Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52
  1. #16
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,406
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    RW don't you think we could wait a year to pick up a "so called" higher quality WR. If we weren't in such big need of defense I may be inclined to pick a WR to groom, but this year I just don't see it being as high of a priority than trying to sure up our D.

    BRUUUUUUUUCE


  2. #17
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    They've already put $30 million into Bennett over the next six years. And when Bruce retires in the next 1-2 years, Bennett's going to be the starter, making Ginn at best the slot guy. By the time Holt retires and Ginn gets the chance to be a starter, his rookie contract might be up and he could be playing elsewhere ala Curtis.
    Nick, how do you know that Bennett is going to replace Bruce and be the starter? Not that I'm agreeing with Wraith that we should pick Ginn, but isn't there a strong possibility that Ginn himself could replace Bruce and not Bennett? Someone has already posted that we don't have a legit deep threat right now; and, that being the case, Bennett is surely not going to fix that problem. Holt and Ginn? Hmmm....maybe?

    WHAT SAY YE?

  3. #18
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,296
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    Bennett is more of a possession type receiver where Ginn would give the team a home run threat (that we don't have) on the outside.
    I think you underestimate Bennett's ability to stretch the field. Many articles written after we signed him talked about his deceptive speed and his career yard per catch average is quite a bit better than the speedy Curtis. I think it would be a mistake to slap a simple "possession" label on him.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    Bruce isn't getting any younger I believe this will be his last year. Then what? A 31 year old Holt and a 30 year old Bennett. Not much youth, and can we really afford to take the time to groom yet another receiver.
    ...yes?

    When did 31 and 30 become so ancient that we have to start spending first round picks to prepare for the future? If Bennett was so close to the end, I suspect we wouldn't have signed him for six years and invested so much money in him.

    Again, this ignores the fact that this draft is DEEP in wide receiver talent. If you're gung-ho on taking one, we'll very likely still be able to find talent outside of the first round, especially considering the high bust rate for first rounders at that position and that Ginn himself has a long ways to go in terms of technique and actually learning the fine points of the position.

    For me, the bottom line is that receiver is only an option if the prospect value completely dwarfs any other available prospect. And assuming Calvin Johnson is off the board, I don't see any other receiver who will be available at 13 that's going to completely dwarf the remaining available defensive players.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable View Post
    Nick, how do you know that Bennett is going to replace Bruce and be the starter?
    In part based on something offensive coordinator Greg Olsen said after the signing. He commented that Bennett will "come in, be that third-down guy, and eventually maybe be the heir apparent to Isaac when Isaac moves on." While that's not a set-in-stone declaration, I highly doubt that Bennett signed a six-year deal that averages $5 million a year without the intention of more playing time when Bruce moves on. And I also highly doubt we agreed to that deal without the same expectations.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #19
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by Facing-The-Giant View Post
    I like drew bennett, but he can't seem to stay healthy, except for last season.
    or you know, that 2004 season where he started all 16 games and put up a measly 80 catches for 1247 yards and 11 TDs.

    That was the last season he started every game and had a decent throwing QB. In fact that was the only season that those two requirements have been met.

  5. #20
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,612
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    A lot of these picks we want to have sound great, we have smart people on these forums to make it seem like a good idea and before you know it...it is a very good idea! But from a realistic stand point, it doesn't make sense. Would it be cool to have an awesome WR like Ginn? Of course, it makes sense, he will learn from the two HOF'ers and before you know it all that training Ginn got will get him in the HOF one day as a Ram...Sounds great, but its just not going to happen. Stick with realism!


    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  6. #21
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,230
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    The realism is, more than likely we are not looking at any of the true players we need will even be there for our pick. A corner is not the answer either. Did we NEED Jackson when we drafted him?? The sad realism is that we needed tackles when we drafted Lewis, Kennedy and Pickett. How well did they work out? I am trying to think outside the box here, and I believe I am sticking with realism...are you? Tx was 110% right. Draft the best player available. And if that is Ginn, then we better reach safely then reach for another bust.

