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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 69
Like Tree19Likes

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

  1. #31
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MauiRam View Post
    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.



    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.
    Yep, it is simply my opinion, but the next O-lineman to be named MVP of any game, season, or team will be the first.


  2. #32
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    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.
    Like the ones that do the bulk of the scoring, and the ones that stop them. Take your pick.

  3. #33
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
    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.
    Bradford played his best football as a Ram just prior to his injury, and Zac Stacy had a better rookie season than any of us expected. I'd say the O-line did a wonderful job, but you don't have to take my word for it, ask Les Snead.

    Secondly, it doesn't matter who you bring in, Robinson, Lewan, or Mathews. None of them would have the impact Clowney would have if they all played to their potential. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

  4. #34
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    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
    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.
    Faulty logic? So you're telling me that we can't possibly find a pro-bowl O-lineman outside the top 10?

  5. #35
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,694
    Rep Power
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Bradford played his best football as a Ram just prior to his injury, and Zac Stacy had a better rookie season than any of us expected. I'd say the O-line did a wonderful job, but you don't have to take my word for it, ask Les Snead.

    Secondly, it doesn't matter who you bring in, Robinson, Lewan, or Mathews. None of them would have the impact Clowney would have if they all played to their potential. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
    Yep, opinions vary.
    MauiRam likes this.

  6. #36
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,247
    Rep Power
    23

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Like the ones that do the bulk of the scoring, and the ones that stop them. Take your pick.
    I'll pick the positions that are annually sought after by NFL teams with top picks in the draft. I'll give you a hint: OT is one of them.
    MauiRam likes this.

  7. #37
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,665
    Rep Power
    154

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Faulty logic? So you're telling me that we can't possibly find a pro-bowl O-lineman outside the top 10?
    Now you're twisting my words, which I believe were very clear when I originally responded to your point, but I'll repeat anyways.

    Your statement was that you never wanted an offensive tackle @ 2 because you believe a perennial pro-bowler can be found much later.

    Since that logic can be applied to any position - I pointed out multiple examples to demonstrate as much - it becomes a very faulty leg to try and stand on when arguing against a certain position.

  8. #38
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FestusRam View Post
    I'll pick the positions that are annually sought after by NFL teams with top picks in the draft. I'll give you a hint: OT is one of them.
    Except they rarely do any scoring or stop anybody so in this instance they don't qualify. Pick another.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -03-01-2014 at 12:47 PM.

  9. #39
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,030
    Rep Power
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Except they rarely do any scoring or stop anybody so in this instance they don't qualify. Pick another.
    Latest example of faulty logic in this huge line of it in this thread. How many TD's would RB's score without blocking. So the only people worth anything in the NFL are the ones that score TD's? Great logic.

  10. #40
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey View Post
    Latest example of faulty logic in this huge line of it in this thread. How many TD's would RB's score without blocking. So the only people worth anything in the NFL are the ones that score TD's? Great logic.
    Like everyone else, you have a right to your opinion, I simply don't share it. Doesn't make mine right and yours wrong, nor vice versa.

    One thing is simple to me though.

    Drafting a LT with the second pick less than a year after aquiring a former 1st pick in the draft to play the position is not a sound strategy to me, particularly when he's only 28 years old, which for most players is the prime of their careers.

    Injury or not, Jake Long is the LT of this Rams team, until it's proven otherwise.

    Just as Sam Bradford is the QB and most are not calling for his head in favor of Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles, but rather a mid to late round QB to develop behind him, I am calling for the same tact as it relates to Jake Long.

    In the meantime, Rodger Saffold's re-signing is a high priority, as it should be.

    The former 1st pick in the 2nd round may be the most versatile of all the Olinemen on the squad, and is more than capable of filling in at LT until Long returns.

    Complicating your desire to draft a LT with the second pick is the fact that Les Snead has gone on record to say of all the units on this team, he is most proud of the Offensive line. Now let's examine why the GM would say that.

    Could it be that the Oline generally played better than many here have given credit for?

    Maybe he's just got the audacity to believe that Sam Bradford's emergence just before he got injured, was due in large part to the play of the Oline.

    Or maybe he's been duped into thinking Zac Stacy ran relatively well because of the Oline play, as opposed to in spite of them, like so many here seem to think.

    Anyway, whatever the reason, he seems just as confident in Jake Long's return as he does Sam Bradford's.

    So with that said, I think it is tremendously logical to pass on all of the OTs with the 2nd pick, and add depth and/or an interior starter later in or beyond the first round.
    Vinnie25 likes this.

  11. #41
    Vinnie25's Avatar
    Vinnie25 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    869
    Rep Power
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    Like everyone else, you have a right to your opinion, I simply don't share it. Doesn't make mine right and yours wrong, nor vice versa.

    One thing is simple to me though.

    Drafting a LT with the second pick less than a year after aquiring a former 1st pick in the draft to play the position is not a sound strategy to me, particularly when he's only 28 years old, which for most players is the prime of their careers.

    Injury or not, Jake Long is the LT of this Rams team, until it's proven otherwise.

    Just as Sam Bradford is the QB and most are not calling for his head in favor of Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles, but rather a mid to late round QB to develop behind him, I am calling for the same tact as it relates to Jake Long.

    In the meantime, Rodger Saffold's re-signing is a high priority, as it should be.

    The former 1st pick in the 2nd round may be the most versatile of all the Olinemen on the squad, and is more than capable of filling in at LT until Long returns.

    Complicating your desire to draft a LT with the second pick is the fact that Les Snead has gone on record to say of all the units on this team, he is most proud of the Offensive line. Now let's examine why the GM would say that.

    Could it be that the Oline generally played better than many here have given credit for?

    Maybe he's just got the audacity to believe that Sam Bradford's emergence just before he got injured, was due in large part to the play of the Oline.

    Or maybe he's been duped into thinking Zac Stacy ran relatively well because of the Oline play, as opposed to in spite of them, like so many here seem to think.

    Anyway, whatever the reason, he seems just as confident in Jake Long's return as he does Sam Bradford's.

    So with that said, I think it is tremendously logical to pass on all of the OTs with the 2nd pick, and add depth and/or an interior starter later in or beyond the first round.
    I agree with everything you just said

  12. #42
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,816
    Rep Power
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post

    Just as Sam Bradford is the QB and most are not calling for his head in favor of Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles, but rather a mid to late round QB to develop behind him, I am calling for the same tact as it relates to Jake Long.
    You need to stop making this argument. There is only one QB on the field. It's a bad analogy.

  13. #43
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,669
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    You need to stop making this argument. There is only one QB on the field. It's a bad analogy.
    Like i said at the top of my post, you have a right to your opinion, I simply don't share it. Doesn't make mine right and yours wrong, nor vice versa.

  14. #44
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,816
    Rep Power
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post

    Like i said at the top of my post, you have a right to your opinion, I simply don't share it. Doesn't make mine right and yours wrong, nor vice versa.
    1 QB on the field.
    2 OTs on the field.

    Fact, not opinion.

  15. #45
    Vinnie25's Avatar
    Vinnie25 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    869
    Rep Power
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    1 QB on the field.
    2 OTs on the field.

    Fact, not opinion.
    Our LT is one of the best LT's in the game (when healthy of course) and our RT was rated the 13th best at his position in 2014. If Saffold is re-signed, I see no reason why the Rams should waste a high draft pick on this position when there's other position of need

Page 3 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
  •