide Receivers/Tight Ends

    15 16.48%
  • Offensive Line

    8 8.79%
  • Defensive Line

    3 3.30%
  • Linebackers

    7 7.69%
  • Defensive Backfield

    32 35.16%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45
  1. #1
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    The Rams have a lot of areas that need an influx of talent. However, the reality is that limited resources (draft choices, free agent $) will mandate that the Rams "stand pat" and go with what they have in at least some areas of the roster.

    Which part of the roster would you be most comfortable "standing pat" (which, you may presume, includes the resigning of existing FAs on the roster).


  2. #2
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    For me, it came down to LBs and DBs.

    Assuming Atogwe returns and the Rams improve the pass rush, I think their DBs are good enough. If Fletcher can come back from his injury, that would be a big plus. Otherwise, the Rams will need one of the young CBs to step up.

    The LB corps are very thin. Laurinaitis is set at MLB, but Vobora and Lenon are just "guys" filling the OLB spots. Behind them there two other "guys" (Grant, Chamberlain).

    In the end, I went with LBs. If the DL does its job, mediocre LBs will look pretty good. I'd rather spend resources on another CB. OLBs are more of a "dime a dozen" category, in my opinion.

  3. #3
    AtlantaRamFan's Avatar
    AtlantaRamFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Age
    25
    Posts
    898
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I went with RB simply because I believe its less of an issue than any other spot on the roster. Sure, a solid backup would be nice, but for most of the other spots, we're talking about getting a new starter. A new starting OLB would be nice, a #1 CB would also help. Same for WR. It seems other than the Punter/Kicker/MLB, RB is one of the few spots that doesn't need a new starting caliber player.

  4. #4
    Rambunctious's Avatar
    Rambunctious is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    53

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I'm torn.

    I think we can stand pat on our wide receivers but we need to grab a tight end in free agency.

    Obviously nothing needs to be done about SJ but I would like us to get a good number 2 this off season.

    I'll go with running backs.

  5. #5
    shower beers's Avatar
    shower beers is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,051
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    Personally, I feel we can stand to improve in every area, so I didn't choose an option.

  6. #6
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    Quote Originally Posted by shower beers View Post
    Personally, I feel we can stand to improve in every area, so I didn't choose an option.
    If you take that attitude, then you lose any credibility to criticize the Front Office. While you are free to live in a fantasy world in which every area of the team can be improved in one offseason, the reality is that the Front Office has to make hard choices and prioritize.

  7. #7
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I had to go with the DBs. I would like to add a top notch RB to the mix because if you look at the recent trend in the NFL, teams need more than 1 RB to win. Shoot, Dallas has 3.

  8. #8
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,489
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I would stand pat with the Oline, DB's and LB's. I'm on the fence with the receivers because we have a couple of guys that showed promise. With Lareaunt coming back I think we have plenty of receivers to choose from. We need a decent back to extend Steven Jacksons career, and we need a QB. Bulger would be ok, if he didn't cost so much. Maybe they'll restructure his contract if he doesn't retire. That way we can sign and develop a decent QB. signing one in free agency would be dumb unless we're signing one to replace Bulger. But with the QB's available, who really gives us chance to go deep into the playoffs?

  9. #9
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I say stand pat with the DBs this season. Assuming we give our defensive line the needed Suhpersizing that can actually generate a working pass rush, some of the secondary's woes should be diminished.

    Receiver/TE is the second least important to me; let's give the youth another year to mature and make sure their problems are talent and skill based as opposed to immaturity.

    Backup RB is the third least-while a back to share the load would be nice, we need to lock down some starters elsewhere.

  10. #10
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,312
    Rep Power
    109

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I voted to stand pat with the o-line. This group was playing pretty good before the injury bug hit them.

    A close second for me was the WR position with 3rd being the DB's.

  11. #11
    molar_pistol Guest

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    i voted wide receivers, only because i didn't read all of the options and didn't see the db's. i think we can afford to stand pat in both areas for the year, unless a guy really jumps out to us in the draft or free agency.

  12. #12
    39thebeast's Avatar
    39thebeast is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    conecticut
    Posts
    2,740
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    RBs. Ogbonaya coming out of college was a good reciever and blocker and I think that has carried over. He still needs to develop as a runner, but that requires more carries. The beast could loose a few a carries and still be dominant.

  13. #13
    Warner4prez Guest

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    O-line. Don't fool yourselves gang, we need to draft at least one good DB by the 4th round and maybe even sign one more in the FA.

    LB's will also be a big need. If we grab Suh and beef up the line, teams will be forced to either go verticle on us, or bounce the ball to the outside.

  14. #14
    cfh128's Avatar
    cfh128 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Age
    31
    Posts
    783
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    I voted for DB's, although I didn't feel great about it. I'm subscribing to the theory that a better pass rush will help them out. Even still, if the front office decided to focus some attention on that area, it certainly wouldn't break my heart.

  15. #15
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,442
    Rep Power
    73

    Re: With limited resources, where would you "stand pat"?

    It's a toughie given the overall weakness of this team but I went with WR.

    Honorable mentions to DB .

    Take away Long & you're screwed vs the pass & run.

    Take away Jason Brown & you're screwed in pass pro & the run game.

    Take away Lau & the LB corps becomes a bad joke.

    Take away SJ....well, do I even need to say it ?...

    Take away the best WR or DBer and I don't think the team would get drastically worse. In fact, I think this year's performance showed that to be true.Ultimately, WR got the nod because of greater overall depth, much of which should be coming into its prime next year.

    QB is just a mysterious void,imo, with any of the current options,albeit for very different reasons.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Long limited??
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: -09-30-2008, 07:19 PM
  2. Pace returns to practice on limited basi
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-22-2006, 08:10 AM
  3. Salary Cap Request
    By HUbison in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -12-31-2004, 02:48 AM
  4. Faulk limited
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: -10-02-2004, 02:20 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: -07-30-2004, 04:13 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
  •