View Poll Results: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 70.00%
  • No

    9 30.00%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

  1. #16
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    731
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude View Post
    I see both of your scenarios have long no longer on the team in2015. I'm curious, are you just exploring different possible line-ups here or do you believe Long will be gone after year 2 of a 4 year contract, and if so, why?
    The contract is worked so that the Rams can get out of it relatively easily after two years. All the guaranteed money is in the first two years. If they cut him after the second year it only creates 2.5 million dead money against the cap. Also only half his 2014 salary is guaranteed, another 4 million becomes guaranteed if he remains healthy in 2014. Rams worked the deal so it was basically a 2 year deal and gave themselves the option of keeping him for four if he can stay healthy.


  2. #17
    Vinnie25's Avatar
    Vinnie25 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    831
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    This is where the terms of the deal are important.

    The contract Long signed was for four years, but the Rams owe Jake no further guaranteed money after 2014. In fact, after 2014, the Rams can release him with a cap savings in the $8 million range, according to Over the Cap.
    Chris Long has a cap hit of almost 15 million in 2015, which makes me think that grabbing Clowney at #2 (if he's available) is much more important than drafting an LT.

  3. #18
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,604
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Never wanted an OT at 2. Always believed we could find a perrenial pro-bowler much later and someone from this draft like just about every draft will prove my point.

  4. #19
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,665
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Never wanted an OT at 2. Always believed we could find a perrenial pro-bowler much later and someone from this draft like just about every draft will prove my point.
    As your recent posts seem to be advocating drafting a DE high in the daft, i'll compare OT's and DE's when it comes to Pro Bowls


    Going back 10 years to the 2004 draft, here are the OT's drafted in the top 10 that have gone to the Pro Bowl:

    Matt Kalil
    Tyron Smith
    Trent Williams
    Russel Okung
    Joe Thomas
    D'Brickashaw Ferguson

    And here are the DE's drafted in the top 10 that have gone to the Pro Bowl:
    Mario Williams

    At the same time, looking at the 2010-2013 Pro Bowl Rosters, here are the OT's selected:
    Trent Williams, Duane Brown, Brandon Albert, Jordan Gross, Joe Thomas, Tyron Smith, Jason Peters, Joe Staley, Ryan Clady, Andrew Whitworth, Matt Kalil, Jermon Bushrod, D'Brickashawk Ferguson, Jake Long

    Jermon Bushrod was a fourth rounder. Andrew Whitworth was a second rounder. Jason Peters was undrafted.
    3 our of 14 were not 1st rounders, or 21.4%

    And here are the DE's that were selected:
    Cameron Wake, Robert Quinn, Cameron Jordan, Greg Hardy, JJ Watt, Mario Williams, Elvis Dumervil, Julius Peppers, Jared Allen, Jason Pierre-Paul, Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Andre Carter, Antonio Smith, Jason Babin

    Wake was undrafted, Dumervil was a fourth rounder, Hardy was a sixth round pick, Allen was a fourth rounder, Mathis was a fifth rounder, Antonio Smith was a fifth rounder

    6 out of 15 were not first rounders, or 40%

    The data suggests that if you want a Pro Bowl player in the top 10, you are far better off taking an OT than a DE, and you can find more Pro Bowler's at DE in later rounds than you can OT's

  5. #20
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,341
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude View Post
    I see both of your scenarios have long no longer on the team in2015. I'm curious, are you just exploring different possible line-ups here or do you believe Long will be gone after year 2 of a 4 year contract, and if so, why?
    I feel after 2014, he becomes too expensive to retain when you consider he hasn't played a full slate of NFL games since 2010. For whatever reason, durability seems to be an issue, as he's finished each of the last three seasons on IR. I don't see that getting any better as he gets older and adds more wear and tear to his body.

    I'd like to see the Rams protect themselves and their long-term interests by taking an elite tackle in this draft. That will give them the freedom to move on from Long after 2014 if they choose to do so. If he stays healthy and plays at a high level, then I'm not opposed to keeping him if they feel they can carry his salary and cap number. I just don't anticipate him being able to stay healthy, given recent history.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie25 View Post
    Chris Long has a cap hit of almost 15 million in 2015, which makes me think that grabbing Clowney at #2 (if he's available) is much more important than drafting an LT.
    I have Long's 2015 cap number at $11.5 million, less than your projection. That's high, but he also hasn't had the injury history that makes Jake a risky bet going forward. Additionally, Long is one of the faces of this franchise and an important leader in the locker room, the importance of which I don't think can go understated. I see more reasons in favor of keeping Chris Long than I do Jake, at this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Never wanted an OT at 2. Always believed we could find a perrenial pro-bowler much later and someone from this draft like just about every draft will prove my point.
    Why draft a WR high when you can find a great one later (Brandon Marshall)?

    Why draft a defensive end high when you can find one much later (Greg Hardy)?

    Why draft a QB high when you can find a great one much later (Russell Wilson)?

    Your argument isn't a good one because you could apply it to any position, and eventually, you just talk yourself out of drafting anyone with a high pick.
    Last edited by Nick; -02-27-2014 at 08:36 AM.
    Randart likes this.

  6. #21
    KoaKoi is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    881
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    You guys lost me at "pro bowl". I wouldn't give 2 ritz crackers worth of a hoot for any analysis that uses past pro bowl ballot winners as an indicator of which position a team should target in a future draft.

    As for me, I'd still desire an OT, but would keep a real close eye on draft depth at the position and evaluate whether a top OT prospect would maybe be available at 13 or in round 2. Depends on what my BPA chart looks like May 8th

  7. #22
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,604
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    As your recent posts seem to be advocating drafting a DE high in the daft, i'll compare OT's and DE's when it comes to Pro Bowls


    Going back 10 years to the 2004 draft, here are the OT's drafted in the top 10 that have gone to the Pro Bowl:

    Matt Kalil
    Tyron Smith
    Trent Williams
    Russel Okung
    Joe Thomas
    D'Brickashaw Ferguson

    And here are the DE's drafted in the top 10 that have gone to the Pro Bowl:
    Mario Williams

    At the same time, looking at the 2010-2013 Pro Bowl Rosters, here are the OT's selected:
    Trent Williams, Duane Brown, Brandon Albert, Jordan Gross, Joe Thomas, Tyron Smith, Jason Peters, Joe Staley, Ryan Clady, Andrew Whitworth, Matt Kalil, Jermon Bushrod, D'Brickashawk Ferguson, Jake Long

    Jermon Bushrod was a fourth rounder. Andrew Whitworth was a second rounder. Jason Peters was undrafted.
    3 our of 14 were not 1st rounders, or 21.4%

    And here are the DE's that were selected:
    Cameron Wake, Robert Quinn, Cameron Jordan, Greg Hardy, JJ Watt, Mario Williams, Elvis Dumervil, Julius Peppers, Jared Allen, Jason Pierre-Paul, Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Andre Carter, Antonio Smith, Jason Babin

    Wake was undrafted, Dumervil was a fourth rounder, Hardy was a sixth round pick, Allen was a fourth rounder, Mathis was a fifth rounder, Antonio Smith was a fifth rounder

    6 out of 15 were not first rounders, or 40%

    The data suggests that if you want a Pro Bowl player in the top 10, you are far better off taking an OT than a DE, and you can find more Pro Bowler's at DE in later rounds than you can OT's
    I suppose that would be good data to fall back on if I weren't convinced that Clowney is the absolute best player in this draft with or without his OK work ethic.

  8. #23
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,604
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I feel after 2014, he becomes too expensive to retain when you consider he hasn't played a full slate of NFL games since 2010. For whatever reason, durability seems to be an issue, as he's finished each of the last three seasons on IR. I don't see that getting any better as he gets older and adds more wear and tear to his body.

    I'd like to see the Rams protect themselves and their long-term interests by taking an elite tackle in this draft. That will give them the freedom to move on from Long after 2014 if they choose to do so. If he stays healthy and plays at a high level, then I'm not opposed to keeping him if they feel they can carry his salary and cap number. I just don't anticipate him being able to stay healthy, given recent history.




    I have Long's 2015 cap number at $11.5 million, less than your projection. That's high, but he also hasn't had the injury history that makes Jake a risky bet going forward. Additionally, Long is one of the faces of this franchise and an important leader in the locker room, the importance of which I don't think can go understated. I see more reasons in favor of keeping Chris Long than I do Jake, at this point.




    Why draft a WR high when you can find a great one later (Brandon Marshall)?

    Why draft a defensive end high when you can find one much later (Greg Hardy)?

    Why draft a QB high when you can find a great one much later (Russell Wilson)?

    Your argument isn't a good one because you could apply it to any position, and eventually, you just talk yourself out of drafting anyone with a high pick.
    You fail to mention my main arguement for not wanting to draft an O-lineman with a high 1st round pick. And that is because a single Olineman can not directly affect the game the way other positions can.

    As a unit yes, but as an individual, there is only so much he can do.

    As a general rule, I believe positions that directly affect the outcomes of games should be regarded more highly, and thus the players in those positions should be drafted higher.

    It's that simple for me.

  9. #24
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    And that is because a single Olineman can not directly affect the game the way other positions can.
    Like what other positions? I'm guessing your relating this, for the most part, to DE because of Clowney.

    So, you're saying a DE directly affects the game more than an offensive lineman? Okay.

    What about when an offensive lineman going up against Clowney completely shuts him out all game? If Clowney ends up being a dominant player in the NFL, an offensive lineman who is able to handle him is just as effective as Clowney potentially could have been.
    Last edited by FestusRam; -02-28-2014 at 05:35 AM.

  10. #25
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,665
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    You fail to mention my main arguement for not wanting to draft an O-lineman with a high 1st round pick. And that is because a single Olineman can not directly affect the game the way other positions can.

    As a unit yes, but as an individual, there is only so much he can do.

    As a general rule, I believe positions that directly affect the outcomes of games should be regarded more highly, and thus the players in those positions should be drafted higher.

    It's that simple for me.
    That's fair enough, but remember Clowney won't be able to do much from the bench, which is where he will be if he gets drafted by the Rams
    Rammed likes this.

  11. #26
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,604
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    That's fair enough, but remember Clowney won't be able to do much from the bench, which is where he will be if he gets drafted by the Rams
    Come on Tomahawk, even if you don't like him, you know better than that.

    The one thing you and nobody else who knows the game can deny, is his talent

    Besides, when was the last time a potential 1st pick in the draft (non QB) was a bench warmer?

  12. #27
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,543
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Another thread gets "Clowneyed."

    Can we try to stay on topic?

  13. #28
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,306
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    You fail to mention my main arguement for not wanting to draft an O-lineman with a high 1st round pick. And that is because a single Olineman can not directly affect the game the way other positions can.

    As a unit yes, but as an individual, there is only so much he can do.

    As a general rule, I believe positions that directly affect the outcomes of games should be regarded more highly, and thus the players in those positions should be drafted higher.

    It's that simple for me.
    I guess this depends on your perspective. I see an effective offensive lineman being added to a unit that has a history of problematic areas, as being much more impactful than an effective defensive end being added to a unit that is already one of the leagues best.

    IMO, adding stability to the linchpin unit of the team, by protecting Bradford and making the passing game more effective, and opening holes for Stacy and making the running game more effective, directly affects a game much more than a complimentary/rotational defensive end.

  14. #29
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,863
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    You fail to mention my main argument for not wanting to draft an O-lineman with a high 1st round pick. And that is because a single O-lineman cannot directly affect the game the way other positions can.
    This is simply your opinion; please understand I don’t share it. You are correct that linemen must gel and perform well as a unit. The same however could be said of a quarterback and his gelling with his receivers, a defense gelling and subsequently performing well as a unit.

    As this relates to the thread title, if Snead/Fish think Jake Matthews/Greg Robinson represents enough talent to be a second overall pick, then yes I am in favor of drafting one at either 2 or six or whatever it takes. Signing Saffold would be a bonus, but not an end in itself, we would still need (IMO) an infusion of youthful healthy talent. I personally hope we spend a #1 and a 2nd or third rounder on O-linemen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    As a unit yes, but as an individual, there is only so much he can do.
    You would do well to remember that this applies to just about every position on a team on both side of the ball. Disciplined, talented, well coached teams win games - perhaps we can agree on that.
    Randart likes this.

  15. #30
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,341
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: If the Rams re-sign Saffold, are you still advocating for an OT at #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    You fail to mention my main arguement for not wanting to draft an O-lineman with a high 1st round pick. And that is because a single Olineman can not directly affect the game the way other positions can.

    As a unit yes, but as an individual, there is only so much he can do.

    As a general rule, I believe positions that directly affect the outcomes of games should be regarded more highly, and thus the players in those positions should be drafted higher.

    It's that simple for me.
    Ignoring that you're shifting the argument away from the faulty logic presented in your previous post, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, simple or not. But the reality is that we just saw three offensive tackles go in the first four picks and five total offensive lineman go in the first ten picks last year, so it would seem the NFL disagrees with you. It's also worth pointing out that the top three offensive tackles in this draft are generally considered to be better prospects than the top three from last year.
    MauiRam likes this.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Rams, Saffold Talk New Contract
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-23-2014, 02:08 AM
  2. Rams' Saffold Improving At Right takle
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -05-24-2013, 10:36 PM
  3. Rams Saffold one of the biggest steals?
    By sosa39rams in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -05-27-2011, 10:27 PM
  4. Rams agreed to terms with Saffold
    By Torry Holt in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -07-29-2010, 11:47 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: -03-21-2006, 06:47 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
  •