Antonio Cromartie

Returned a fumble for a TD. Returned an int for a TD. and just returned a missed field goal for the longest play in nfl history for a TD. I know I was screaming to draft Cromartie over Hill. People argued Hill had a 44 inch vertical, which compensated for his height. But others and I pointed out that Cromartie had a 41 inch vert---- and is about 5 inches taller. In hindsight were us Cromartie supporters right or is it just a 2 game fluke? (Not to mention he dominated Holt in the game last season as a rookie)

It doesn't matter what he does - Cromartie could become a Hall of Fame corner and I still wouldn't have drafted him. Why? I don't think it's wise to spend a mid first round pick on a player who didn't play the entire year before because of a torn ACL and had one career college start under his belt. What Cromartie does in the NFL isn't going to change how questionable that situation is for an incoming rookie.

I knew this discussion was going to come up after what Cromartie has done the last few weeks, but I agree with Nick, the Rams made the prudent move by drafting Hill. Cromartie looks good, but I wouldn't discount the potential of Tye Hill just yet.

is he a free agent this year i think he is, but im not sure might have him confused with someone else.

Cromartie dominated Holt? Must have missed that one. Holt had 5 receptions for 48 yards in that game, notwithstanding the fact that Bulger was under pressure from Merriman & Co. all day. Hardly a dominating performance by Cromartie (not sure he was even on Holt all day).

Cromartie is proving to be a good player, but CBs with torn ACLs are rarely worth first round picks.

Adrian Peterson came out of college hurt as well. Why should a guy be overlooked because they sustained an injury?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Cromartie dominated Holt? Must have missed that one. Holt had 5 receptions for 48 yards in that game, notwithstanding the fact that Bulger was under pressure from Merriman & Co. all day. Hardly a dominating performance by Cromartie (not sure he was even on Holt all day).

Cromartie is proving to be a good player, but CBs with torn ACLs are rarely worth first round picks.

---

Yeah sorry I definitely exaggerated his performance vs holt, but he did do a decent job against one of the game's best.

And another note, couldn't the same be said about Hill at Clemson? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in he game where Hill "dominated" Calvin Johnson was perhaps skewed in his favor because Gaines Adams was in GT's QB grill all night?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

It doesn't matter what he does - Cromartie could become a Hall of Fame corner and I still wouldn't have drafted him. Why? I don't think it's wise to spend a mid first round pick on a player who didn't play the entire year before because of a torn ACL and had one career college start under his belt. What Cromartie does in the NFL isn't going to change how questionable that situation is for an incoming rookie.

---

The way I see it is a guy can get a torn ACL and come back and display that lights out performance he had at the combine, it shows some real heart and determination in the guy. Everyone gets an injury sooner or later (unless you are a freak of nature) and it's important to see how the player responds to the injury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAM-BO

Adrian Peterson came out of college hurt as well. Why should a guy be overlooked because they sustained an injury?

---

Adrian Peterson missed all of 2006 because of a torn ACL like Cromartie did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAM-BO

The way I see it is a guy can get a torn ACL and come back and display that lights out performance he had at the combine, it shows some real heart and determination in the guy. Everyone gets an injury sooner or later (unless you are a freak of nature) and it's important to see how the player responds to the injury.

---

No one's saying a guy should be overlooked because they sustained an injury. The point is he sustained it the year before he declared (so when drafting him in 2006, there was no 2005 game tape to look at) and he lacked major experience prior to that. In the combine workout that you praise him for, he couldn't complete the agility drills because of tightness in his leg, another red flag.

I would agree with you if you had a lot of college experience to fall back on and had sustained his injury earlier in his career. But Cromartie started one game in his college career and played in only 25 others. Coming off of a major knee injury, the risk was very big. Too big, IMO, for a first round pick. What Cromartie does in the pros isn't going to change how I feel about a prospect in those circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

I would agree with you if you had a lot of college experience to fall back on and had sustained his injury earlier in his career. But Cromartie started one game in his college career and played in only 25 others. Coming off of a major knee injury, the risk was very big. Too big, IMO, for a first round pick. What Cromartie does in the pros isn't going to change how I feel about a prospect in those circumstances.

---

Others feel differently, and in this case they turned out to be right. Ernie Accorsi was on the radio here in NY before the 2006 draft and said he was at Cromartie's workout in Florida and said it was the greatest workout he had ever seen. Accorsi was asked where Cromartie should be drafted and he said not high in the first round because of the reasons you gave (he was especially concerned about Cromartie's physical integrity- how well his knees were feeling after that workout), but somewhere in the late teens to 20's in the first round was where he was the right risk-reward.

So 15 may have been a tad too high for Cromartie but later in the first round was not. My point is, if we had the 19th pick and Hill was off the board and we didn't take Cromartie, I'd say we made a mistake. As it is, Hill was the better risk-reward pick at 15. And that's how I feel about this particular situation.

So I think we agree that Hill was the better choice for us at 15, but I think Cromartie was worth a first round pick later in the round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

Adrian Peterson missed all of 2006 because of a torn ACL like Cromartie did?



No one's saying a guy should be overlooked because they sustained an injury. The point is he sustained it the year before he declared (so when drafting him in 2006, there was no 2005 game tape to look at) and he lacked major experience prior to that. In the combine workout that you praise him for, he couldn't complete the agility drills because of tightness in his leg, another red flag.

I would agree with you if you had a lot of college experience to fall back on and had sustained his injury earlier in his career. But Cromartie started one game in his college career and played in only 25 others. Coming off of a major knee injury, the risk was very big. Too big, IMO, for a first round pick. What Cromartie does in the pros isn't going to change how I feel about a prospect in those circumstances.

---

You make many great points and I feel I am fighting without ammunition against ya Nick :)

Coming out of college I guess it was pick your poison. I liked what I saw out of Cromartie and Hill. They both looked good leading up to the draft. Hill got chosen because of better technique and experience, and I can't say the Rams made the wrong decision. I just prefered (and still prefer) Cromartie because of his size speed and potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max

Others feel differently, and in this case they turned out to be right.

---

Perhaps, Cromartie still has a long career ahead of him to show whether or not he warranted his selection. But all I'm saying is that being right about Cromartie doesn't mean we should change our policy and start drafting players in the high or mid first round with significant injury and experience red flags. Yes, sometimes you gamble on those players and it pays off, but it's still a very big gamble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

Perhaps, Cromartie still has a long career ahead of him to show whether or not he warranted his selection. But all I'm saying is that being right about Cromartie doesn't mean we should change our policy and start drafting players in the high or mid first round with significant injury and experience red flags. Yes, sometimes you gamble on those players and it pays off, but it's still a very big gamble.

---

I agree that its a big gamble. The question is one of policy. Some say never in the first round, regardless of the upside. (I believe that may be you). Some say yes if the upside is great enough. (That would be me and SD). There is no absolute right answer on this.

We both agree never high in the first round, but Cromartie was not a high first round pick. The question is would you have taken Cromartie in the 19 to 25 range if Hill was off the board? I say yes. What about the 26 to 32 range?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max

The question is would you have taken Cromartie in the 19 to 25 range if Hill was off the board? I say yes. What about the 26 to 32 range?

---

I would be more willing to take him in the latter range, simply because your team likely earned that pick because they already have a lot of talent and were able to finish as one of the better teams in the league. Thus, they likely don't have as many needs and you're in a better position to take some gambles. Unfortunately the Rams have not been in a position to gamble for a while because we've had a number of need areas and haven't been in that position in the draft order.

3 interceptions vs colts tonight as well, including a leaping one handed grab.