For Rams, turnaround will require better personnel decisions

[eldfan]

That's 1000 dropped picks! Cut his tiny arse immediately! I'm still befuddled why this is still brought up as evidence of poor drafting. As I said just a couple of posts ago....

I think the evidence is in our record as well. It is not just starters and pro bowl calibers players but reserves as well. This team is aging in allot of key areas and not many good reserves players. Who fault is that the folks who drafted this poor bunch of players.

[HUbison]

I think the evidence is in our record as well. It is not just starters and pro bowl calibers players but reserves as well. This team is aging in allot of key areas and not many good reserves players. Who fault is that the folks who drafted this poor bunch of players.

But that is a different subject....reserves and depth. The litmus test that I was replying to was the line that seems to always come up whenever drafting is involved..........that Jackson is the only Pro Bowler drafted in several years. My point is that the same could be said of the Pats. Samuel is their only drafted Pro-Bowler since 2002.

[eldfan]

But that is a different subject....reserves and depth. The litmus test that I was replying to was the line that seems to always come up whenever drafting is involved..........that Jackson is the only Pro Bowler drafted in several years. My point is that the same could be said of the Pats. Samuel is their only drafted Pro-Bowler since 2002.

Ok I can agree with that. I was just thinking of this team inabitity to evaluate talent across the board.

[txramsfan]

You know, maybe until the season starts I'll just go find me a NASCAR website and post on it for awhile. You guys can have this.

Hill is a great. Linehan is awesome. The Rams will pull another Patriots season next year because we still have the talent we had in 1999.

Ok, no sarcasm here. I guess I'll just have to be literal on my posts for now on as most of you don't get Texas analogy. Hill, to me and me only, doesn't have the hands to be a shut down corner. I think he gets thrown to more than Cromartie does because I do believe that Brown is better and so does most of the NFL. For those of you who think I'm wrong, great. I don't think I am though.

[laram0]

But that is a different subject....reserves and depth. The litmus test that I was replying to was the line that seems to always come up whenever drafting is involved..........that Jackson is the only Pro Bowler drafted in several years. My point is that the same could be said of the Pats. Samuel is their only drafted Pro-Bowler since 2002.

Excellent point HUb. Wins and losses are not related to how many drafted pro bowl players a team has.

[eldfan]

You know, maybe until the season starts I'll just go find me a NASCAR website and post on it for awhile. You guys can have this.

Hill is a great. Linehan is awesome. The Rams will pull another Patriots season next year because we still have the talent we had in 1999.

Hum!!!!!!!!! are you referring that I think T Hill is grate and the rams are on the way to the Bowl and 08-09. Why? I have thought for a while that the rams drafting of players has been poor. I did not like the Hill pick because he is a small corner in a big WR division. I think the rams have some big issue none greater than it's personnel decision over the last few years. Linehan seem to me that he has commutation problem with his players. I find it hard to see the rams being better than 8-8 but that is just me.

[txramsfan]

No, eldfan I was just venting. I happen to post sarcastically quite a bit on here so I should anticipate being taken literally sometimes.

My bad for venting. Sorry.

[eldfan]

Excellent point HUb. Wins and losses are not related to how many drafted pro bowl players a team has.

Your kidding Right!!!! Ok mabe I am missing the boat here are you saying a team is better off not having pro bowl players, that having pro bowl player dose not translate to wins.

[HUbison]

Your kidding Right!!!! Ok mabe I am missing the boat here are you saying a team is better off not having pro bowl players, that having pro bowl player dose not translate to wins.

I don't want to speak for laram on this one, but maybe he's just saying there might not be a direct correlation between wins and drafted pro bowlers? I haven't done the math (if anyone has, please share), but I'm sure it would be interesting.

However, it's safe to say there isn't a correlation for the Pats. They're the winningest team since 2002, yet they've only drafted one pro bowler in that time period. For them, at least, there is no correlation.

[eldfan]

I don't want to speak for laram on this one, but maybe he's just saying there might not be a direct correlation between wins and drafted pro bowlers? I haven't done the math (if anyone has, please share), but I'm sure it would be interesting.

However, it's safe to say there isn't a correlation for the Pats. They're the winningest team since 2002, yet they've only drafted one pro bowler in that time period. For them, at least, there is no correlation.

Hum!!!!!! ok I have a problem with that concept. The Pats had what? 7-8 pro bowl players this pass season. I know they had 3 on the OL. And even if you throw out this pass season, how then would you explained their success. Even when a team is good they have players worthy of pro bowl recognition. ie the Giants. If you take what you are saying why is it then that we have had little success. To borrow a old cliche Players play and you need the highest caliber players to win in any sport. I don't think that will ever change.

