Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bruce Campbell

  1. #1
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    Bruce Campbell

    Bruce Campbell OT 6’6 315 --- 4.85 40 --- 34 Bench Press

    I am suprised Bruce Campbell is still on the board in the 4th he plays a position that is very important OT. He is somewhat raw but has all the athletic and physical tools to develop into a very good OT. He was taken in many mocks in the late 1st or early second. I prefer Griffen at this point but would not be upset if we took Campbell even though we already took Saffold. Some have said Saffold could be just as good a Guard as OT. It is inevitable that Barron will be gone at some point and Campbell could back him up for a year.

    Our future OL after Barron could be:
    OT Campbell 6'6 315
    G Jacob Bell 6'4 295 28 (Bell could be replaced in a year or so)
    C Jason Brown 6'3 320 26
    G Rodger Saffold 6'5 315
    OT J. Smith 6'5 305

    IMO Barrons days are not long in St. Louis they may give him one more year if that but then he is gone. If we get a guy like Campbell then he would give us insurance at OT and if all three Smith, Saffold, and Campbell prove to be good players Saffold could move inside to Guard.
    Last edited by RamsSB99; -04-24-2010 at 07:51 AM.


  2. #2
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    i'd say no to Cambell.

    The reason we used such high picks on Saffold and Smith is because they will play OT for us. Cambell cannot play Guard.

  3. #3
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    i'd say no to Cambell.

    The reason we used such high picks on Saffold and Smith is because they will play OT for us. Cambell cannot play Guard.
    Campbell has more atheltic ability and is stronger then Saffold. He was considered a 1st to early 2nd pick by many draft experts. He has fallen because he is not as polished and is raw. When we drafted Saffold I heard commentators saying he could be a better G then OT in the NFL. I would not be suprised if Campbell turns out being a better OT then Saffold. Campbell is a more athletic OT but not as polished right now. IMO Barron is gone this year or next. We have Bell who will likely be replaced in a year or two at Guard. We have the other guard spot vacated by Incognito. We have a bunch of below average Guards in Fraley, Greco, and Setterstrom. I would not mind taking a player in the 4th with huge upside like Campbell has. He provides insurance at OT if he works out and J. Smith or Saffold don't. If all three work out then Saffold could slide inside to the guard position replacing Fraley and give us a good young OL to protect our franchise QB and allow our ProBowl running back to do some damage.

  4. #4
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    Yea but we are a team with plenty of needs and we take an OT/OG with the 33rd pick. That is a very very high pick. Which means he will be a starting book end.

    And also him being strong and athletic doesnt mean he will be a good NFL player. Just look at the strong and athletic Alex Barron that we are about to cut or trade.

    Also he did not drop cuz he's raw he dropped because he sux. Many times Mel Kiper and Todd McShay talked about how Cambell is an impressive guy in the wieght room and just killed it at the combine but then said his game film is awful. The guy can push a 300 pound bar up but he cant push a 280 pound guy back. Also he has those durability concerns. As a re-building team we need to try to keep our players on the field and off the bench.

  5. #5
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,737
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    The reason Campbell has lasted this far is that despite the measurables he just isnt actually that good.

    We have already addressed the offensive line in this draft. We still have so many holes to fill across the board at positions like DE, DT, TE, back up RB, OLB and possibly WR

  6. #6
    RamsSB99's Avatar
    RamsSB99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mo
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    The reason Campbell has lasted this far is that despite the measurables he just isnt actually that good.

    We have already addressed the offensive line in this draft. We still have so many holes to fill across the board at positions like DE, DT, TE, back up RB, OLB and possibly WR
    I would take him before another DT that cant apply pressure on the QB and that is all that I see from here on out with DT's. I dont see any DT's that will be better then Robbins, Ryan, Scott, and maybe even Gibson. In the later rounds its worth gambling on high ceiling players instead of average fill gap players. Bakup RB although important gets very few touches and our backups were averaging nearly the same yards per carry as Jackson. I am not syaing we have the answer on the team but the impact would not be as big as a potential fulltime starter IMO. I dont see any TE's out there left that will be much of a threat in the passing game. Hernandez is a little undersized for my liking.

    My order of preference right now would probably be:
    DE - Griffen
    WR- Carlton Mitchell
    OL- Campbell

  7. #7
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,737
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    The problem i have with your assessment is that there are very OL needy teams out there that have passed on Campbell already. If he really is a potential future starter, someone like Dallas, Oakland or Buffalo would have jumped all over him.

    We have Saffold, who will be a much better pro than Campbell, so we dont need to address the OL again.

  8. #8
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,879
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    I have to say no. We've already addressed OT in this draft, and he's not that good. He's just a workout warrior. Just look at how the godlike Gholston is doing in NY for how good workout warriors do.
    I believe!

  9. #9
    Bralidore(RAMMODE)'s Avatar
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Bruce Campbell

    Cambell actualy was projected as a 4th or 5th rounder anyway. Even Mel Kper who verrates the heck out of guys imo has him at that grade. He thought some team would be stupid and draft him too high.

Similar Threads

  1. Isaac Bruce Interview
    By DieHard23 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -09-19-2008, 12:58 PM
  2. Bruce Continues Climb
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: -12-19-2007, 06:49 PM
  3. Bruce Back For More...
    By Varg6 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -07-30-2006, 09:57 AM
  4. Bruce Happy to be Back
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -04-22-2006, 01:27 AM
  5. Keeping Bruce a Priority
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -02-25-2006, 05:50 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
  •