For Rams, turnaround will require better personnel decisions

[Goldenfleece]

Here's perhaps the most damning evidence of the Rams' poor drafts: In this decade, St. Louis' only drafted player to make the Pro Bowl has been running back Steven Jackson.

That's not even true. Torry Holt was drafted in 1999, which last I checked was in the last 10 years. Dre Bly was also a Pro Bowler, and he came from the 2000 draft. Granted he was another player we let leave and made the Pro Bowl with another team, but he was a player we drafted who made it. Strictly speaking, since we haven't had the draft yet in 2008, Leonard Little from 1998 still qualifies in the last decade. Look, I'm not saying we've had great drafting. I'm just saying this guy is kind of distorting the picture to make his case. He's basically calling 2001-2007 (six years) a decade.

And I still contend that looking strictly at Hill vs. Cromartie, Hill was the safer, smarter move. Hill certainly does not look like a bust so far, and he has been playing in a scheme that has relied on lots of blitzing that leaves the corners out there on an island in coverage more than other schemes.

[Fargo Ram Fan]

The quote was "In this DECADE". Its widely accepted that when one refers to THIS DECADE or THAT DECADE its a specific numerical reference ala the 70's , 80's or in this case...the 00's. Had the quote been 'In A decade'...your point would be valid. I dont think anyone is attempting to call the last 8 years "A" decade...but it is the majority of THIS decade. I would imagine the Dry Bly omission was an oversight.

[HUbison]

That's way to simplistic. It was unlucky that Hill got injured. It's too early to really know what we really have with Hill. It also doesn't help Hill or anyone in the secondary that we have ZERO pass rush. Cromartie benefited from a great Chargers pass rush, stick him in our secondary and he wouldn't look half as good.

Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!

The Hill vs. Cromartie debate is an interesting one, but far from being answered at this point. After two seasons, here's Hill / Cromartie per game stats:

Cromartie - 2.1 tackles, 0.3 ints., 0.7 PDs
Hill - 3.5 tackles, 0.2 ints., 0.5 PDs

Cromartie's stats are slightly better, other than tackles. However, if Hill were given that kind of pass rush, I dare say his numbers would be similar.

[r8rh8rmike]

Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!

The Hill vs. Cromartie debate is an interesting one, but far from being answered at this point. After two seasons, here's Hill / Cromartie per game stats:

Cromartie - 2.1 tackles, 0.3 ints., 0.7 PDs
Hill - 3.5 tackles, 0.2 ints., 0.5 PDs

Cromartie's stats are slightly better, other than tackles. However, if Hill were given that kind of pass rush, I dare say his numbers would be similar.

If those stats don't tell the story, nothing will. Cromartie is very talented, but so is Hill. IMO, if he stays healthy he'll soon be a Pro Bowler.

[RAMarkable]

If those stats don't tell the story, nothing will. Cromartie is very talented, but so is Hill. IMO, if he stays healthy he'll soon be a Pro Bowler.

I like your optimism. I also think that Mr. Hill is on his way to Pro Bowl honors. With some health and a pass rush it could be sooner than later.

WHAT SAY YE?

[Goldenfleece]

The quote was "In this DECADE". Its widely accepted that when one refers to THIS DECADE or THAT DECADE its a specific numerical reference ala the 70's , 80's or in this case...the 00's. Had the quote been 'In A decade'...your point would be valid. I dont think anyone is attempting to call the last 8 years "A" decade...but it is the majority of THIS decade. I would imagine the Dry Bly omission was an oversight.

That's probably what he meant, but it still exaggerates how bad our drafting has been. He makes it out to be this "damning evidence", but when you start to break it down...

Okay, so it's not really 10 years, it's just 8. And it's not 1 Pro Bowler; it's 2. And there are only 48 spots open on a Pro Bowl roster, so if the talent was equally divided among the 16 teams in the NFC, the average team would have 3 Pro Bowlers. And we've had guys like Holt, Pace, and Little going pretty regularly when they're healthy. Plus Bulger and Jackson in recent years (although Bulger was just an unheralded free agent pickup, not technically a draftee). And frankly a lot of the voting isn't based on pure talent, it's based on national exposure and whether the team is winning and stuff like that. If we had won a few more, I'll bet Atogwe would be on the list, too. And of course guys in their first or second year don't make it into the Pro Bowl that often anyway.

So that "damning evidence" basically tells us that the years right after 2000 weren't very good, but it leaves out the successes before that and the potential of picks like Hill and Carricker in recent years.