[laram0]

Hum!!!!!! ok I have a problem with that concept. The Pats had what? 7-8 pro bowl players this pass season. I know they had 3 on the OL. And even if you throw out this pass season, how then would you explained their success. Even when a team is good they have players worthy of pro bowl recognition. ie the Giants. If you take what you are saying why is it then that we have had little success. To borrow a old cliche Players play and you need the highest caliber players to win in any sport. I don't think that will ever change.

I'm not sure how many players the Pats had in the Pro Bowl this year. Of the Pats picked for the pro bowl how many were drafted by the Pats??? Not Moss, Not Vrabel.....etc

The Superbowl Giants had 1 player in the Pro Bowl...

[Goldenfleece]

Hum!!!!!! ok I have a problem with that concept. The Pats had what? 7-8 pro bowl players this pass season. I know they had 3 on the OL. And even if you throw out this pass season, how then would you explained their success. Even when a team is good they have players worthy of pro bowl recognition. ie the Giants. If you take what you are saying why is it then that we have had little success. To borrow a old cliche Players play and you need the highest caliber players to win in any sport. I don't think that will ever change.

Ah, but saying a team is good because they have Pro Bowl players is almost a circular argument because a player is more likely to get named to the Pro Bowl if he is on a good team. Obviously good teams have good players. The point is where they got those good players. If they have lots of good players, but they signed them in free agency, it undercuts the argument that you have to build the team through the draft.

[MauiRam]

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.

You may be right, but maybe not .. There was another guy of roughly the same stature by the name of Darrell Green (5'-9" 184 lbs), who played until he was 42 yrs old in the NFL. As I recall he diid pretty good. Seems he was quite durable as well. Tye Hill is 5'-10" and 185 lbs, so not a lot of difference in that regard. The issue of his "stone hands" can be debated either way, but as long as he can get at least one of those hands up there to breakup a pass play, he's doing his job. As has been mentioned before by more than a few posters: generate a real pass rush and then see how our cbs grade out. It is amazing the difference it makes when a QB is running for his life while trying to find an open receiver. Just ask Marc Bulger ... You could ask Tom Brady too ..

[HUbison]

Hum!!!!!! ok I have a problem with that concept. The Pats had what? 7-8 pro bowl players this pass season. I know they had 3 on the OL. And even if you throw out this pass season, how then would you explained their success. Even when a team is good they have players worthy of pro bowl recognition. ie the Giants. If you take what you are saying why is it then that we have had little success. To borrow a old cliche Players play and you need the highest caliber players to win in any sport. I don't think that will ever change.

eldfan, my friend, you are sort of answering your own question. This year, the Pats had several pro bowlers, and included in that were 4 drafted since 2002. Samuel, Wilfork, Koppen, and Mankins. My earlier mistake was believing this was Samuel's 2nd pro bowl......it wasn't. Therefore, it could be said during the years 2002-2006, the Pats had ZERO pro bowlers drafted during that time span. One LESS than the Rams (Jackson drafted 2004). Now, the Pats have 4 during that time span. Does that mean the Pats only got good in 2007? No, of course not.

My point is that drafted pro bowlers probably has very little to do with team success. And more specifically, my point is to bring light to the irrelevance of the statement......Jackson is the only drafted pro bowler since 2002.

Now, you ask about the Rams little success. Most recently, injuries, a distracted front office and on-the-job head coach training would be the reason for the little success. To go further back would be moot. From 2002 to 2006 (all post-GSOT years), this team was 41-39, slightly above league average; including two trips to the playoffs in those 5 seasons, which again is slightly above league average (1.875 playoffs every 5 seasons). Depending on how you define success, that could be considered successful. Our head was above water, that is better than (by definition) at least half the league.

There are those who live in a world of unrealistic expectations and chest-thumping bravado who will say Success = Super Bowl Win. Period. To those I am sure they will have fun debating that with the other 28 teams that were "unsuccessful" during that time period.

Bottom line is this.......the draft is important, but not a litmus test of a team's health as shown in the Rams vs. Pats 2002-2006 drafting. There's too many pieces to the puzzle to boil it down to bumper sticker philosophy like "Jackson the only drafted pro bowler, blah, blah, blah".

Do the Rams need to draft better? Absolutely.

Are they the abysmal incompetants that some would like to believe? No. In fact, I bet I could name at least half a dozen teams who are notably worse.