Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Brian Quick @ 33?

  1. #31
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,927
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    If the Rams didn't take a WR at #33, there would have been moaning because they didn't address the WR position.

    When they do take a WR at #33, there is moaning that they could have take him later.

    There is just no please some people
    C-Mob 71 and richtree like this.


  2. #32
    richtree's Avatar
    richtree is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,147
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    If the Rams didn't take a WR at #33, there would have been moaning because they didn't address the WR position.

    When they do take a WR at #33, there is moaning that they could have take him later.

    There is just no please some people
    Agreed!!!
    Half the people don't know how good this kid will be and he is a great run blocker...these same people saying we should wait for Quick will be wearing his jersey come game 6 when he has 2 big games under his belt.....

  3. #33
    Nick_Weasel's Avatar
    Nick_Weasel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    737
    Rep Power
    27

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    <Long, boring soap-boxy complaining below>...

    I don't really feel like getting into it, but there's a strategic element to the draft that isn't as simple as "we like him, let's take him." Whether Quick develops into a good WR is irrelevant. I hope he does. That wouldn't make it a good decision. It's the same idea that if you could magically go back to the 2001 draft you'd be a fool to draft Tom Brady in the 1st round - that would be a poor pick despite him being one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

    2 more quick things before I drop it:
    #1 Those who are making "fortune teller" comments are 100%, 180 degrees off. The future is uncertain, we don't need anything with certainty and neither do the Rams. That's obvious. But just because you don't know the future with certainty doesn't mean you throw probabilities out the window. It's a really silly statement to make unless you want to start justifying things like punting on 1st down because you "could have thrown an INT and anybody who says otherwise should start charging for fortune teller services."

    #2 It is inherently contradictory to claim that nobody can be considered a reach because we don't know how teams had players ranked yet give the Rams kudos for obtaining "great value" when they pick somebody who "slips." For example, a lot of the same people who claimed last year that Robert Quinn was "great value" at #14 overall (as I did) are now suggesting that Quick must have been ranked higher by teams than the media thought. You can't have it both ways.

    The broader point of those 2 is that when the Rams make a prima facie great decision, there are high fives all around. When they make a prima facie poor decision, everybody just falls back on the "well they must know more than we do." Anybody who dares suggest anything negative about the Rams gets bullied by the combination of these 2 arguments, despite the contradiction noted above.
    harrydog likes this.

  4. #34
    mcpeepants232003's Avatar
    mcpeepants232003 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    ^ what are you talking about? The Rams get blasted all the time. The truth is you want to be negative about him and anyone who disagrees with you you want to blast their opinion as overly positive even if it make sense.

    Not that your argument makes any more sense anyways. Especially the Brady thing. So even if you knew Brady was going to be as good as he is now you wouldn't of taken him highly just because of outside perception? Not that has anything to do with Quick or that it's a valid comparison anyways. This was not a first round pick and we didn't pick a guy who would of went in the 6th or 7th round.

    Quick was projected to be a late 2nd or early third round pick. This was not a huge reach. We didn't take a fourth rounder with the first pick of the 2nd round. The truth is no one knows where Quick would of gone if we had not taken him but what does it matter? I could see the huge uproar if he had been projected to be a late rounder but the amount of complaints because we might of taken him 10-20 picks early is ridiculous.

    What's funny is the amount of hypocrisy this board has shown. People are blasting the Jenkins pick because of his character concerns yet wanted to draft Floyd(whose character concerns are worse). People are blasting us reaching for Quick yet wanted to draft Floyd at 6 or Wright at 14. People are blasting us for picking a couple of guys who the draftniks thought could of gone later yet those same draftniks consider our draft to be one of the best of any and loved most of our picks.

    Really some of you just will not stop complaining. No matter what happens you want to pretend that you are the real draft experts and that you know more than our gm does.

  5. #35
    Aussie Dave's Avatar
    Aussie Dave is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    365
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I think the 2nd round goes like this :

    #33: Rueben Randle, WR, LSU / Brian Quick, WR, Appalachian State
    #39: Janoris Jenkins, CB, North Alabama
    #45: LaMar Miller, RB, Miami
    quick, jenkins and a running back...
    nailed it!

  6. #36
    Nick_Weasel's Avatar
    Nick_Weasel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    737
    Rep Power
    27

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003 View Post
    ^ what are you talking about? The Rams get blasted all the time. The truth is you want to be negative about him and anyone who disagrees with you you want to blast their opinion as overly positive even if it make sense.

    Not that your argument makes any more sense anyways. Especially the Brady thing. So even if you knew Brady was going to be as good as he is now you wouldn't of taken him highly just because of outside perception? Not that has anything to do with Quick or that it's a valid comparison anyways. This was not a first round pick and we didn't pick a guy who would of went in the 6th or 7th round.

    Quick was projected to be a late 2nd or early third round pick. This was not a huge reach. We didn't take a fourth rounder with the first pick of the 2nd round. The truth is no one knows where Quick would of gone if we had not taken him but what does it matter? I could see the huge uproar if he had been projected to be a late rounder but the amount of complaints because we might of taken him 10-20 picks early is ridiculous.

    What's funny is the amount of hypocrisy this board has shown. People are blasting the Jenkins pick because of his character concerns yet wanted to draft Floyd(whose character concerns are worse). People are blasting us reaching for Quick yet wanted to draft Floyd at 6 or Wright at 14. People are blasting us for picking a couple of guys who the draftniks thought could of gone later yet those same draftniks consider our draft to be one of the best of any and loved most of our picks.

    Really some of you just will not stop complaining. No matter what happens you want to pretend that you are the real draft experts and that you know more than our gm does.
    About Brady - my point was that you shouldn't take Brady in the 1st round if you knew you could draft him in the 5th round. In my hypothetical, you'd know he doesn't go until Round 6 so you should never, ever draft him in Round 1. That was my only point. You're misunderstanding my position about Quick - again I don't know whether he'll be a good WR and like I said, I hope he becomes a great player for us. But that doesn't negate the fact that we almost surely could have had him at #39. That's why I think it was a poor decision.

    My point is more subtle than you're making it out to be. All I'm really asking for is to people to adopt a consistent viewpoint, because every time somebody suggests something negative about any Rams draft pick they get bullied into submission by people who seem to change their view of the world depending on what the Rams do. It's not really about Brian Quick at all.

  7. #37
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    1,036
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_Weasel View Post
    My point is more subtle than you're making it out to be. All I'm really asking for is to people to adopt a consistent viewpoint, because every time somebody suggests something negative about any Rams draft pick they get bullied into submission by people who seem to change their view of the world depending on what the Rams do. It's not really about Brian Quick at all.
    I understand what you're trying to say, but there are two negative comments you get on here after every pick. One is questioning value at that pick, which is fine. Debating if you could have gotten someone later isn't a real negative. Then there's bashing a guy who has yet to step on the football field and declaring him to be the worst pick in the draft since, I dunno, Phillips. We could do with less of that.

    Also, if we take Quick at #39 who do we take at #33? I think the Rams had Jenkins in their sights for a while. So if anything you'd just swap those two in order and we'd end up with the same players.

    In the end it's a calculated risk. Whether this guy becomes TO (sans headaches) or just another receiver, does 6 spots really mean that much?
    GROUND DOG 39 likes this.

  8. #38
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,927
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_Weasel View Post
    About Brady - my point was that you shouldn't take Brady in the 1st round if you knew you could draft him in the 5th round. In my hypothetical, you'd know he doesn't go until Round 6 so you should never, ever draft him in Round 1. That was my only point. You're misunderstanding my position about Quick - again I don't know whether he'll be a good WR and like I said, I hope he becomes a great player for us. But that doesn't negate the fact that we almost surely could have had him at #39. That's why I think it was a poor decision.

    My point is more subtle than you're making it out to be. All I'm really asking for is to people to adopt a consistent viewpoint, because every time somebody suggests something negative about any Rams draft pick they get bullied into submission by people who seem to change their view of the world depending on what the Rams do. It's not really about Brian Quick at all.
    They only thing i would say about this situation is that Bruce Irvin was a shock first round pick by the Seahawks, but it now turns out that many other teams, including the Jets, Niners and Ravens had first round grades on him and would have drafted him in the first if he is still there.

    What does that suggest? It suggests that whatever and however the fans and media rate players, it doesn't necessarily match how the NFL rates them.

    So lets think again. Was Brian Quick not good value because you know how other teams ranked him? Or is not good value based on how the media or fans rated him? How do you know he would have made it to #39? Maybe the Colts had a better grade on Quick than Fleener. Or the Browns had a better grade on Quick than Mitchell Schwartz?

    If you didn't think Quick was good value at #33, who would you have taken at #33 instead?

  9. #39
    cfh128's Avatar
    cfh128 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Age
    31
    Posts
    783
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    I can't believe you guys are saying that a guy you would like at #39 is a reach at #33. Thats a 6 pick difference in round 2. This is all relative value, guys. With teams like Indy and Cleveland picking between the 33 and 39 the FO decided to pull the trigger on the WR they liked best. I thought it was a great selection.
    Aussie Dave and ZiaRam like this.

  10. #40
    RyanFoster Guest

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    if we dont pick Quick at 33, who goes in his place? a different WR that the Rams staff clearly wasnt high on? if they pick someone else who do they get at 39? its gotta be a WR since we dont take Quick at 33.....well now we lost Jenkins so who do they get next?

    you can go round and round all you want but the Rams did what the Rams thought was best. Brian Quick at 33 was what they wanted to do and im trusting them with that decision. you dont KNOW you can get a player anywhere in the draft. and if you THINK that the guy you want wont be there the next time you pick you should take him....and thats exactly what they did
    Last edited by RyanFoster; -04-30-2012 at 03:16 PM.

  11. #41
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    I'll just say this. If you know Brady is going to be as good as he is, I don't give a darn what you think his perceived value is, you take him as soon as possible. It only takes one team to be as smart as you think you are. And if you try to explain to your owner that you just expected Brady to be there in the 6th round, even though you know he will be a 3 time super bowl champion, your butt is fired.

    And does anyone think Mel Kiper Jr mape a trip to App State? And even if he did, does anyone think he is more credible as ascout than Jeff Fisher and Les Snead? Avenger said it best and most honestly, he did not have enough information on Quick to make a true assestment of him. I think that would apply to everyone on this forum.

  12. #42
    chucknbob is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Age
    32
    Posts
    571
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Brian Quick @ 33?

    Next year, if Quick puts up good numbers, nobody is going to look back and say "man, we really reached for this guy." If he busts, he would have busted at any round. The NFL doesn't spot anyone points for drafting players in late rounds, and we aren't docked for reaching. Fishead picked who they felt was the best player at a need position.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Evaluation please on brian quick, wr appalachian state
    By general counsel in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -04-29-2012, 02:10 PM
  2. Brian Leonard?
    By Battering_RAMS in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: -02-28-2009, 03:43 PM
  3. Brian Leonard
    By itsguud in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -07-12-2008, 03:01 PM
  4. Brian Billick
    By rambuck78 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -01-09-2008, 12:32 PM
  5. Brian Young
    By coy bacon in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: -06-21-2004, 02:35 PM

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
  •