the ridgeway situation

*general counsel* · #1 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

I hate to see the kid go, but its a numbers game. My point is this. I hope that the people complaining that he got cut arent the same people complaining that we never focus on special teams and that our special teams have been terrible.

To me, this is a DIRECT result of additional focus on special teams. Cutting ridgeway, (when you have faulk and furrey to step in on an emergency basis), a guy who would NEVER see the field this year unless we got incredibly unlucky injury wise, in favor of keeping for example hedgecock (a second fullback) and possibly collins at tight end, helps us quite a bit depth wise on special teams, where we really really need the help.

Hindsight is 20-20. He was a 6th round pick, which is always a crapshoot. No way was martz going to use a high pick on a WR, he knew that he didnt have the numbers to support it. If someone had gotten seriously hurt, ridgeway might have made the team, but would we have been better off? Of course not. We also have no way of knowing what is going on in practice and off the field. Is he another talented guy with good hands who is a bit slow and having real trouble with the offense? Who knows.

This is the kind of decision on which i support the coaching staff. Special teams improvement is critical for us and there is no way that you can say that ridgeway was going to help in that area. I think its a smart move carrying only 5 receivers and i really hope that we can sign ridgeway to the practice squad. If he catches on somewhere else, i wont be surprised, but in terms of what is best for the rams and gives us the best chance to win this year, i would much rather see us keep hedgecock and i think this may result in one extra roster spot for special teams.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*AugustaRamFan* · #2 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

I agree with GC - the Rams decided to make a strong play to improve the not so special teams.

The drafted a bunch of guys that could contribute on the field and also have impact on ST. The Rams also picked up a bunch of free agents with similar tools.

I hope Ridgeway makes the practice squad - but I reserve the right to change my mind depending on the next round of cuts.

ST was a big focus area and a part of the team that had to be fixed.

Good post GC.

*maineram* · #3 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

Martz will no doubt sign one of the WR cut to the practice squad. Remember too that the Rams are scanning the waiver wire for players just cut from other teams. I'm sure Armey has a guy in mind that we either couldn't get in the draft, or sign as a free agent after the draft.

Maineram -

*general counsel* · #4 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

Outstanding point Maine! There is a charley special out there somewhere.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*sbramfan* · #5 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

Although it does somewhat bring into question drafting this guy in the first place.

There is always 1 or 2 guys that get cut that looked good, and still more cuts to come.

I've never really understood this saying, but I'm pretty sure in this case we can't have our cake and eat it too.

*Daspeerman* · #6 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

I would have rather seen the Rams make a trade and lose Mcdonald .... keeping Ridgeway .... He would be a nice big target in the red zone ...Mcdonald does nothin for me .... and isnt a punt returner at all ... just my opinion .!!!

*tanus* · #7 (**permalink**) -31-08-2005

lmao ridgeway over mcdonald? would you please pass me whatever it is you are drinking/smoking?

**Nick** · #8 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

To me, this is a DIRECT result of additional focus on special teams. Cutting ridgeway, (when you have faulk and furrey to step in on an emergency basis), a guy who would NEVER see the field this year unless we got incredibly unlucky injury wise, in favor of keeping for example hedgecock (a second fullback) and possibly collins at tight end, helps us quite a bit depth wise on special teams, where we really really need the help.

Awesome point, GC. If cutting Ridgeway allows us to keep Hedgecock or Furrey on the regular season roster, I'm all for it. Those guys have done well on special teams thus far, and if we can keep them through the season, more power to us. This was an unfortunate but wise move by the FO.

*tim* · #9 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daspeerman

I would have rather seen the Rams make a trade and lose Mcdonald .... keeping Ridgeway .... He would be a nice big target in the red zone ...Mcdonald does nothin for me .... and isnt a punt returner at all ... just my opinion .!!!

no offense, but are you joking? mcdonald is only a hair behind Curtis, and the best #4 receiver in the entire league.

*jkramsfan* · #10 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

i agree, mcdonald is a keeper,this guy will make big plays this year.we didnt even see ridgeway play.we still have looker and marshall can be plugged in to that spot if needed,i also agree that i dont know if we even needed to draft him,but at that point in the draft why not give it a shot.

*moklerman* · #11 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

I thought Ridgeway made some good catches in one of the preseason games? He didn't play?

Anyway, the book's still out on McDonald to me. Maybe it just seems this way but he seems to drop a lot of passes. I'm not saying Ridgeway should replace him but I'm not totally sold on SM at this point. A nice big target that could get open and actually catch the ball in the red zone does sound appealing. There doesn't seem to be a guy who can win a one on one matchup and take the ball away fromt he defender in the red zone for the Rams.

*jkramsfan* · #12 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

he may have played a little, i missed the first game, but even if he did it wasnt enough playing time to make a good impression.

*LoyalRam* · #13 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

Just read that Cincinnati Bengals picked up Dante Ridgeway off the waivers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2147991

*adarian_too* · #14 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbramfan

Although it does somewhat bring into question drafting this guy in the first place.

That's the real question, isn't it? If he was drafted because someone saw some KR/Page Ranking skills in him and that didn't pan out, fine.

But if he was drafted because of his WR skills, well that just seems to speak to highly suspect FO scouting priorities. 1-4 WR seemed certain, barring injury. Looker at 5 was almost certain given his role as a holder. And Furrey as a stop-gap at 6 seemed apparent given his shot at staying on the squad for D.

So drafting for a WR for WR sake seemed very low on the totem pole of needs. Other holes were more glaring and needed more competition for a roster spot. The draftniks at Rams Park still are waiting for their draft picks to emerge as true pro-bowl caliber stars. How long does one have to wait for Arch, Pickett, Groce, Garrett, et al to surface as examples of FO drafting acumen?

**Nick** · #15 (**permalink**) -01-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by moklerman

Anyway, the book's still out on McDonald to me. Maybe it just seems this way but he seems to drop a lot of passes.

It must just seem that way then, because Stats Inc has him as the target of 89 passes in the last two years, and only credits him with two drops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moklerman

A nice big target that could get open and actually catch the ball in the red zone does sound appealing.

Yeah, it does. I believe those kind of players are called, "tight ends."