Another twisted Draft scenario

[RamsSB99]

I say we should draft three OL in the first three rounds and they might all windup setting behind our current group of OL. At least we won't be drafting for this year. Who cares that we still need DE, WR, CB, and safety help this year and beyond. Next year we will need those same positions plus LB and QB. Sounds logical to me to load up on OL when we have a bunch of young OL already that have upside and might be better then anyone we could draft.
None of our starting OL can we say will be below average. None out of the draft could we say will be better in their first year. I would rather wait and see how this group does this year and address any if any OL concerns next year. We already signed Bell and if we resigned Steussie he would give us a good veteran backup.

Here are a few line combinations (All of them have played good at the NFL level except Fry who many want to throw under the bus after 1 season):
LT-Pace, LG-Bell, C-Romberg, RG-Incognito, RT-Barron
LT-Pace, LG-Bell, C-Incognito, RG-Setterstrom, RT-Barron
LT-Pace, LG-Bell, C-Setterstrom, RG-Incognito, RT-Barron
LT-Pace, LG-Bell, C-Fry(might develop), RG-Incognito, RT-Barron

If Barron or Pace goes down we still have decent OL combinations:
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Setterstrom, C-Romberg, RG-Incognito, RT-Bell
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Steussie, C-Romberg, RG-Incognito, RT-Bell
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Bell, C-Romberg, RG-Incognito, RT-Steussie
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Bell, C-Romberg, RG-Steussie, RT-Incognito
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Bell, C-Romberg, RG-Setterstrom, RT-Incognito
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Steussie C-Setterstrom, RG-Incognito, RT-Bell
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Steussie, C-Setterstrom, RG-Incognito, RT-Bell
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Bell, C-Setterstrom, RG-Incognito, RT-Steussie
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Bell, C-Setterstrom, RG-Steussie, RT-Incognito
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Bell, C-Incognito, RG-Setterstrom, RT-Steussie
LT-Pace/Barron, LG-Steussie C-Incognito, RG-Setterstrom, RT-Bell

If we want to base our draft on fear that players won't play as well as they have already showed us they could play or on key positions that we don't have a backup thats starter material then maybe we should start with DE, WR, SS, CB. I agree I would like to draft OL but IMO players drafted at the positions above would have a better chance coming in and starting right away then any of the OL we would draft. As I said before I would draft after the first 4 rounds for OL. I want to see what all our young OL can do they have all shown promise. After this year we would have the luxury of drafting OL in the higher rounds.

[Goldenfleece]

Originally Posted by smizzhfx

We should definitely wait for next year and take a safety in round 1.

WalterFootball.com: 2009 Safety Rankings

I wouldn't base our current draft plans on what the next draft looks like right now. This time last year, Tommy Blake and Calais Campbell were in top five and top ten lists. Now Campbell is likely early second round and Blake is more like sixth or seventh round. Note that 3 out of the top 4 on the list from that link are designated as 2010 prospects.

I don't think we should reach for a safety, but let's say we're at the top of the third round and a guy like Tyrell Johnson or DaJuan Morgan is there. I'd go for it. The talent pool is shallow this year, but I'd wager most teams won't consider safety a high enough priority to reach for one when they have the option of filling another need.

As far is this mock draft goes, I don't know that King will be available late in the third. I'm thinking if we want him, we'd probably have to take him at least early in the third round, which would require shuffling up the order of the positions picked. Even with the trade, we can't take a safety in round 2 and expect to land a solid receiver and corner in the 3rd.

[Dominating D]

Originally Posted by chiguy

I object to the premise here -- I don't think that we really know what we have on the offensive line outside of Pace (if healthy) and Barron, neither of whom blow anyone away. We've had less than one whole season of a healthy Setterstrom to evaluate, less than 1.5 seasons of a healthy Incognito, and not that much of a healthy Romberg. Sure, they all played great at the end of the season, two seasons ago. But, the schedule was weak and there is no reason to take those five games as sure-fire evidence of what we have going. Past that we clearly have need for a young tackle. By my count that leaves us with a lot of uncertainty at starting tackle, center, left guard, and first-tackle off the bench.