    In the same breath...WILLIS is the only true need/immediate help pick out there for us. Seldom do tackles/Ends come into this league and make an impact their first year. That is realism!! You want groomers, there are lot of them out there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Varg6 View Post
    A lot of these picks we want to have sound great, we have smart people on these forums to make it seem like a good idea and before you know it...it is a very good idea! But from a realistic stand point, it doesn't make sense. Would it be cool to have an awesome WR like Ginn? Of course, it makes sense, he will learn from the two HOF'ers and before you know it all that training Ginn got will get him in the HOF one day as a Ram...Sounds great, but its just not going to happen. Stick with realism!
    Last edited by RamWraith; -04-01-2007 at 10:20 AM.

  7. #22
    max's Avatar
    max
    max is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CT
    Age
    61
    Posts
    140
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Nick,
    I respectfully disagree with you.

    Drew Bennett is a nice pick up. Outside of homer Rams fans, no one thinks he is much more than a decent role player. And that includes Boylhart. No one is game planning for Bennett.

    Right now, Ginn is a monster KR/PR. And that is an area where we are desparate for help. And Ginn has the potential to be a game breaker at WR as well. The knock on Ginn has been his size but keep in mind Ginn has bigger hands than Calvin Johnson. I see him as a bigger, faster, surehanded Az. Isn't that worth the #13 pick?

    And you shouldn't wait for me to get my 10-15 post before you watch the 9 minute Ginn video on Youtube.

  8. #23
    Dominator's Avatar
    Dominator is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    the old country
    Posts
    66
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Did Ginn run yet? He hasn't run at the combine or his pro-day citing his foot injury. There is no way he should go at 13 without demonstrating that he is healthy and an absolute rocket. Like 4.28 or whatever they were quoting on him. I love Ginn for the Rams, but if you want a WR, there are tons going, they all won't go in Rd 1. CJ, Meachem, Bowe, Rice, Jarret, Gonzalez and plenty of others. I'd take any of those, or a half dozen other wr, plus whatever defensive talent (Branch? Okoye? Willis? Landry?)is available at 13.

  9. #24
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,296
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    The realism is, more than likely we are not looking at any of the true players we need will even be there for our pick.
    Not so sure on that at all. There are many scenarios that I could develop that has a number of players that we could use dropping to us. At least five of the picks before ours will be on the offensive side of the ball (CJ, Thomas, Quinn, Russell, Peterson), could be even more if Levi Brown or some others sneak in there. Then you've got LaRon Landry taking up a spot as well as a Top Ten prospect.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    Did we NEED Jackson when we drafted him??
    We certainly didn't not need him. Marshall Faulk wasn't exactly tearing things up and winning MVP awards in 2002 and 2003 before we drafted Jackson.

    During those two seasons Faulk missed 11 total starts because he was struggling with injuries and didn't pass the 1,000 yard mark in either season. We tried plugging in Canidate, Gordon, and Harris during that span but none looked to be long term answers. Running back might not have been the #1 need but it sure was an area we needed to consider. Especially considering Faulk was 31 at the time, which for running backs is very close to the end of the line. Not the same for receivers.

    Plus, the entire draft scenario was different. Jackson was the top running back in that class and we never expected him to be there when we picked. He dropped toward us and we pulled the trigger. That's FAR different from what we've be doing by drafting Ginn, who isn't even the consensus #2 receiver in this class and until he proves otherwise at his workout can't be considered great value @ 13.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    Draft the best player available. And if that is Ginn, then we better reach safely then reach for another bust.
    The problem is you're not "reaching safely" by taking Ginn. Again, he's far from a sure thing. Refer back to what Scott Wright said about him. And once again, the bust rate for first round WRs is quite high. Reaching for one in the first cannot be considered a safe reach at all, IMO.

    Besides, if we're going by the "draft the best player available" philosophy, we shouldn't be reaching at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    Outside of homer Rams fans, no one thinks he is much more than a decent role player.
    Rams management disagrees with you, based on the size and value of the contract he received.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    Right now, Ginn is a monster KR/PR. And that is an area where we are desparate for help.
    And the defense is not an area where we are desperate for help?

    I agree that we need to improve our return abilities. Ginn, however, is not the only person in this draft capable of helping in that department.


    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    The knock on Ginn has been his size but keep in mind Ginn has bigger hands than Calvin Johnson. I see him as a bigger, faster, surehanded Az. Isn't that worth the #13 pick?
    Sorry max, but I really don't see the logic in your argument. The knock on Ginn has been his size, so you counter that by talking about his hand size? Complaints about his size have been more associated with his thin frame and his inability to be physical and beat jams at the line.

