Quick hits

[RamDez]

on Jason Smith
By Roger Hensley

Here’s what Post-Dispatch writers had to say about the Rams’ selection of Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith with the No. 2 overall pick in the NFL Draft:
JIM THOMAS, Post-Dispatch football writer:
Although not the sexiest pick, taking Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith at No. 2 overall makes all the sense in the world for the Rams. Smith will be an instant starter and he has the kind of aggressive attitude that will eventually make him a leader on the line. The Rams couldn’t afford to wait till the second round for an OT; that was simply too big a risk given a tackle class that is thinner at the top than in recent years.
BRYAN BURWELL, Post-Dispatch sports columnist:
GM Billy Devaney worked hard to generate smokescreen that they wanted QB Mark Sanchez, but the reality is they made the only call that makes sense.
JEFF GORDON, STLtoday.com sports columnist:
How boring was this? The Rams tried to drum up interest in the second overall draft pick, but the trade-up was too pricey for even the biggest Mark Sanchez lovers. So Billy Devaney went ahead and drafted the tackle with the greatest athletic potential, Jason Smith. It’s hard to argue with, since Alex Barron and Adam Goldberg are currently the No. 1 tackles on this team. Just as Chis Long was the safest pick last year, Smith was the safest pick in this spot. It’s dull for the media, but best for the team.
BILL COATS, Post-Dispatch football writer:
I don’t like the pick, mainly because I’d never take a tackle No. 2 overall unless convinced that he was the next Orlando Pace. I would’ve preferred linebacker Aaron Curry. That move would’ve set the defense for new coach Steve Spagnuolo.
KATHLEEN NELSON, Post-Dispatch staff writer:
I like the pick because it’s safe. What’s wrong with being safe? Scouts seemed to think that Smith was the best run blocker in the draft, so Stephen Jackson should be happy. It also sends a good message to Marc Bulger that the team is willing to protect him, rather than bring in Mark Sanchez to challenge him right off the bat.
________________________________________
MLB Laurinaitis a strong pick in second round
By Roger Hensley

THE WATERCOOLER
QUESTION: With the St. Louis Rams’ second pick (35th overall and No. 3 in Round 2), the team selected Ohio State LB James Laurinaitis. What are you thoughts on this selection?
JIM THOMAS
When North Carolina receiver Hakeem Nicks went off the board late in the first round, the team’s hopes of landing a wideout in Round 2 were scuttled. Although not a thumper, Laurinaitis is a nice consolation prize for a defense that needs all the help it can get.
BILL COATS
Very good pick. He’s a legitimate three-down linebacker, as opposed to USC’s Maualuga, and will fill a major need at middle linebacker.
BRYAN BURWELL
This second pick couldn’t have worked out any better for the Rams. At least on paper, Laurinaitis is exactly what they need.
JEFF GORDON
The Rams went two-for-two on Day One of the draft. Adding MLB James Laurinaitis adds heft to a defense clearly lacking it last season. He should emerge as a more forceful alternative to Chris Draft, thus making it easier to keep Will Witherspoon outside. He is better in coverage than Rey Maualuga, so he was a better choice than the former USC star. He is a solid character guy, he fills a glaring need — really, what’s not to like about this guy?
KATHLEEN NELSON
I like the pick. Linebacker was one of the most glaring needs, and he can be a visible force right away. Plus, he’s a character guy, winning the first Lowe’s Senior CLASS award. Plus, like Jason Smith, Laurinaitis wants to be a Ram.

[Alec22]

"KATHLEEN NELSON, Post-Dispatch staff writer:
I like the pick because it’s safe. What’s wrong with being safe? Scouts seemed to think that Smith was the best run blocker in the draft, so Stephen Jackson should be happy. It also sends a good message to Marc Bulger that the team is willing to protect him, rather than bring in Mark Sanchez to challenge him right off the bat."


How can you work for the post-dispatch in st. louis and have your opinion published when you cant even spell the teams top players' name?? Stephen Jackson?? Pathetic coverage.

[unorthodox1999]

"KATHLEEN NELSON, Post-Dispatch staff writer:
I like the pick because it’s safe. What’s wrong with being safe? Scouts seemed to think that Smith was the best run blocker in the draft, so Stephen Jackson should be happy. It also sends a good message to Marc Bulger that the team is willing to protect him, rather than bring in Mark Sanchez to challenge him right off the bat."


How can you work for the post-dispatch in st. louis and have your opinion published when you cant even spell the teams top players' name?? Stephen Jackson?? Pathetic coverage.

She may of mispelled the name but brought a good point..

[Alec22]

Her point is negated when she does not correctly spell the name of the player her argument is revolving around. Maybe in a different circumstance, BUT YOU WRITE FOR THE POST-DISPATCH. Thats pathetic and points to her lack of knowledge of her field and how she merely just copied real reporters with the info

[tdog08]

It was a rush job and a chat misspellings happen

[MoonJoe]

Her point is negated when she does not correctly spell the name of the player her argument is revolving around. Maybe in a different circumstance, BUT YOU WRITE FOR THE POST-DISPATCH. Thats pathetic and points to her lack of knowledge of her field and how she merely just copied real reporters with the info

Well now I am in a quandary. Technically the name is spelled correctly, it is just not his name. So now what do I do? Do I believe the writer that for some reason, picked the wrong name or do I believe the poster who picked the wrong term? I didn't realize that draft day would be so tough!!