[Fat Pang]

We can split the difference between cornerbacks as long as we like, but the evidence of poor drafting over drafts of recent vintage is there for all to see. The last couple of drafts have been an improvement in my opinion, but we haven't seen what is required of a good front office.

Zygmunt's tenure continues, much to the bafflement of us all...................

[HUbison]

We can split the difference between cornerbacks as long as we like, but the evidence of poor drafting over drafts of recent vintage is there for all to see. The last couple of drafts have been an improvement in my opinion, but we haven't seen what is required of a good front office.

Zygmunt's tenure continues, much to the bafflement of us all...................

Pang, let me start by saying I completely agree with you that we have to do a better job in the draft and as long as Zygmunt is in charge I have my doubts.

But the draft is a funny thing. For example, I think we can all agree that the Patriots are the shining star of the NFL right now (even with their SB loss). However, since 2002, they have only drafted 1 Pro Bowler (Asante Samuel, 2003, NE's 5th pick), which is the same number as the Rams over that period of time (S-Jack, 2004). And dating back to 2000, the Pats have had a whooping 15 Pro Bowlers! But they only drafted 4 of them (Brady 2000, Seymour 2001, Light 2001, Samuel 2003) during that span.

Do we HAVE to do a better job in the draft? Absolutely.

Can a turnaround happen with only a marginally better draft? The Pats would say yes.........if everything else is in place.

[txramsfan]

I don't think Hill is very good. He was good in college, but he's too short to play in the NFL with his hands. He has had a few INT's but could have had many more but dropped a bunch. He doesn't have good hands.

He should have never been drafted as high as he was. Unless he makes a radical adjustment, he will only be average IMHO.

[ramsbruce]

I don't think Hill is very good. He was good in college, but he's too short to play in the NFL with his hands. He has had a few INT's but could have had many more but dropped a bunch. He doesn't have good hands.

He should have never been drafted as high as he was. Unless he makes a radical adjustment, he will only be average IMHO.

The jury is still out on Hill, it's too early and we haven't seen enough to know how good Hill is. It would also be nice if our Hill had any resemblance of pass rush

I don't think his hands are as bad as you are trying to lead people to believe. He dropped a bunch? How many is a bunch, two, ten, twenty?

He's 5'10 just like Dre Bly, so even though I don't think Hill's hands are as bad as you do, and I don't think he needs to make a "radical adjustment" he can still work on his so called "hands" problem to make himself better.

Like HUb pointed out Hill's average numbers are right there with Cromartie and Cro actually has a pass rush.

[txramsfan]

The book on Hill coming out of Clemson was that he has stone hands. I don't have video stream of every pass I thought Hill should have interecepted but if I had a nickel for each, I could purchase a $50 gift card from Wal Mart.

[eldfan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RamWraith

February 12, 2008

Dennis Dillon

{Exhibit A: Look at the first three rounds of the 2006 draft. In Round 1, the Rams selected 5-10 cornerback Tye Hill when they could have taken 6-2 Antonio Cromartie. Hill is an undersized defender in a division full of big wide receivers, and he missed half the 2007 season with injuries. Cromartie made the Pro Bowl for San Diego and has superstar potential. "}

I do think it is as simple as bad drafting. We draft a undersized corner and we just miss on other picks. The proof is in the fillings. The fact is only SJ has been in a pro bowl, and some other picks have been marginal at best. This team might not be more than 8-8 team at best.

[HUbison]

The book on Hill coming out of Clemson was that he has stone hands. I don't have video stream of every pass I thought Hill should have interecepted but if I had a nickel for each, I could purchase a $50 gift card from Wal Mart.

That's 1000 dropped picks! Cut his tiny arse immediately!

The fact is only SJ has been in a pro bowl

I'm still befuddled why this is still brought up as evidence of poor drafting. As I said just a couple of posts ago....

However, since 2002, they have only drafted 1 Pro Bowler (Asante Samuel, 2003, NE's 5th pick), which is the same number as the Rams over that period of time (S-Jack, 2004).

[ramsbruce]

The book on Hill coming out of Clemson was that he has stone hands. I don't have video stream of every pass I thought Hill should have interecepted but if I had a nickel for each, I could purchase a $50 gift card from Wal Mart.

So the book on him was stone hands, and yet per game Hill is right with Cromartie on INTs.

If I had a nickel for each time that someone wrote off a draft pick way too early I would be a millionaire.

[r8rh8rmike]

The book on Hill coming out of Clemson was that he has stone hands. I don't have video stream of every pass I thought Hill should have interecepted but if I had a nickel for each, I could purchase a $50 gift card from Wal Mart.

Getting his hands on that many passes sounds like great coverage to me.