Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
  1. #46
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    NOT SURE WHAT YOUR POINT IS?
    My point is that it's probably easier to draft a player and move him to a different position when you're not picking at the top of the first round like we are.

    The Bears drafted Urlacher at 9th overall, not 2nd overall. I'm sure those who are concerned about moving Curry from outside to inside would be less concerned if the pick we were spending on him was lower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    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.
    Why simplify the list? You asked a question - "Or maybe you will like to try and find a good defense in the league without a top quality MLB leading the team?" - and I answered it by providing examples of good defenses within the last three years that do not have a top quality MLB.

    Now it seems as if you want to redefine your question in a manner that makes it impossible for someone to argue against your point. If you want a defense so talented and efficient that it defines a decade of football, that's one thing. But that did not seem to be part of the question you posed, the question I responded to.

    Stephen Tulloch (Titans), Stewart Bradley (Eagles), and Barrett Rudd (Bucs) are fine young players, but I wouldn't classify them as top quality linebackers at this point. Furthermore, none of them were drafted in the first round, which IMO shows how you can get an effective 4-3 MLB later on and still be able to field one of the league's top defenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Oh great googly-moogly.....as soon as I put those numbers out there, I was afraid someone would see them as a quantitative measure.
    Well, yeah. When you assign numbers to things, people generally view that as a quantitative measure! This is like telling your wife that she's a seven but then trying to say you weren't ranking her on a scale of 1 to 10. LOL!

    The second you assign a number to anything, whether you're making it up or not, you've created a quantitative measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    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.
    Except you seemed to be arguing the magnitude of the effect when you said, "Hyperbole aside, Shurmur's offense will protect Bulger a heck of a lot better with the same personnel."

    We both agree that by its very nature a switch to the WCO should improve our protection because of the shorter drops and quicker decisions, but it would seem to me - and maybe I'm mistaken - that you are in fact arguing magnitude when you talk about it protecting a heck of a lot better. If you're not, fine. But at least that earlier statement seemed to suggest otherwise.
    Last edited by Nick; -03-28-2009 at 05:15 PM.


  2. #47
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,296
    Rep Power
    142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    it would seem to me - and maybe I'm mistaken - that you are in fact arguing magnitude when you talk about it protecting a heck of a lot better.
    Nick, would you feel better if I retract the "a heck of a lot"? I'll be glad to. Post-revision: Shurmur's offense will protect Bulger better with the same personnel.
    The second you assign a number to anything, whether you're making it up or not, you've created a quantitative measure.
    Sometimes, Nick, even a qualitative point is made easier with a quantitative metaphor, but in this case it would appear not. The point I was making is simply what I've been saying.......though not to an extraordinary level, the scheme WILL improve the passing protection. Are you more likely to outrun a cheetah with a 5-second headstart or with a 10-second headstart? You'll probably get out run either way, but no arguing that the 10-second headstart will get you a little farther. Oops, there I go using numbers to display a qualitative point again.
    We both agree that by its very nature a switch to the WCO should improve our protection because of the shorter drops and quicker decisions
    Then we are staring out the same porthole after all. Always a pleasure, Nick.
    "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

  3. #48
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Nick, would you feel better if I retract the "a heck of a lot"?
    I feel fine either way. I'm simply trying to explain why there's a perception, seemingly unintended, that the discussion is in fact about the magnitude and not whether or not any difference exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Always a pleasure, Nick.
    Keep a spot open on the draft-day dance card, HUb. I'm sure we shall share the floor again.

  4. #49
    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
    My point is that it's probably easier to draft a player and move him to a different position when you're not picking at the top of the first round like we are.

    Still off TOPIC so why quote and respond????





    Why simplify the list? You asked a question - "Or maybe you will like to try and find a good defense in the league without a top quality MLB leading the team?" - and I answered it by providing examples of good defenses within the last three years that do not have a top quality MLB.

    This was my original quote....

    Originally Posted by Dominating D
    Please name one dominating defense in the NFL that fielded average or below average Linebackers?


    I have to disagree. You used one specific Defense stat and then decided that was good enough criteria to call them a great or dominating defense. So if you have Tampa on the list are you saying Brooks is not a top quality MLB? I agree you gave me some examples but I am not following your logic here. As far as I am concern they prove my point....

    Now it seems as if you want to redefine your question in a manner that makes it impossible for someone to argue against your point. If you want a defense so talented and efficient that it defines a decade of football, that's one thing. But that did not seem to be part of the question you posed, the question I responded to.
    Just find me a few GREAT Defenses not a top ten in scoring but a legit D that most would agree was dominate. IF you can name a few of these teams without a GREAT MLB then you will have given examples that actually have some substance that I can accept. Till then I will continue to debate that every great D needs a great MLB....
    Last edited by Dominating D; -03-28-2009 at 11:17 PM.

