The odds are on our side

*VegasRam* · #1 (**permalink**) -01-05-2008

and hopefully the gods as well.

We got Holt in '99, and since then - zippo.

(From memory... ratings 1 - 5; 1 = worst)

Hakim - 4

Curtis - 3

MacDonald - 2

Looker - 3

St. Paul - 0

Milford ? - 0

Guy from Steelers - 1

Thompson - 0

Hagans - 0

Brandon ? - 1

Hall - 0 (as receiver)

Stanley - 0 (so far)

Bennett - 2 (believe will improve)

Granted, we were fortunate in having Bruce (tear), and Holt, but we have really whiffed drafting (or trading for) receivers.

And while I'm at it, let's do TEs (receiving only)

Williams - 4

Conwell - 4

Robinson - 3

Manu(fu) - 2

Klop - 2

Byrd - 0

Walker - 1

McMichael - 2

Owens - 0

Plus at least 4 draft choices whose names escape me at the moment.

I believe in Saunders, and feel Martz knew QB's but not receivers.

Lookin' to light it up next year. That's my motto in fact!

*thoey* · #2 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Um... Huh???

*VegasRam* · #3 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by thoey

Um... Huh???

Um...huh??? What? (other than the fact I did the ratings bassackwards)

Just makin' an observation that we have been less than stellar in receiver selection, and that maybe the odds are on our side that Stanley, Avery or the other draftee, (whose name escapes me - wait 'til YOU'RE 60), turn out to be not only good, but great.

What do you not understand?

*KoaKoi* · #4 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

First of all, Rams haven't had a need for stellar receivers precisely because they had Bruce and Holt who are.......stellar receivers.

Second, how about you add Proehl to the list & give him a 4+ ranking

*Rambos* · #5 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Curtis - 4

MacDonald - 3

*Ramer* · #6 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

I agree with KoaKoi 100%. We haven't had a need for stellar receivers with Bruce and Holt. Also, where is Proehl. The guy had great hands. I would give him a 4.

*Keenum* · #7 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

We should give Proehl a 5 just because of that catch against the Bucs

Anyway, he was very dependable, and was always there when we needed him. Perfect fit for us back then. I would give him a 4 no doubt.

*VegasRam* · #8 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Good point(s) guys. Proehl should have been there.

I actually feel the same way about Looker - we should NEVER let that guy go. He's Ricky reincarnated.

As far as not NEEDING stellar receivers - that's true. My point was, we DID draft receivers, some in early rounds, and NONE of 'em hit.

I just have a good feeling about the two we got this year, that's all.

*Keenum* · #9 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Looker was good when we needed him at WR.
But he was great as Wilkins' holder. I just doubt that the Rams keep him around if they can find somebody else to hold for Brown now, somebody that alreays has another spot (punter, reserve QB, etc...).

*itsguud* · #10 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Agree with ervyone, Proehl needs a 4.5 and Curtis needs at least a 4. He was amazing and just wasn't used corectly byu the Rams... but those times when he was... he was on fire!

*moloch41* · #11 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by VegasRam

Um...huh??? What? (other than the fact I did the ratings bassackwards)

Just makin' an observation that we have been less than stellar in receiver selection, and that maybe the odds are on our side that Stanley, Avery or the other draftee, (whose name escapes me - wait 'til YOU'RE 60), turn out to be not only good, but great.

What do you not understand?

Wouldn't the fact that we've drafted and signed receivers so poorly over the past 5 years actually stack the odds against us? If everything was cyclical- how do you explain the Cardinals?

*VegasRam* · #12 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

I think the FO's approach this year is different than it's been for the last ten years, in that the final say was coming from a different source. So maybe the result will be as well.

Anyway, lighten up, as this was just intended as a...

...predominantly positive post-draft prognostication posted prior to possibly having to plead for y'all's pardon upon players performing piss-poorly in pre, regular and post-season play, preferring as I do to predict a probable outcome from a pleasant perspective.

The Cards?...I can't explain, but even THEY finally got some good receivers.

*moloch41* · #13 (**permalink**) -02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by VegasRam

The Cards?...I can't explain, but even THEY finally got some good receivers.

Tis true, but lucky for us, they'll always be the Cards...

*VegasRam* · #14 (**permalink**) -03-05-2008

"Trudat", as they say, But I HOPE they play Leinhart.

Warner is still good, and Leinhart isn't.

Although Mr. Long hasn't introduced himself to Mr. Warner yet.

*VegasRam* · #15 (**permalink**) -03-05-2008

Incidentally, Thoey, I never heard back from you.

Were you stoned when you responded, or do you just sort of instinctually question everything you read?

("Not that there's anything wrong with that"...in the immortal words of...)