    As for his big hands, he needs to learn how to use them better then because another knock on him is that he has more drops than he should. "Surehanded" is really not a label I'd put on Ginn at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    And you shouldn't wait for me to get my 10-15 post before you watch the 9 minute Ginn video on Youtube.
    I've already seen plenty of Ginn highlights. I've seen him play a number of times over the last few years. Watching a highlight video isn't going to change my mind about a guy because it does nothing to address the concerns I've brought up.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #25
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,230
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Tell you what Nick...

    ...I should switch the thread title to "I would be O.K. with drafting Ginn".

    As much as I like to agree to disagree, all this really becomes a mute point. No one can really say what this draft class will hold. I am just a little more apprehensive about taking yet another tackle and getting burned yet another time. Our success rate has been much higher with offensive players and I for one am nervous about our choices at 13. Without moving up or down we just might be hosed. If it isn't Willis or Landry, I say we go offensive. I wouldn't even crab about Brown over some of the other picks.

    I guess this wouldn't be the time to bring up how I think we should sell the farm for Johnson then *LOL*

  11. #26
    max's Avatar
    max
    max is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CT
    Age
    61
    Posts
    140
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    There are other talent evaluators who feel differently than Scott Wright. Drew Boylart from The HUDDLE Report says this about Ginn and the Rams:

    max: I'm reading stuff on Ginn moving back up the boards. What do you think of this guy? If the Rams picked him at #13 do you think they could groom him to be the next Isaac Bruce or Torry Holt? And do you think he would benefit more from playing with them than going to another team? I am intrigued by the possibility of having Ginn on the Rams and the explosiveness we could have with him as a KR/PR and deep threat. What do you think? Is he worth the #13 pick in your estimation?

    Drew: I think he would be an excellent pick for the Rams. He can learn how to be a true WR under Holt & Bruce and give you guys a big shot in the arm on special teams as he learns. It's the one true team in the first round that I think will be the best spot for the kid because he does have a lot to learn about how to use his speed to his advantage. I'm sure he would respect two pro bowlers to learn from.

    Remember the best way to improve a defense fast is to score more points. It makes a defense better when you cut down the other teams ability to use the running game because they have to score fast to keep up to you.
    Drew Boylhart
    The Huddle Report.com

    max: The Ginn debate goes on. Some have said that Ginn is another Peter Warrick. Do you think they are similar? Obviously nobody wants a guy with a high bust factor.

    Drew Boylhart:
    Players fail for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with talent.
    Character, intelligence, passion are the key ingredients that make a player.
    Ginn will have a better chance of being successful if there are players on the team that he respects and will listen to. The Rams have those players at the WR position. If Ginn is drafted by a team that does not have a good coach, QB and players then I think it will be difficult for him to realize his potential. I look at teams like the Rams, Packers, Jets, Charges, Patriots and the Colts as being a good fit for Ginn to be successful. Teams with good coaching and players he would respect and want to work hard not to let down. I'm not sure how well he will do with a lot of other teams.

    If Warrick had been in a better situation I think he might have made it but his immaturity and the lack of good coaching did not help him. These are Kids that have been coddled all their athletic life. Most of them are in for a shock when they find out that at the NFL level their talents are no longer special. There needs to be people around them to help them through this shock. Ginn is the type of kid that might be in for a real shock but if there are players and coaches to help him through and motivate him to work through the shock then he will be successful. I think the Rams have that type of team and coaches. Not so much on defense but yes on offense.
    That's why I think Ginn is a good fit and pick for your team.

    Warrick was left all alone to figure things out for himself and he failed.
    Bad coaching and no peers to turn to for emotional help.
    Drew Boylhart
    The Huddle Report.com

  12. #27
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,612
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    The realism is, more than likely we are not looking at any of the true players we need will even be there for our pick. A corner is not the answer either. Did we NEED Jackson when we drafted him?? The sad realism is that we needed tackles when we drafted Lewis, Kennedy and Pickett. How well did they work out? I am trying to think outside the box here, and I believe I am sticking with realism...are you? Tx was 110% right. Draft the best player available. And if that is Ginn, then we better reach safely then reach for another bust.