  5. #50
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Still off TOPIC so why quote and respond????
    It's not off topic at all.

    The original poster's concern about Curry at the second overall spot was that he'll be moved to a position he's never played which could hurt his top-end potential. You responded by citing an example of someone else who moved to a new position as a pro.

    My response was that drafting a player with that kind of concern in mind is likely easier to do later in the round rather than where we pick; meaning I feel the original poster's concern is a legitimate one for where we're picking.

    That seems pretty on-topic to me. If you find it off topic and so objectionable though, you're welcome to ignore it. It would seem to me having a discussion about the merits of one particular response in this thread, as well as having a discussion regarding whether or not any great defense has ever existed without a great MLB, is further off topic from the original post than any part of my first response to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    This was my original quote....

    Originally Posted by Dominating D
    Please name one dominating defense in the NFL that fielded average or below average Linebackers?
    Well, no. You cut off the bottom part of your original quote, which is what I had elected to respond to. Here is the quote in its entirety:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    I agree if your goal is to be consistently mediocre?

    Please name one dominating defense in the NFL that fielded average or below average Linebackers?

    Or maybe you will like to try and find a good defense in the league without a top quality MLB leading the team? Every great defense I can remember had a dominate MLB? Urlacher is the anchor on the team that toook a subpar offense to the superbowl. If thats not enough evidence to support the need to get a play maker in the middle then I am wasting my breathe.....

    GO RAMS
    You're correct in that you did ask for an example of one dominating defense in the NFL that fielded average or below average linebackers. But then you seemed to offer an alternative challenge, saying "Or maybe you will like to try and find a good defense in the league without a top quality MLB leading the team?"

    And that's what I responded to. If you didn't want people to address that part of the quote, I don't know why you included it...? I don't know what else you want me to say. It's not as if I'm making up your words here; I responded specifically to what you said - find a good defense without a top quality MLB leading the team. I found three, and could probably find some more.

    But now you seem to object to my answering that part of the question or you're pretending that question didn't even exist. Well, if that's not the question you wanted answered, don't present it as an alternative option, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    I have to disagree. You used one specific Defense stat and then decided that was good enough criteria to call them a great or dominating defense.
    You're completely wrong about the last part. While I did use one specific defensive stat (scoring defense) in answering your question, I did not refer to those teams as great or dominating defenses. I brought them up as examples that fit YOUR criteria in the question I quoted - a good defense in the league without a top quality MLB leading the team.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    So if you have Tampa on the list are you saying Brooks is not a top quality MLB?
    Derrick Brooks was not the starting MLB in Tampa in 2007; Barrett Ruud was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Just find me a few GREAT Defenses not a top ten in scoring but a legit D that most would agree was dominate. IF you can name a few of these teams without a GREAT MLB then you will have given examples that actually have some substance that I can accept. Till then I will continue to debate that every great D needs a great MLB....
    Again, this was not the question I was initially responding to. You offered an alternative question, which I have quoted and highlighted in this response. You asked if a good defense without a top quality MLB could be found, and I feel I found some.

    I would generally agree that, if you want an iconic defense that defines defensive football for a decade - ala the 70s Steelers, 80s Bears, or early 00s Ravens - then you're going to need great players across the board, including a great MLB. But few teams ever attain that kind of defense though, so shooting for that kind of pie in the sky scenario seems pretty unrealistic to me, especially since the Rams have consistently fielded a pretty poor defense over the last couple of years.

    What the Rams could realistically become, IMO, is a good defense that is consistently ranks in the top 10-15 in the NFL. And I don't believe a great MLB is required to accomplish that.

  6. #51
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,289
    Rep Power
    70

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Just find me a few GREAT Defenses not a top ten in scoring but a legit D that most would agree was dominate. IF you can name a few of these teams without a GREAT MLB then you will have given examples that actually have some substance that I can accept. Till then I will continue to debate that every great D needs a great MLB....

    Off the top of my head, Philly,Vikes, & Titans are all top 4-3 defenses without superstar MLBs. Unless Bradley,Harris, and whatshisname Tulloch? are in the category of "great" MLBs.

    Personally, I'd say a great defense usually starts with a great DL. Both Willis and Urlacher are in the equally compelling flipside of the argument as genuinely great MLBs whose defenses as a whole aren't consistently good enough to be great,imo.

    They keep them from being awful & thrill their fantasy owners but that's not what we want from our #1 pick & for our team,is it?

    I just don't think an LB will make our defense dominant, never mind great, in the next season.

    I think we are tantalizingly close to having a dominant rush unit.Right now I think it's more important to really establish that as our personality.

    I want new defensive blood, for sure, but one potential star LB isn't going to establish that personality defensively.

    Add the scant historical precedent for investing that heavily in a MLB and the position change issue that started this thread & I don't see how it cannot outweigh the BPA criterion-the best thing Curry has going for him- which is even more subjective, anyway.

    Btw, those 3 MLBs above-all good players who contribute significantly to their unit's success; only one was a 1st rounder. And I dare you to go into a Raider bar & say Napoleon Harris is a great MLB. Better take BigRedMan with you cuz I ain't going.
    Last edited by Azul e Oro; -03-29-2009 at 02:19 AM.

  7. #52
    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

    It's not off topic at all.

    It still makes no sense to me that you quoted my post to make your argument?

    Well, no. You cut off the bottom part of your original quote, which is what I had elected to respond to. Here is the quote in its entirety:

    Nick, it seems you like to argue the little details and ignore the point that was trying to be made. I will play along and give you a taste of your own medicine.

    Well, no. You cut off the bottom part of your original quote, which is what I had elected to respond to. Here is the quote in its entirety: Never said it was my entire quote. So when you say no you my friend are wrong once again..... Unless you can prove I did not make this statement?


    Derrick Brooks was not the starting MLB in Tampa in 2007; Barrett Ruud was.

    Your right but this prove my point even more......From the Pewter Point.com

    Ruud burst on the scene in ’07, narrowly beating out Brooks for the team tackle lead with a career-high 235 tackles. Last year, Ruud maintained his role as the team’s tackle leader with 178 stops. This time, the younger, faster and more durable Ruud beat out Brooks, who made the Pro Bowl, in the tackle department by a whopping 68 stops last year.

    DEFINE a good defense? The reason I was vague with my challenge I thought that the statement in the first part of the quote was clear and this was a follow up. Apparently you choose to take the easy road and not accept the more clear and difficult challenge.

    So if you want I can end this and say OK Nick you win you can field a mediocre defense without a great MLB.....

  8. #53
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,289
    Rep Power
    70

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

    According to NFL.com, Ruud had nothing like the numbers you quote, Dom D; 114 combined tackles in '07 & 137 in '08.

    I tried to rise to "the difficult challenge' of naming a top 4-3 D that had solid but decidedly un-superstar MLBs and yet....

    I guess the defenses they played on weren't "great" enough. Just top 10 in the NFL.You set the bar pretty high by calling Philly, Tenn & Minn "mediocre" defenses. I'd be thrilled if The Rams could reach such dizzying heights of mediocrity.

  9. #54
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    It still makes no sense to me that you quoted my post to make your argument?
    I responded to you specifically because you brought up Urlacher as an example of someone who switched positions and seems to have achieved quite a bit of their potential.

    Again, I think if the Rams were picking ninth like the Bears were when they selected Urlacher, such a positional switch would not be as big of a concern. But picking second overall, I think the original poster's concern is legitimate, and Urlacher's success in doing so doesn't eliminate such a concern.

    I really don't know how else to explain it at this point. I quoted your post because you seemed to disagree that there should be concern over Curry's position switch impacting his potential, and you cited an example of another player who switched and has done very well. My response illustrates that fans would probably be more comfortable with positional switches if they were picking later in the draft, as your example was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Nick, it seems you like to argue the little details and ignore the point that was trying to be made.
    Not at all. You asked one question, then you said "Or maybe you'd like to try and find..." That to me clearly presents a second option. I can either answer the first question, or I can answer the second. So I answered the second question.

    Again, if you didn't want people to address that question instead of your first one, why include it in your response? It doesn't make much sense to present an alternative question in a post and then criticize me because I decided to respond to it instead.

    It amazes me though that you criticize me for arguing over the little details, when you've now spent three posts arguing about why I even responded to one of your statements in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Your right but this prove my point even more......From the Pewter Point.com
    Ruud is an up and coming linebacker, definitely. I personally would not classify him as a top quality or great MLB yet, though. I think he's in that second tier with guys like Jon Beason, Jonathan Vilma, Nick Barnett, D.J. Williams, and D'Qwell Jackson.

    But this illustrates my concern about the entire debate though, and to be honest, is exactly why I'm hesitant to spend more time trying to find an example of a great or legit defense that doesn't have a great middle linebacker. You've asked for examples and have issued this challenge, but then argue anything and everything in order to remain right about your position. So why continue to spend time trying to give you examples if you're just going to find ways to dismiss them all?

    When I originally presented you with examples of defenses that were good but did not have a great MLB, what was your response? It's right here. First you argued that just about all of them actually did have very talented MLBs. Then you switched to saying not all of them are great. Then you seemed to question my use of the scoring defense stat.

    What does this tell me? Well, it suggests that you're simply going to find some way to dismiss any answer you receive for your question so that you can still hold up your position as being right. You're doing it here with Ruud in this response. First you thought Derrick Brooks was the middle linebacker for the Buccaneers, but then once you found out it was Ruud, you still seemed to contend that he was a great MLB because a Tampa Bay team magazine talked about him surpassing a declining Brooks in tackles.

    You asked for legit defenses without a top quality MLB, and you've been given a couple of examples not only by me but by Azul as well. I'll list some of them again as well as some new additions.

    The 2008 Titans were one of the best defenses in the league last year. Opponents averaged less than 300 yards per game against them, and on average scored only 14.6 points on them. Those are among the best numbers in the league, and their MLB is Stephen Tulloch. Hardly great.

    The 2008 Eagles fielded a top unit as well. They ranked third in average yards per game allowed, and fourth in average points allowed per game. Their MLB is Stewart Bradley, who so far is solid but certainly not great.

    Here's a new one - look at the New York Giants of the last two years. In 2008 the Giants ranked fifth in average yards per game allowed and average points allowed per game. Their rankings weren't as good in 2007, but their defense was great enough to beat an undefeated offensive powerhouse in the Super Bowl that year. Their MLB? Antonio Pierce, who is not a top quality or great middle linebacker IMO.

    Let's look at the Jacksonville Jaguars. The Jags had a very good defense in 2004 and 2005, but they really saw an improvement in 2006. What happened in 2006? Their starting MLB Mike Peterson was lost for the year after five games, and their WLB Daryl Smith slid over to the inside and played in his place. The Jags finished fourth in the league in points allowed and second in the league in yards allowed. A great defensive performance from a team starting a guy for a majority of the season who at the time was a back-up MLB.

    Finally, if you think Ruud is a great MLB, let's look back earlier in Tampa's history for another example then. From their Super Bowl winning season in 2002 until 2005, a span of four seasons, the Bucs consistently had one of the best defenses in the NFL. They were consistently in the top ten both in fewest yards allowed and fewest points allowed. Their MLB at the time? Shelton Quarles, hardly a great option on the inside.

    All of these teams have fielded good if not great defenses without great middle linebackers. Will you accept them as answers to your question? Your challenge has no point if you have no intention of accepting any answer to your question, and thus far you don't seem to have accepted any. I guess we'll have to see if these defensive units qualify or if they still don't meet your standards of being great. As Azul said, if these teams are somehow fielding only mediocre defenses, then I would also be pretty excited to see the Rams achieve this version of mediocrity.

  10. #55
    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

    Nick, I will accept your 2005 Tampa Bay response. That is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Not last years Vickings or Titans. The Bucs dominated that year and your right they did not have a great MLB.

    However, I believe you will find this to be the exception to the rule in most cases. I am not looking at players or stats or anything along those lines. I've watched football for 30 plus years and I do know if the Rams do not gain I identity and a leader you can go ahead and write off next year. When was the last time you observed a Tackle lead a team and create a team identity like ie..... Lewis, Urlacher, Lambert, Singletary, Butkus, Ray Nitschke. I can go on but my point is this team needs to form a identity and what better way than to pick up a beast in the middle. Not sure any of the tackles can accomplish the same unless he can dominate in the run game???

  11. #56
    rams#1 Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Nick, I will accept your 2005 Tampa Bay response. That is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Not last years Vickings or Titans. The Bucs dominated that year and your right they did not have a great MLB.

    However, I believe you will find this to be the exception to the rule in most cases. I am not looking at players or stats or anything along those lines. I've watched football for 30 plus years and I do know if the Rams do not gain I identity and a leader you can go ahead and write off next year. When was the last time you observed a Tackle lead a team and create a team identity like ie..... Lewis, Urlacher, Lambert, Singletary, Butkus, Ray Nitschke. I can go on but my point is this team needs to form a identity and what better way than to pick up a beast in the middle. Not sure any of the tackles can accomplish the same unless he can dominate in the run game???
    I personaly feel like the Rams don't need an Elite MLB, we just need someone who understands the system. I agree with nick when he said that He didn't think that Antonio Peirce was an alite talent. The big reason he Looks so good is that The Giants Defensive Line just Dominates the O-Line. It all starts up Front. The D-line needs to do their job so that the LB's can do theirs. we can do just fine with an average MLB. as long as he plays the sytem well and understand his role I think we would be fine.

  12. #57
    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 rams#1 View Post
    I personaly feel like the Rams don't need an Elite MLB, we just need someone who understands the system. I agree with nick when he said that He didn't think that Antonio Peirce was an alite talent. The big reason he Looks so good is that The Giants Defensive Line just Dominates the O-Line. It all starts up Front. The D-line needs to do their job so that the LB's can do theirs. we can do just fine with an average MLB. as long as he plays the sytem well and understand his role I think we would be fine.
    Not sure why everyone feels that the Giants D was so dominate. They had a good run in the playoffs and beat the Patriots. However, that same year they let the Pats put up big numbers on them and a struggle to make the playoffs. They deserve to win the Superbowl but I would not have called them a consistant dominate Defense.

    Pierce is a very valuable piece to the Giants D. Feel free to look at how the team performed with and without him and I am sure like Mr. Madden has stated he is underrated.

  13. #58
    rams#1 Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominating D View Post
    Not sure why everyone feels that the Giants D was so dominate. They had a good run in the playoffs and beat the Patriots. However, that same year they let the Pats put up big numbers on them and a struggle to make the playoffs. They deserve to win the Superbowl but I would not have called them a consistant dominate Defense.

    Pierce is a very valuable piece to the Giants D. Feel free to look at how the team performed with and without him and I am sure like Mr. Madden has stated he is underrated.
    Again it is the Giants D-line that was dominate, Not necesarly the Linebackers or the DB's. The dline got constant pressure on opposing quarterbacks and stuffed the line Making it hard for the RB's to break through a hole. as long as the LB'ers got in their gap they where fine. it all starts up fron in both cases. You need a Great O-line and a Great D-line. and as far as the Pats/Giants week 17 game.. who ended up winning the rematch in the super bowl?

  14. #59
    RANDYRAM Guest

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

    The only reason to go LB at rd2 is because its Curry he could be the man at MLB!
    Now if Curry wasn't there the Rams almost have to go OLT and the reason for going OLT is if Barron goes down WHO is going to fill in ? This is the same reason the Rams got Barron so if OP went down! SO the Rams have to pic between the two and this why Mr D gets the BIG $$$$$
    IMHO I think the Rams Will Protect Marc Bulger and go OLT at #2 we can get by with the average LBs we have for this year and get a top LB next year! SO If Barron goes down we have someone that can step in and protect Marc's back side and play ROT in the mean time! Witch will be miles better that they currently have!But man I like Curry!
    I can see the Rams draft going something like this;

    rd 1 LOT or Curry at #2 If trade down Bj Raji

    rd 2 DT Evander Hood or Jarron Gilbert or Chris Baker Start with the trenches! or Sean Smith, S/CB, Utah Height: 6-4. Weight: 2142/25/09: When you're compared to NFL Hall of Famer Mel Blount, you know you're having a great combine. Mike Mayock made that comparison. Sean Smith's 40 may have pushed him into Round 1.

    rd 3 WR Ramses Barden,Height: 6-6. Weight: 227. Pro Day 40 Time: 4.51. a big poession receiver that should be a good blocker for the run! Ramses Barden has at least 131 yards and a touchdown in every game this season.

    rd 4 WR Johnny Knox, Height: 6-0. Weight: 185 Combine 40 Time: 4.34.FAST with good hands and runs good routs!10/19/08: Johnny Knox recently had a game where he caught six passes for 232 yards and four touchdowns.

    rd 5 DT Sammie Lee Hill,Height: 6-4. Weight: 329.Combine 40 Time: 5.11. or Roy Miller, Texas Height: 6-2. Weight: 312

    rd 6 RB/FB Jorvorskie Lane, Texas A&M Height: 6-0. Weight: 285. could be a small reach but could be a steel ! A two-ton truck with legs, Jorvorskie Lane is actually 30 pounds heavier than Jerome Bettis was. Scored 19 rushing touchdowns in 2006. This guy is POWER FOOTBALL!

    rd 7 ILB Frantz Joseph Height: 6-3. Weight: 235. 12/7/08: A transfer from Boston College, "Viva la" Frantz Joseph recorded 141 tackles and 9.5 TFL as a senior.
    or TE Dan Gronkowski, Maryland Height: 6-6. Weight: 255.Combine 40 Time: 4.78. Known as a good blocker,

    I would like to say that I picked this group of players based upon need and a power run game that Spags said the Rams would be trying to run! It all starts up frount!
    Last edited by RANDYRAM; -03-30-2009 at 02:15 AM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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
  •