Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59
  1. #31
    jmk321's Avatar
    jmk321 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    albany
    Posts
    591
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by TekeRam View Post
    The 2007 NY Giants. I play a lot of Madden, which generally helps me remember a lot more names around the league than I would otherwise, but for the life of me, I can't think of any of their linebackers' names, other than Kiwanuka, who was hurt for the last half of their Super Bowl season or so. They have a very, very good defensive line with depth, and that frees up average linebackers to make plays that the front four don't make themselves. And just by chance, our new Head Coach made that defense, so I bet he can do the same with average linebackers and improving our line. That said, a better linebacking corps would never hurt, and if Spoon really is taking over the weakside, then we have approximately one starter back there, so Curry could make sense. At the same time though, we NEED to shore up our offensive line, specifically the tackle position, or else everything we do won't matter.

    Overall, I think it's more likely that Laurinatis is there at #35 than Britton or Beatty is, so I think I lean towards OT then MLB than the other way around.

    But, for my own plug for Curry and for all those who say that Curry would be playing out of position, hear me out. Ramblin is 100% correct. Curry, playing the Sam, did not play the same position that he would be as a Sam in the NFL. He does not rush the passer well, and is much more a run stuffing and coverage linebacker. That's why he'd play on the inside in an NFL 3-4, because he does not have the pass rush skills needed of a 3-4 OLB. Now, if Spags hardly blitzes his Sam, then fine, wonderful, he can play Sam. But if he does, then MLB wuld be right where I would want Curry, where he can play sideline to sideline, looking for the screen pass that beats the blitz, or the draw play, or the outside run. I want Curry right there where he can blow all of those plays up, and then also be able to drop back and smoke slot receivers coming across the middle. If we draft Curry, he's meant to be a MLB in the NFL.
    The Giants have Antonio Pierce playing MLB and he is an excellent player and the leader of their defense. When Pierce isn't playing the Giants defense is noticably inferior and not close to being the same against the run.

    It at least looks like the Rams have a plan with what they are going to do with the OT's next year if they don't go OT with their first pick. If they go OT with their first pick a lot is depending on James Laurinaitus falling into the second round. I don't like the ideas of who will start at MLB next year if it isn't Curry or Laurinaitus.


  2. #32
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,357
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Of course they went to a Super Bowl with those exact same OTs. And leading the way to that Super Bowl? A top 5 defense led by All-Pro Brian Urlacher.

    P.S. I would disagree that 2007 was his best stat year. In fact, I would say it was a less-than-average year for him. But that's a different discussion.
    Gotta stick to my guns on this one. Those numbers are the best across-the-board I saw when looking at BU's career. We both know numbers don't tell the whole story so he may have had more impact in their "up" years.If The Rams LB Jones had had only one tackle-and I'm sure we all know the one I'm talkin' about- it still would have been vital to our success .

    My point was that Bears team was very good in '06, went through major personnel, staff, and injury issues and even a great year in the following season by BU wasn't enough.

    Please don't tell me Miller and St Clair were ever even as good as Barron. I can't buy that. Tait was good but nosedived(dove?) like Pace.

    If their OTs had been the bedrock of that team rather than LBs-remember they had Briggs as well, I don't think The Bears' fortunes would have swung as wildly over BU's career.

    Goldenfleece, yeah apples and oranges is a highly apt phrase. An apple is very little more than fiber and water. An orange is much more nutritionally valuable.

    I didn't compare one guy and a unit. Their D was bad despite his star caliber performance.Their OTs weren't the only reason their O sucked but it was a big part of their uneven performances over the years. just like SJ could still still get a 1000yds in our last few miserable seasons, the Bears sometimes had the guys who could overcome that weakness but not consistently.

    LBs and OTs.
    Apples and oranges.

    An apple a day is good for you but not as good as a half a banana,a slice or two of orange,and some blueberries.

    Now that I've turned the draft into fruit salad, I'm hungry and feeling guilty about the rootbeer float I had for lunch but heck yeah, I'd rather have Ogden than Ray Lewis if I were building a team from scratch. In a clogged heartbeat.
    Last edited by Azul e Oro; -03-26-2009 at 11:58 PM.

  3. #33
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,345
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Brian Urlacher did not play MLB in college. Are the Bears not getting his full potential? Curry will have more oppurtunity playing MLB and with his talent and altheletic ability it's a good fit...
    The Bears also didn't spend a second overall pick on Brian Urlacher.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Or maybe you will like to try and find a good defense in the league without a top quality MLB leading the team?
    Just limiting myself to the Top 5 scoring defenses of the last three years, I would say the 2008 Titans, 2008 Eagles, 2007 Bucs, 2006 Dolphins. You make it sound like it's impossible to field a good defense without a stud MLB. Not the case at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Under the vertical Coryell-inspired offense of the past 10 years........yes, Bulger would remain exposed. However, under the WCO, the ball will not be in Bulger's hands nearly as long.

    The system itself will keep (at least should keep) Bulger from as many hits.
    You can't simply fall back on scheme to solve our pass protection woes. If the WCO was the solution to poor protection issues, every team with a sub par O-line would run the scheme. But it's not that simple.

    If an offense is so poor in pass protection that they're consistently relying on short quick routes to get rid of the ball, defenses are going to pick that up and guard those short routes. Then the offense is forced to do something else, namely longer/different routes, screens, etc.

    The WCO will be a shift in terms of having fewer five or seven step drops, but I think in this instance, you're overemphasizing the impact it's going to have in pass protection because you're arguing for Curry. Coryell offense, WCO, run and shoot, pro set... you've still got to protect, and right now the Rams' OTs are still very much a weakness.

    A change in scheme might have some effect, but I don't see how it's going to have a significant one. Ultimately the line still has to show up and block regardless of what playbook they're working from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece View Post
    For whatever reason, linebackers are less commonly judged to be worthy of an early first round pick.
    Exactly. When you're shelling out $30 million guaranteed to a top three pick, you need to do it at one of the most important positions on the football field. Some will probably dispute this, but MLB is simply not high on that list. And until there is a rookie pay scale in place, finances are going to play their role at the top of the draft.

  4. #34
    rNemesis's Avatar
    rNemesis is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nassau
    Age
    29
    Posts
    751
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Shaun 'O Hara, Chris Snee, David Diehl, Kareem Mckenzie, and Rich Seubert. O Hara Snee and Diehl I believe were pro bowlers so your logic makes a lot of sense Hubison!

  5. #35
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Exactly. When you're shelling out $30 million guaranteed to a top three pick, you need to do it at one of the most important positions on the football field. Some will probably dispute this, but MLB is simply not high on that list. And until there is a rookie pay scale in place, finances are going to play their role at the top of the draft.
    I don't doubt the importance of the offensive tackle position, and Spagnuolo recently stated that his draft strategy starts with both lines. I'm just looking at this and thinking we've got a chance to take the best prospect regardless of position, and he happens to play at a position that we've had problems with since London Fletcher left in 2001. It's hard to beat that combination of value meeting need.

    Just to follow up on this point about Curry being a rare prospect, Scott Wright was asked in his last chat, "How does Aaron Curry compare with the top linebacker prospects of the last few years?"

    The answer was short and to the point:

    "He is #1."

  6. #36
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Believe me fleece, I've been scratching my head on this since the draft came into focus. As the unofficial official Secretary of Defense here at ClanRam I would absolutely love a stud like Curry. However, ah heck.

    I'm going with Curry now. Bulger is 33 and on his last legs anyway. Let's stuggle offensively again this year but get real stingy on defense. We will struggle offensively, no question about that whatsoever if the Rams don't go OT in Round 1. There's no way around it. However, can you really pass up a stud like Curry? It would be extremely hard.

  7. #37
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,565
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    You can't simply fall back on scheme to solve our pass protection woes. If the WCO was the solution to poor protection issues, every team with a sub par O-line would run the scheme. But it's not that simple.

    If an offense is so poor in pass protection that they're consistently relying on short quick routes to get rid of the ball, defenses are going to pick that up and guard those short routes. Then the offense is forced to do something else, namely longer/different routes, screens, etc.

    The WCO will be a shift in terms of having fewer five or seven step drops, but I think in this instance, you're overemphasizing the impact it's going to have in pass protection because you're arguing for Curry. Coryell offense, WCO, run and shoot, pro set... you've still got to protect, and right now the Rams' OTs are still very much a weakness.

    A change in scheme might have some effect, but I don't see how it's going to have a significant one. Ultimately the line still has to show up and block regardless of what playbook they're working from.
    Nick, I believe you have misread me; and are overemphasing my overemphasing of scheme.

    The WCO will protect better than a vertical based offense. That's all I'm saying; and I'm curious how anyone could argue otherwise. As you yourself said, the Rams will see fewer 5 and 7 drops. That alone will improve the blocking. Notice I didn't say it would solve the blocking.

    Let's make up some numbers. Say our current pass blocking quality is at a 3 and they need to be at a 10. The shift in scheme might move the quality up to say a 5. That's all I'm saying. I'm not calling the WCO, a 10-maker.......but it is a 5-maker.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  8. #38
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,565
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by rNemesis View Post
    Shaun 'O Hara, Chris Snee, David Diehl, Kareem Mckenzie, and Rich Seubert. O Hara Snee and Diehl I believe were pro bowlers so your logic makes a lot of sense Hubison!
    Not sure I follow you here, rN. That is the line from the Super Bowl season, but none of them made the Pro Bowl in '07. I believe both O'hara and Snee made it this year at C and G, respectively.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  9. #39
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,345
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Nick, I believe you have misread me; and are overemphasing my overemphasing of scheme.

    The WCO will protect better than a vertical based offense. That's all I'm saying; and I'm curious how anyone could argue otherwise. As you yourself said, the Rams will see fewer 5 and 7 drops. That alone will improve the blocking. Notice I didn't say it would solve the blocking.

    Let's make up some numbers. Say our current pass blocking quality is at a 3 and they need to be at a 10. The shift in scheme might move the quality up to say a 5. That's all I'm saying. I'm not calling the WCO, a 10-maker.......but it is a 5-maker.
    But again, I still think you're overestimating its importance, especially if in your imaginary numbers game you think a schematic shift alone means our line only needs to be half as good this season as it would have last season. Maybe you just threw those numbers out there, but still... those were the numbers you threw out there.

    No one is suggesting a change in scheme won't have any effect on our sack totals, but the question becomes how much. And I still think you're inflating it. I simply do not agree that a schematic shift drastically reduces the level our line needs to play for success.

    Slightly reduces it? Yes, because as we both said, in some instances they won't have to protect for as long because of shorter drops. But again, I think that affect is probably rather minimal. Ultimately guys still have to go out there and block their man, make the right line calls, pick up the right guy, etc etc.

    If you'd rather me make up some numbers, I'd say the shift in scheme moves it from a 10 to an 8. Scheme isn't going to protect a poor line and suddenly make them look capable. Scheme or not, this line still has to block and block more consistently. I know you're not suggesting this is some magic fix, but I do think you're overstating the impact it will have.

  10. #40
    diehard99's Avatar
    diehard99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    draft curry well be drafting early in the 1st rd. next year too.

  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: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by diehard99 View Post
    draft curry well be drafting early in the 1st rd. next year too.
    Well since you put it that way...

    I mean come on, can you at least give me a reason why we will have a losing record if we draft the best player in the draft? Would it be Curry's fault that we lose, or maybe the fact that we have holes all throughout our roster? Could you not also have said: "draft any stinking player in this draft and we'll be drafting early in the 1st round next year too."??? Do you honestly think drafting someone other than Curry will catapult our team to the playoffs?

    We are more than one rookie away from being competitive. I think that if we draft Curry he will be the cornerstone of our defense for years to come. Now, if we draft a tackle do I automatically assume we are going to suck next year? Of course not. I think Monroe or J Smith could be a cornerstone of our offensive line for years to come as well, however I feel that Curry is a better player than those two, so I think we should go with him.

    If we draft a tackle how do you suggest we improve on our run defense? In my opinion right now we have six or seven decent(not Pro Bowl) guys who can play on the o line. Barron, Greco, Brown, Cogs, Bell, and if needed Goldberg or Setterstrom. There are five spots for them. In my opinion we have ONE decent linebacker. FYI there are usually three linebackers on the field.

    I'm not saying that Billy D and Spags are gonna draft Curry, I'm just saying we are not going to be a bad team because of him.

  12. #42
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by C-Mob 71 View Post
    Well since you put it that way...

    I mean come on, can you at least give me a reason why we will have a losing record if we draft the best player in the draft? Would it be Curry's fault that we lose, or maybe the fact that we have holes all throughout our roster? Could you not also have said: "draft any stinking player in this draft and we'll be drafting early in the 1st round next year too."??? Do you honestly think drafting someone other than Curry will catapult our team to the playoffs?

    We are more than one rookie away from being competitive. I think that if we draft Curry he will be the cornerstone of our defense for years to come. Now, if we draft a tackle do I automatically assume we are going to suck next year? Of course not. I think Monroe or J Smith could be a cornerstone of our offensive line for years to come as well, however I feel that Curry is a better player than those two, so I think we should go with him.

    If we draft a tackle how do you suggest we improve on our run defense? In my opinion right now we have six or seven decent(not Pro Bowl) guys who can play on the o line. Barron, Greco, Brown, Cogs, Bell, and if needed Goldberg or Setterstrom. There are five spots for them. In my opinion we have ONE decent linebacker. FYI there are usually three linebackers on the field.

    I'm not saying that Billy D and Spags are gonna draft Curry, I'm just saying we are not going to be a bad team because of him.

    If we start the season with those 5 on the O line, we may have the worst offense in the NFL. SJax will be hit before he gets to the O line, the Rams will have more 3rd and longs instead of 3rd and shorts, and Bulger will have no pass protection.

    Having said that, I wouldn't mind drafting Curry because I know this team is another draft away from being good. Why not grab the best LB? Suffer one more year and see what happens in 2010.

  13. #43
    Dominating D's Avatar
    Dominating D is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    829
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    The Bears also didn't spend a second overall pick on Brian Urlacher.

    NOT SURE WHAT YOUR POINT IS? The discussion was base on moving a player from his college positioon and the possibility of losing some of the players potential by doing this ie.... Witherspoon Not sure how you want me to respond to your statement? Does it really matter if Urlacher was drafted 2nd, 9th, 11th, or 15th in the draft?



    Just limiting myself to the Top 5 scoring defenses of the last three years, I would say the 2008 Titans, 2008 Eagles, 2007 Bucs, 2006 Dolphins. You make it sound like it's impossible to field a good defense without a stud MLB. Not the case at all.

    JUST ABOUT EVERY DEFENSE YOU NAMED HAD VERY TALENTED MLB. I WOULD NOT CLAIM ALL OF THESE DEFENSES ARE GREAT. MAYBE THEY DID WELL AS A "SCORING DEFENSE"?

    Lets simplify the list. Name any GREAT DEFENSE in any decade that did not have a great MLB. Ravens in the 90's, Bears in the 80's or 90's, Steelers in the 70's, 80's. All of them had top Linebackers. If you want a great defense my point is you need a great MLB.

    .
    Not sure who made the statement but I agree 100%. A linebacker like Curry does not come around every year and to pass on him to take a Tackle you can get in next years draft would be foolish....... (Not exact quote)

    GO RAMS
    Last edited by Dominating D; -03-28-2009 at 03:45 PM.

  14. #44
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,565
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    But again, I still think you're overestimating its importance, especially if in your imaginary numbers game you think a schematic shift alone means our line only needs to be half as good this season as it would have last season. Maybe you just threw those numbers out there, but still... those were the numbers you threw out there.
    Oh great googly-moogly.....as soon as I put those numbers out there, I was afraid someone would see them as a quantitative measure. Ok, look, this is my entire argument......

    Protection in a WCO > Protection in a Coryell-based offense

    That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying the difference will be enough to rest on our haunches. I'm not saying the OT is not a priority. What I AM saying is that those who think the sky is falling on Marc Bulger should at least know that the blocking in a WCO is more protective than a Coryell offense.
    No one is suggesting a change in scheme won't have any effect on our sack totals
    Then why are we debating. The existence of a difference, that is to say "effect" is the ONLY argument I've made. Not the magnitude of the effect.
    Slightly reduces it? Yes, because as we both said, in some instances they won't have to protect for as long because of shorter drops.
    Which is the only thing I've ever said.

    It's not a fix, but it is an improvement simply because less will be asked of them. Again, I repeat for the blue-millionth time........the scheme does not make OT less of a priority.

    OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: The drafting of an OT in round 1 by the St. Louis Rams instead of Aaron Curry will not in any way, shape, form or fashion cause precipitation upon the parade of HUbison.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  15. #45
    codeman123's Avatar
    codeman123 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    canada
    Age
    24
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Drafting Curry at #2 concerns me for one reason

    The protection in the WCO has to be better since Bulger will hold on to the ball less. It will not be much better but there will be a slight difference. Barron is our LT, and is much better on the left than on the right because hes not strong enough to stop the bull rush. That means we are drafted an RT in this years draft, although they could easily move to LT next year if Barron does not perform and is not resigned. Anyone can argue that taking MLB at the second spot is stupid, but its just as stupid to take an RT that high. You also have to ask yourself whether Curry Beatty/Meridith/Loadholt is better than Smith/Monroe Lauranitis/any other linebacker.
    Our defense is awful, but has a decent secondary and decent line. Other than spoon we dont have a good starting linebacker, although we have good depth players. If we draft curry it would not matter whether he is playing SLB or MLB since both positions do not have a starter. If he can't handle MLB he can easily slide over to the strong side without a problem. We can also use him in different looks because of his atheletism and talent. Drafting a good RT can be done in the second and instantly improve our line while we also improve our defense in the first round.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: -02-26-2009, 12:46 PM
  2. Chat w/ Jim Thomas - Feb 24th
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -02-25-2009, 07:01 PM
  3. Curry Overcomes Obstacles on way to Top
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -02-24-2009, 10:13 PM
  4. Drafting Curry?
    By larams1980 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-23-2009, 04:42 PM
  5. Who is Aaron Curry?
    By RamsInfiniti in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: -12-25-2008, 12:49 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
  •