    In the same breath...WILLIS is the only true need/immediate help pick out there for us. Seldom do tackles/Ends come into this league and make an impact their first year. That is realism!! You want groomers, there are lot of them out there.
    Anything is a gamble in the draft, and drafting those tackles could've been great, or stunk, unfortunately, all of 'em stunk. But, they were needs and we picked the best player we thought was available that would help our terrible defense. After signing Bennett, do you really think there is realism in us taking a WR in the first round? This is all opinions we're talking here, and my opinion is no, there is no realism in doing that.


    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  13. #28
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,406
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by Varg6 View Post
    Anything is a gamble in the draft, and drafting those tackles could've been great, or stunk, unfortunately, all of 'em stunk.
    They all didn't stink. In Pickett's last year here he played well. Now we will never know if he was really the answer to our DT problems or not since we got rid of him, but you can't say that he stunk.
    BRUUUUUUUUCE


  14. #29
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,296
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    There are other talent evaluators who feel differently than Scott Wright.
    You're right, let's look at the opinions of some other well respected evaluators instead of just Scott Wright and Drew Boylhart and see what they say.

    Rob Rang of NFL Draft Scout says in a recent update of his site that "if one were to ignore his mercurial speed for one moment and focus on his route-running, hands, and willingness to go over the middle, they'd realize that he is a remarkably one-dimensional weapon. Ginn is so explosive that some team will take him in the first round, but I see him as being a luxury pick made by a team in the 22-32 range hoping to incorporate Ginn as a return specialist and slot receiver, rather than a team in the top 15 looking for a receiver to build an offense around."

    Rang, who currently ranks Ginn 25th on his big board, also reported that Ginn's slow recovery from the injury he sustained in the National Championship game is concerning for scouts because of the time it's taking to recover, and they continue to question his toughness because of it.

    Dave Te' Thomas, who works with Rang at Draft Scout as well as in the Sports Xchange network, compares Ginn to Dante Hall. He commented that he feels Ginn is a "quality return specialist who can contribute some as a receiver rather than a receiver who can contribute some as a return specialist."

    Scout Inc ranks Ginn as 23rd on their present big board, and in their evaluation of Ginn, they claim that "[his] exceptional speed is his best asset. However, he must become stronger and more polished as a route runner in order to fit the mold as a true No. 1 receiver in the NFL. Otherwise, he may never be more than a speedy No. 2 receiver with return ability. With that in mind, Ginn grades out as a risky mid-first round pick."

    NFL.com draft godfather Gil Bradt doesn't even rank Ginn in his Top 20. In his latest prospect rankings, Ginn falls into the 20-50 range. Brandt's opinion isn't the only of its kind from NFL.com analysts. National editor Vic Carucci ranks Ginn as the 4th best receiver in this class. In his latest mock draft, senior analyst Pat Kirwan has Ginn falling to 23rd to Kansas City.

    So as you can see, Scott Wright is far from the only evaluator with concerns about Ginn. Does that mean Ginn's going to be a bust? It's impossible to say. But the risk is clearly there and is clearly being noticed by a number of very qualified individuals, not just one.

    Given everything I've seen for myself as well as what I've read from others, I'm not confident about taking Ginn @ 13 as a future top receiver for this team. If I'm spending a Top 15 pick on a receiver, then I want a guy who is going to be a true #1 target, someone who can do it all. When I look at Ted Ginn, that's not what I see. I see a guy who, as Rang says, is rather one dimensional in that he makes plays with his speed. His hands need work (definitely not "surehanded"), he's incredibly raw in terms of route running and the actual technique of the position, and his frame is going to prevent him from being physical at the line and beating tough jams from aggressive corners. He'll be great in a foot race down the sideline on a go route, but ask him to go over the middle and risk getting popped by a safety and you'll be disappointed.

    Maybe I'll be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time - but it's not an option I'd look at for the Rams right now.
    Last edited by Nick; -04-01-2007 at 05:42 PM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  15. #30
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,612
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: I think I want Ginn in the first

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce View Post
    They all didn't stink. In Pickett's last year here he played well. Now we will never know if he was really the answer to our DT problems or not since we got rid of him, but you can't say that he stunk.

    Indeed, but let's put it this way, all of the situations all became under the label of "Stink, Stunk, Stinky"


    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •