Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Rambunctious

Thread: Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

  1. #1
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,939
    Rep Power
    130

    Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

    Were Rams drafting for needs, or to fit a new scheme?

    BY ROGER HENSLEY STLtoday.com
    Monday, May 9, 2011

    QUESTION: After some time to absorb the NFL draft, do you think the Rams picked players that fill the team’s needs, or do you think they put too much emphasis on picking players to fit new offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels’ scheme?

    JIM THOMAS

    It was surprising to see the Rams take pass catchers in three consecutive rounds – the tight end (Lance Kendricks in Round 2), followed by back-to-back wide receivers (Austin Pettis in Round 3 and Greg Salas in Round 4). Pettis and Salas are similar in size and style of play. It would’ve been nice to get a running back, a guard, a weakside linebacker, a defensive tackle, a safety or a cornerback with one of those two WR picks.

    BRYAN BURWELL

    I honestly don’t understand the commotion about this. The game-breaking wide receiver was long gone by the time the Rams were drafting, so you attack the offensive personnel issue from another way. You upgrade in other ways and then anyone who wants to accurately make evaluations has to wait a year to see if the Rams got it right or wrong.

    BILL COATS

    I think for the most part, the Rams stayed true to their draft philosophy, which is to take the player they have rated highest on their board at the time of their pick, regardless of position. Need starts to work into the equation a little bit in the later rounds. I don’t think McDaniels’ scheme was a major consideration in their selections.

    JEFF GORDON

    The Rams need to score points. They need to become efficient in the red zone. They need to maximize their $50 million Sam Bradford investment. So their top priority is giving Bradford what he needs to convert his great promise into results. By adding a versatile TE/H-Back and two big WRs with red zone pedigrees, the Rams took big steps toward maximizing what they have with Bradford.

    BERNIE MIKLASZ

    I suppose I'm confused. Last season I watch the Rams move the ball only to repeatedly collapse in the red zone. I saw an offense that finished next to last in the NFL in converting red-zone chances into touchdowns. I saw a team that finished 27th in the league in touchdowns from scrimmage. For several months I heard fans and media express an urgent need to get some better receivers for young QB Sam Bradford. So the Rams go ahead and do that -- bring in three potentially big, strong and productive receivers for Bradford ... and people are complaining? The Rams defense is in pretty good shape. The unit finished 7th in sacks last season, was the second-best third-down defense in the league, and only three defenses allowed fewer TDs from scimmage. So here's a bulletin: the Rams need offense more than anything. I don't know why anyone would question that.


  2. #2
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

    Well, I've laid out what I think is a better strategy in another thread. And after reading what the so-called pros have to say here, I can say that only Jim Thomas seems to be spot on, IMO.

  3. #3
    Rambunctious's Avatar
    Rambunctious is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    53

    Re: Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

    I'm with Bernie on this. It would be heartbreaking to have another season where the defense does well and the offense has trouble scoring.
    Major30 likes this.

  4. #4
    Ramendola16's Avatar
    Ramendola16 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Age
    20
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

    As many holes as the defense may have, we have a much bigger hole on offense: Red-zone offense. With these picks, we address that. Seems clear to me.

  5. #5
    shower beers's Avatar
    shower beers is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,050
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

    Is it just me, or did only ONE of the reporters really answer the question?

    Thank you, Bill Coats for actually answering the question.

  6. #6
    KoaKoi is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    895
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Round Two: Were The Rams Drafting For Needs, Or To Fit A New Scheme?

    it would help too if the question was a better one. drafting for scheme or drafting for need? On a fundemental level... is there really a difference? If your OC has a scheme, then filling that scheme with proper talent is a need for your team. lame question in my mind.

Similar Threads

  1. TSN says NO to the Rams drafting a QB
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -04-24-2006, 08:45 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: -01-25-2006, 12:18 AM
  3. PFW on Rams Drafting Barron
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -04-25-2005, 01:15 PM
  4. Rams drafting 25th
    By ramhard in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -01-23-2005, 06:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •