Any interest in Patrick Crayton?

[DeaconJ]

Crayton has experience on special teams and at WR, and has shown big play ability. He wants out of Dallas and could plug one of the holes in rebuilding process.....experience at WR. Whaddaya think?

[Goldenfleece]

I think he's going to suck it up and play for the Cowboys next season. Is there such a thing as a receiver who is content with his team and his pay in the league anymore?

[shower beers]

His team isn't going to release him, and I wouldn't offer anything for him. We're going to have enough problems separating a number one receiver from this bunch, the last thing we need to do is throw another player into the mix.

[TylerBishop]

I originally thought he'd be great but i dont think he ugrades us anywhere. At best he adds to an already competitive saga at Rams Park.

[Bralidore(RAMMODE)]

unless andre johnson, fitz, or their like shakes loose, there is no way the Rams should even bother. We have young guys with potential, ability, and consecutive years in the same offense for the first time in their career, lets see what happens before we assume we're so depleted.

I can't figure how we tend to write people off without considering the new circumstances such as continuity, experience gains, and added support and assuming what we saw last year is what we will see again. Let's see if the hole has been filled in before we start planning on how we're going to fill it.

[PeoriaRam]

unless andre johnson, fitz, or their like shakes loose, there is no way the Rams should even bother. We have young guys with potential, ability, and consecutive years in the same offense for the first time in their career, lets see what happens before we assume we're so depleted.

I can't figure how we tend to write people off without considering the new circumstances such as continuity, experience gains, and added support and assuming what we saw last year is what we will see again. Let's see if the hole has been filled in before we start planning on how we're going to fill it.

When they're screwing up the fundamentals of the position, you can't really use (lack of) experience and continuity as the excuse.

[rammiser]

Not that our guys are great but Crayton isnt head and shoulders above anyone we already have. Not really worth bringing in another guy that can't easily step in and be better than what we already have.

[Nick]

I can't figure how we tend to write people off without considering the new circumstances such as continuity, experience gains, and added support and assuming what we saw last year is what we will see again.

What we saw last year in our receiving corps was inconsistency, injuries, and an inability for anyone to step up despite ample opportunities. If that's what we see again this year, we'll be in trouble.

I'm not advocating that we sign Crayton, but I don't know where you draw the line in your argument because it could be applied to just about every position. I mean, extreme example, but why draft Sam Bradford when we have Keith Null, who is young, has potential, and is experienced in the system? Obviously there's a line somewhere.

Simply having "young guys with potential" doesn't mean you can't upgrade at the position. If having youth was enough, then there would have been no need to sign Fred Robbins, Na'il Diggs, Hank Fraley, etc. The Rams have won six games in three seasons. This isn't a roster that's loaded with so much talent that the only guys they can say yes to are All Pro superstars.

When it comes to Crayton, I would agree that he probably doesn't represent a big upgrade. But I don't think we have to set the bar at Larry Fitzgerald when considering talent that we could add. There's a lot in between that and where we are now that could be worth looking at.

[Springfield Rams]

No more Cowboys trash please.

[Bralidore(RAMMODE)]

What we saw last year in our receiving corps was inconsistency, injuries, and an inability for anyone to step up despite ample opportunities. If that's what we see again this year, we'll be in trouble.

I'm not advocating that we sign Crayton, but I don't know where you draw the line in your argument because it could be applied to just about every position. I mean, extreme example, but why draft Sam Bradford when we have Keith Null, who is young, has potential, and is experienced in the system? Obviously there's a line somewhere.

Simply having "young guys with potential" doesn't mean you can't upgrade at the position. If having youth was enough, then there would have been no need to sign Fred Robbins, Na'il Diggs, Hank Fraley, etc. The Rams have won six games in three seasons. This isn't a roster that's loaded with so much talent that the only guys they can say yes to are All Pro superstars.

When it comes to Crayton, I would agree that he probably doesn't represent a big upgrade. But I don't think we have to set the bar at Larry Fitzgerald when considering talent that we could add. There's a lot in between that and where we are now that could be worth looking at.

In no way am I arguing that signing quality veteran depth at positions should not be happening, indeed I have praised a lot of the veteran signings. My thing is, what does a Crayton or another decent, but old receiver give us that we don't had, except a bit of experience.

I just want to see what we have in these new circumstances before we go giving valuable roster spots and PT to average receivers. Indeed the guys we have could be average, but there's more potential there than simply signing a Crayton imo.

FA contracts? Training camp contracts? Ok, I can go there because yes, knowing what a guy can do is good for stability in the short term. Its also not a guarantee he makes the team if he shows he's lost ability in hs age.

I get your Bradford example was an exaggeration, but SB was drafted talent and represented one of the best players in the draft for one, and I was not against drafting a receiver that has big play potential. I also don't feel the same way about Keith that I do about some of the receivers, nor do I place nearly the same amount of importance on second and third year receivers than i do on QBs of the same experience level. So yes, there is a line, which is why I didn't say my opinions on signing older receivers like Crayton was universal for every position to myself.

[Nick]

In no way am I arguing that signing quality veteran depth at positions should not be happening, indeed I have praised a lot of the veteran signings. My thing is, what does a Crayton or another decent, but old receiver give us that we don't had, except a bit of experience.

I just want to see what we have in these new circumstances before we go giving valuable roster spots and PT to average receivers. Indeed the guys we have could be average, but there's more potential there than simply signing a Crayton imo.

A few points here...

1) We're not just talking about quality veteran depth. Take Fred Robbins and Na'il Diggs, for instance. Last I checked, they were running with the first team. So why is it okay for average veterans to take roster spots and playing time away from younger linebackers and defensive tackles, but it's not okay at the receiver position? Again, this is getting back to the "where do you draw the line" point of my response.

2) Your initial argument wasn't that the Rams shouldn't bother with "decent but old" or "average" receivers. Your initial argument was that the Rams shouldn't bother signing someone unless they're Andre Johnson or Fitz (or their equivalents). That just makes zero sense to me, because I believe there's a big gap between what the Rams have now and the top two receivers in the game. For instance, you can't tell me adding a Roddy White, Marques Colston, or Greg Jennings wouldn't be a big upgrade on this team, even though they aren't at a Johnson/Fitzgerald level. As I said before, I agree Crayton doesn't represent a big upgrade, but a player doesn't have to be Johnson or Fitz to upgrade this unit, IMO.


You say there's a line to be drawn, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out where that line is.