I also don't think I'd rank our "worst starters" the same way you would. I do something like this on defense:

RE
SS
SLB
LCB

What is your point? Do you feel more comfortable evaluating players in this years draft coming into the NFL or guys who have NFL experience. I think the coaches know what kind of players they have on the OL.

You gave the OL credit for playing well and then decided the schedule was too weak to fully evaluate? WHAT???????

I believe the Rams know what kind of players they have on the line the only question the Rams and most of us fans have are they capable of playing a whole season together?

[chiguy]

Originally Posted by RamsSB99

I say we should draft three OL in the first three rounds and they might all windup setting behind our current group of OL. At least we won't be drafting for this year. Who cares that we still need DE, WR, CB, and safety help this year and beyond.

Excuse me, but how do you extrapolate this from me simply pointing out that we have a need on the offensive line? I've been arguing on various message boards for three years now about the need for a defensive end. I also have argued for at least two years that we need a WR. I don't think we need CB help (not a rookie anyway) and agree that safety is a need but don't think we'll find one of good value this year. None of this precludes us from drafting an offensive tackle too.

Now that I've dispensed with your silly hyperbole, let me once again point out where I disagree. I'll resist the desire to engage in the same kind of silliness your above quote engages in, but I can't promise anything.

Sounds logical to me to load up on OL when we have a bunch of young OL already that have upside and might be better then anyone we could draft.

Here is your problem -- you don't engage my points about our young guys. Yes, they did well as a unit for a six game stretch against weak competition two years ago. THAT IS ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE THAT THEY HAVE UPSIDE. We have no idea what these guys would give us against better teams, over a full season. I don't see how operating on "faith" in some amorphous concept of "upside" -- especially when all of the young guys have had injuries other than Barron -- is using "logic" when pointing to their onfield performance isn't logical. Given quotes from our offensive staff, I'd say that they see my point rather than yours.

None of our starting OL can we say will be below average.

Barron is *maybe* average. Romberg has done nothing to suggest he is better than average. Pace isn't average, but he also hasn't really played for over two seasons and had a skill set in decline. Ditto Incognito. And everyone who has paid attention will point out that Setterstrom has work to do in the passing game. You're way overstating the abilities of our players. Yes, there is room to improve and I have hope for some of them, but NFL teams don't win by making assumptions.

We have a great young back and a pocket passer for a QB. If the O-line has even one crack, we can't exploit the talents of our two best offensive players.

None out of the draft could we say will be better in their first year.

You keep saying this, but there is no reason to believe its true. First, why wouldn't Jake Long *not* start over Alex Barron or Richie Incognito? If he's really worth a top 10 pick in the NFL draft, I think its ridiculous to say that unproven players would definitely start over him. Past that, Setterstrom started his rookie year despite being a 7th round draft pick. Who is to say that a guy we draft in the fourth or fifth round (let alone rounds one through three) wouldn't be better than him?

Obviously, the Rams wouldn't draft someone they didn't think that could compete. If they couldn't compete, even I would argue its silly to draft them. But you can't simply say, "I like our guys just 'cause so therefore no one we draft will play above them."

I would rather wait and see how this group does this year and address any if any OL concerns next year. We already signed Bell and if we resigned Steussie he would give us a good veteran backup.

This is a reasonable opinion. I just disagree. But notice I didn't turn around and make a big, unrealistic sarcastic comment about it that completely stretches your opinion beyond recognizability?

If we want to base our draft on fear that players won't play as well as they have already showed us they could play...

See, you're not even trying. I've already said I don't think a lot of these guys have proven anything.

[chiguy]

Originally Posted by Dominating D

What is your point? Do you feel more comfortable evaluating players in this years draft coming into the NFL or guys who have NFL experience. I think the coaches know what kind of players they have on the OL.

What is your point? Milford Brown has NFL experience. You want him back too? As far as the coaches go, Saunders already said we needed to upgrade the offensive line.

You gave the OL credit for playing well and then decided the schedule was too weak to fully evaluate? WHAT???????

Perhaps the point was too subtle for you, but its clear to some of us -- they did fine against weak competition. That does not mean 1) they'll do fine against better competition, 2) they'll keep doing fine in the future especially when they weren't fine last year, and 3) that the guys who have been perpetually injured will suddenly stop being perpetually injuried.

If you don't think there is uncertainty on our offensive line for this year and going forward, then you haven't been watching our offense for two years because they've struggled mightly (especially in the red zone). Was it because of our RB? Nope, he's good. QB? He stunk last year, but only because he got clobbered more than any QB since David Carr. WRs? Well...we all love Ike and Torry so its not them. The play calling stinks, sure, but is that the whole story? As you can see...we're running out of people to blame. I suppose it could all be Joe Klopfenstein's fault, but I doubt it.

I believe the Rams know what kind of players they have on the line the only question the Rams and most of us fans have are they capable of playing a whole season together?

At which point you've made my point -- we have uncertainty on the offensive line, ergo it is a draft need.

QED.

[Tony Soprano]

Originally Posted by Rambos

Not a chance that either one could play RT.

And our O-line has been terrible for some time. It's inaccurate to portray
our Offensive line like having troubles one year.

In reality, we may still need more interior line help too. Settersrom and Romberg
have to step up their play. They have been barely adequate.

Bulger had the Sh*t knocked out of him for several seasons.

Steussie is offically 100 years old and last year showed it wasn't a good plan to think he could be the No 3. Tackle. Not a good plan at all.

[RamsSB99]

Originally Posted by chiguy

I've been arguing on various message boards for three years now about the need for a defensive end. I also have argued for at least two years that we need a WR. I don't think we need CB help (not a rookie anyway) and agree that safety is a need but don't think we'll find one of good value this year. None of this precludes us from drafting an offensive tackle too.

I never said don’t draft an OT my suggestion was to fill the bigger areas of need first. As you mentioned above those are bigger areas of need. You agreed DE, WR, and Safety are a big area of need I had us taking one each in our first four picks. I also had us taking a CB because we have Brown and Hill who have been adequate at best IMO and a CB would have the opportunity to push Brown for a starting job and could see a lot of time at nickel back.

Originally Posted by chiguy

Here is your problem -- you don't engage my points about our young guys. Yes, they did well as a unit for a six game stretch against weak competition two years ago. THAT IS ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE THAT THEY HAVE UPSIDE. We have no idea what these guys would give us against better teams, over a full season. I don't see how operating on "faith" in some amorphous concept of "upside" -- especially when all of the young guys have had injuries other than Barron -- is using "logic" when pointing to their onfield performance isn't logical.

Let me start off by saying thank you for diagnosing my problem I didn't know you were a psychologist.

The four of the five projected starters have 20 or more games of starting experience. That leaves one position Center that will be between Romberg with 12 starts and Setterstrom with 9 starts. In their starts they definitely did not look like busts they showed good potential in the NFL. I don’t know who you have in mind in rounds 2 and beyond that you could say would be better at Center then them. You want to bring evidence into this disagreement then where is your evidence that these players drafted after round 1 can be better or even judge how they will fair against NFL competition.

Originally Posted by chiguy

Barron is *maybe* average. Romberg has done nothing to suggest he is better than average. Pace isn't average, but he also hasn't really played for over two seasons and had a skill set in decline. Ditto Incognito. And everyone who has paid attention will point out that Setterstrom has work to do in the passing game. You're way overstating the abilities of our players. Yes, there is room to improve and I have hope for some of them, but NFL teams don't win by making assumptions.

First, why wouldn't Jake Long *not* start over Alex Barron or Richie Incognito? If he's really worth a top 10 pick in the NFL draft, I think its ridiculous to say that unproven players would definitely start over him. Past that, Setterstrom started his rookie year despite being a 7th round draft pick. Who is to say that a guy we draft in the fourth or fifth round (let alone rounds one through three) wouldn't be better than him?

I agree Jake Long would have a shot but as was stated and no one seemed to be arguing with my first round pick it went to Chris Long. IMO I don’t think Jake is more of an upgrade at OT then Chris is a DE. Barron was a first round pick and Incognito had first round talent but fell due to injury and attitude concerns. It’s a stretch to think that a first year player in rounds 2 and later will come in and beat either of them out of a position. Most likely any second round pick or later will set behind the two of them the entire year.

Originally Posted by chiguy

But you can't simply say, "I like our guys just 'cause so therefore no one we draft will play above them."

Speaking of putting words in peoples mouths. I never said we had a star studded OL but we do have a lot bigger needs. We already spent big money on a guard for our OL and we have back many of our OL that most people thought was good going into last year before all the injuries.

Can you tell me whom you would draft in round 2 and beyond for the OL that will see significant playing time this year?

We have seen 20 or more starts in the NFL from four of our five starters Barron (43 starts), Pace (140), Bell (46 starts), Incognito (20 starts) to say we don’t know what type of player we can expect out of them but we can expect someone we draft after round two to beat them out is ridiculous. Romberg has 12 starts and Setterstrom has 9 starts and both have looked good in their starts. We have seen what they can do in several starts and to say that they played against all bad teams is ridiculous. We also have Fry which many thought could be a good center coming into last year. He has yet to start a game in the NFL. So maybe we should draft another Fry this year. I have never said I was enamored with our OL but I don’t see where we can clearly upgrade our OL in the second round and beyond. Not nearly like I can see how we can upgrade the other positions of need. If we did not have so many other areas that are far more glaring needs then I would consider OL much earlier in the draft.

[chiguy]

I give up. I've more or less said you're entitled to your opinion, but that I have a different one. You're not even trying to understand mine. You remind me of my students...no matter how often you repeat yourself, repetition alone isn't going to change my mind one iota.

[chiguy]

I will say this one thing again -- you keep saying no one drafted outside of rounds 1 or 2 could supplant one of our starters, yet two of the guys you say have shown so much were low round draft picks (Setterstrom) or free agent pick-ups (Romberg). If I could identify the exact players, I wouldn't be wasting my time on a message board and I'd be making serious money in the NFL. The point is that your argument that no way anyone we draft could conceivably get playing time is just logically wrong.

[RamsSB99]

Originally Posted by chiguy

I give up. I've more or less said you're entitled to your opinion, but that I have a different one. You're not even trying to understand mine. You remind me of my students...no matter how often you repeat yourself, repetition alone isn't going to change my mind one iota.

You sound like one of those teachers that keeps repeating the same thing over and over again maybe its time to ask for a new book.

Originally Posted by chiguy

I will say this one thing again -- you keep saying no one drafted outside of rounds 1 or 2 could supplant one of our starters, yet two of the guys you say have shown so much were low round draft picks (Setterstrom) or free agent pick-ups (Romberg). If I could identify the exact players, I wouldn't be wasting my time on a message board and I'd be making serious money in the NFL. The point is that your argument that no way anyone we draft could conceivably get playing time is just logically wrong.

I thought you gave up but you kept on posting back to back posts without me responding.

The reason Setterstrom and Romberg got a shot was because we had no options and no players with upside standing in their way. Setterstrom and Romberg have showed good play in their limited time and will get first crack at the last position. I like how you ignored my whole post about the OL having a minimum of 20 starts to judge them by except for the two that you now bring up who have 12 and 9 games.

Since 1998 here are the OL guys we drafted and IMO Barron, Incognito, and Setterstrom have shown more and started more then most of these guys.

Mark Setterstrom
Alex Barron
Richie Incognito
Fry
Schakelford
Travis Scott
Chris Massey
Scott Tercero
Larry Turner
Claude Terrell
Tony Palmer
John St. Clair
Kaulana Noa
Andrew Kline
Cameron Spikes
Glenn Rountree

So out of this list how many do you think where truly better players then Incognito, Setterstrom, and Barron? Is there any big upgrades if we would draft a player with the talent of these other guys on the list.

Why would we give up on Setterstrom before we even give him a real shot. Same thing for Fry who we drafted last year are you already giving up on him. If so then how can you expect us to get an OL guy that will start this year after round 2 that will be better then what we have. AGAIN READ CAREFULLY I AM NOT SAYING ITS IMPOSSIBLE I am simply asking how you can assume this will be the case. I have said I would be all for drafting an OL after our fourth pick and I would be all for picking an OL in the first few rounds next year when. But we have bigger needs IMO this year. First pick needs to be DL preferably DE (Long).

The other positions I mentioned that we should draft would have a better shot IMO at seeing more action in their positions because the players in front of them are not young with starting experience and showing promise as starters.


But I expect you won't listen to me because you are the teacher. I expect you to double post again saying you give up and then respond with how I am acting like one of your students. Instead of debating me on the facts. You never responded to the 20+ games by the other 4 starters after you said we have only seen the starters in 6 games and that was against bad teams.

[Tony Soprano]

.
Linehan, himself, has said the Rams need to try to strengthen their Offensive line - even
after adding Jacob Bell.

He said it this month.

[chiguy]

Save your breath Tony, he refuses to believe these guys aren't already great players. I've already pointed out twice that the staff has said the line needs additional talent.

[Dominating D]

We need some young talent at QB does that mean Bulger is not adequate anymore?

Inregards to your last post......

Steven Jackson did have troubles in the red zone. He often stood up high and tried to power his way in the zone. He gave S. Davis credit for showing him how to get into the endzone in the NFL.

Just about every position on every team could upgrade. The question is it the primary need for the team to succeed?

[RamsSB99]

Originally Posted by chiguy

Save your breath Tony, he refuses to believe these guys aren't already great players. I've already pointed out twice that the staff has said the line needs additional talent.

You said you were done posting three posts ago however you keep attacking the poster instead of providing any semblance of debatable facts. Even after I responded to what little substance you put out at the beginning before switching to non-football hyperbole.

I already said I would draft an OL this year after our firt four picks. I also said we need to sign another veteran such as Steussie as a backup. I went on to say I would consider drafting an OL in the first three rounds next year.

After having said I act like one of your students I think maybe you should look in the mirror because I don't think I am the one getting schooled here.

You twist everything that is said and don't respond to my rebuttals. We have seen 20 games or more from all of our starting OL positons except one. Yet you said guys on the OL have only played 6 games all against bad teams and we can't judge them on that. But somehow we are supposed to assume that a player drafted after the first round right out of college should be able to beat our current starters. However when I have asked for the draftee that you thought could do this you never came up with any players names. Even after repeatedly asking you to elaborate on your posts.

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

.
Linehan, himself, has said the Rams need to try to strengthen their Offensive line - even
after adding Jacob Bell.

He said it this month.

I agree it would be nice to strengthen the OL. That don't mean we are going to find a better starter in the draft this year after round 1. I would be all for it if we can however I would like us to use our first four picks on players that fill two areas. I would like to see them be an area of need and have a good shot at contributing this year (playing time). IMO it would be harder for an OL to come in and see as much playing time or be as big of an upgrade at his position as a WR(#2WR or #3WR this year), SS(Chavous replacement), or CB(corner, nickel, dime) this year. I am not saying we have great players as chiguy keeps trying to say because he is left defenseless in his replies. I would draft an OL in the 5th round or beyond this year. I would sign a veteran backup player maybe Steussie this year for depth and insurance. I would draft another OL next year as high as the first three rounds.

I chose Chris Long as our DE this year because Little and Hall are both old we don't have much talent at DE, we don't have a young DE pass rusher waiting in the wing, and I believe he could start over Hall from day 1.

IMO a young safety would benefit from having Chavous around and could push him for his starting job because of his declining skills. IMO a CB could see plenty of action at nickel or dime and push for a starting job. We need a #3WR that can push for the starting #2 WR job right now our best option on the team might be Looker. I believe those positions would have a better chance of seeing playing time then an OL drafted after round 1.

So to sum it up don't get the wrong impression from chiguy on my stance I would be all for upgrading the OL. I just prefer to try to upgrade the team with the biggest impact players in areas of need. This year I fill we have positions that could see bigger upgrades then OL with our 2nd-4th picks. I believe we have bigger weaknesses at other areas. That does not meant that I think we can't or shouldn't try to upgrade the OL position. I definitely don't think they are great.