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 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 69 of 69
Like Tree19Likes

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

  1. #61
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline 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 cfh128 View Post
    Why does this same logic not apply when it comes to Chris Long, who is also 28 years old and signed a $50 million dollar contract extension in 2012?

    To me, if you are drafting a guy at #2 to replace a quality starter, Chris Long is not the guy you want to replace.

    Maybe Clowney could potentially be an upgrade to Long. Maybe. That's a pretty tall order though. I think Quinn's breakout year is making Long's "down" year seem worse than it really was. For the year, Long had 8.5 sacks, he lead the team in QB pressures, and he was voted an alternate to the pro bowl for DE. For the past 3 seasons prior to that, he lead the NFL in QB hurries each year, was named a pro bowl alternate each year, and averaged over 10 sacks a season.

    I think it makes more sense to say "don't draft Clowney, we already have Chris Long" than it does to say "don't draft Robinson, we already have Barksdale". And that is just based on the talent of those specific guys alone. That isn't taking into account that Jake Long is hurt, we don't really have a left guard, Saffold may not come back, Dahl could get cut, and we have no depth. And our QB has a tendency to get dinged up. Not to mention that Robinson and Matthews are legit top 5 talents that no team would have any qualms about spending a top 5 pick on.

    I guess I just can't figure out any reason why anybody would be opposed to upgrading our offensive line. I get it that you have a man crush on Clowney, but it just isnt the most logical pick in my opinion.
    There is no one here who is opposed to upgrading the Oline. We just have different methods, which should come as no suprise to anyone, we're all different people, with different ways of thinking.

    But just because I'd rather have Clowney than an OT at two, doesn't mean I'm opposed to upgrading the Oline, so there's nothing to figure there.

    I've constantly said we can find Olinemen later in the draft, like 13 or even in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

    Obviously, I believe Clowney is an upgrade over Long at less than half the price, and that is extremely intriguing to me, particularly since I believe the defense is close to being a dominant unit.

    And as I have stated before, I'd rather make the defense a dominant unit before I worry about an offense that scored over 20 points a game with a 3rd string QB and a rookie at running back.

    That is not to say, we should neglect the offense however. Fortunately we'll have enough picks to address both units.

    Furthermore, drafting Clowney assures us of having money for Robert Quinn when he's up, and still being one of the most, if not the most, dominant Dlines in football.

    That is because I believe he'll play well enough to make Long expendable next offseason, and Long is an astronomical cap hit.

    Many people won't agree with trading or cutting Long even if it makes the most business and cap sense.

    But that is simply the nature of the business.

    And whether it's popular or not, I know I'd rather have Clowney and whatever his salary will be, over Chris Long and what his salary is.
    Vinnie25 likes this.


  2. #62
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,033
    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
    There is no one here who is opposed to upgrading the Oline. We just have different methods, which should come as no suprise to anyone, we're all different people, with different ways of thinking.

    But just because I'd rather have Clowney than an OT at two, doesn't mean I'm opposed to upgrading the Oline, so there's nothing to figure there.

    I've constantly said we can find Olinemen later in the draft, like 13 or even in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

    Obviously, I believe Clowney is an upgrade over Long at less than half the price, and that is extremely intriguing to me, particularly since I believe the defense is close to being a dominant unit.

    And as I have stated before, I'd rather make the defense a dominant unit before I worry about an offense that scored over 20 points a game with a 3rd string QB and a rookie at running back.

    That is not to say, we should neglect the offense however. Fortunately we'll have enough picks to address both units.

    Furthermore, drafting Clowney assures us of having money for Robert Quinn when he's up, and still being one of the most, if not the most, dominant Dlines in football.

    That is because I believe he'll play well enough to make Long expendable next offseason, and Long is an astronomical cap hit.

    Many people won't agree with trading or cutting Long even if it makes the most business and cap sense.

    But that is simply the nature of the business.

    And whether it's popular or not, I know I'd rather have Clowney and whatever his salary will be, over Chris Long and what his salary is.
    No the thing that confuses me and some others is you state Clowney would be an upgrade over Long and we should do it. But you don't feel we should upgrade over Barksdale because he was adequate.

    Also the dead money for next year if we cut Chris Long is $18 million. After 2014 his dead money for the next two years totals $4.5 million. His salary cap hit for 2015 is $11.5 million with a roster bonus and a 2016 roster bonus makes it $11.25 million. The reason he has such a huge cap this year is he restructured twice to free up cap space and made some of his pro-rated bonus payable immediately and it became tied to his cap hit for 2014.

  3. #63
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,666
    Rep Power
    154

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

    I always kind of shake my head at the talking point that one reason Clowney makes sense is because he makes Chris Long (and his contract) expendable, which thus makes Robert Quinn easier to sign long-term.

    What do Clowney advocates think is going to happen when it's time for Clowney's second deal, and the Rams are at best in the middle of Robert Quinn's $70-80+ million mega-deal? If Clowney becomes the player his supporters believe he will, then he's going to command a deal equal to or greater than what Quinn receives.

    If the argument is that the Rams are going to have trouble resigning Quinn due to Chris Long's big cap numbers, then chances are they're going to have trouble resigning Clowney when the time comes due to Quinn's contract.

    And if the response is some vague assurance that the Rams will find a way to afford both Quinn and Clowney, then surely they could find a way to afford both Quinn and Long.

  4. #64
    jerseyramsfan's Avatar
    jerseyramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    419
    Rep Power
    8

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

    Take Robison if Clowney goes #1. If not Clowney all the way!

  5. #65
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline 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
    I always kind of shake my head at the talking point that one reason Clowney makes sense is because he makes Chris Long (and his contract) expendable, which thus makes Robert Quinn easier to sign long-term.

    What do Clowney advocates think is going to happen when it's time for Clowney's second deal, and the Rams are at best in the middle of Robert Quinn's $70-80+ million mega-deal? If Clowney becomes the player his supporters believe he will, then he's going to command a deal equal to or greater than what Quinn receives.

    If the argument is that the Rams are going to have trouble resigning Quinn due to Chris Long's big cap numbers, then chances are they're going to have trouble resigning Clowney when the time comes due to Quinn's contract.

    And if the response is some vague assurance that the Rams will find a way to afford both Quinn and Clowney, then surely they could find a way to afford both Quinn and Long.
    They probably could find a way to afford Quinn and Long but the difference is obvious to me. I expect Clowney to be on par or somewhere close to it with Chris Long the moment he steps on the field. Chris with the mental edge because of experience, and Clowney with the obvious physical edge.

    By year two, I expect Clowney to decisively separate himself from Long, once he actually learns some of the nuances of the game and some of the players he'll be going up against. All while making less than half of what Long makes.

    Why would I be concerned with his second deal right now? That doesn't seem practical to me at this point. Like they say, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Who is they? They is them, who say that.

  6. #66
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline 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
    No the thing that confuses me and some others is you state Clowney would be an upgrade over Long and we should do it. But you don't feel we should upgrade over Barksdale because he was adequate.

    Also the dead money for next year if we cut Chris Long is $18 million. After 2014 his dead money for the next two years totals $4.5 million. His salary cap hit for 2015 is $11.5 million with a roster bonus and a 2016 roster bonus makes it $11.25 million. The reason he has such a huge cap this year is he restructured twice to free up cap space and made some of his pro-rated bonus payable immediately and it became tied to his cap hit for 2014.
    Don't be confused Mikey. I believe if it were possible, we should look to upgrade everybody in general, though sometimes it's not practical to do so, with the cap and such.

    But one reason why I would look at Clowney/Long first is because I value the position of DE more than RT. The second reason is I think Barksdale aquitted himself fine last year, so I'm intrigued to see if he can build on that, particularly since he's cheap right now.

  7. #67
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,699
    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
    Perhaps a slight change in playcalling might help. Maybe a playaction fake once in a while. All I know is, if the defense knows what's coming, 8 out 10 times they're going to stop you, and it doesn't matter who you have on your line.
    I completely disagree. When it's 3rd and 1, 8 out of 10 times an offense is going to run the ball, and yes, the opposing defense knows that, and will scheme for it. It's those times when you need an offensive line that can get push, give the offense a chance, and win the battle. What's the saying? "If you can't get a yard running the ball, you don't deserve to win". I believe Fisher has said as much on more than a few occasions.

    As you have noted several times, opinions vary, and IMO, the Rams need to improve the OL with a pro-ready, top rated offensive lineman taken at #2. Dead last in the NFL at converting 3rd and 1 isn't going to cut it.

  8. #68
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline 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 completely disagree. When it's 3rd and 1, 8 out of 10 times an offense is going to run the ball, and yes, the opposing defense knows that, and will scheme for it. It's those times when you need an offensive line that can get push, give the offense a chance, and win the battle. What's the saying? "If you can't get a yard running the ball, you don't deserve to win". I believe Fisher has said as much on more than a few occasions.

    As you have noted several times, opinions vary, and IMO, the Rams need to improve the OL with a pro-ready, top rated offensive lineman taken at #2. Dead last in the NFL at converting 3rd and 1 isn't going to cut it.
    Come on Mike, not completely?

    You don't think an ossaissional playaction fake will hit the defense for a big play? Sure it will.

    But I certainly understand where you're coming from with our 3rd and short conversion %. It's very frustrating not being able to get a yard in those instances.

    I still disagree however, that we have to have an Olineman at 2, to fix that deficiency. I believe cohesion and continuity plays an even bigger part in that. Guys playing together for a period of time makes everybody better. That's why the GSOT only needed one 1st rounder on the line to become IMO, the greatest offense the NFL has ever seen.

  9. #69
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,699
    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
    Come on Mike, not completely?

    You don't think an ossaissional playaction fake will hit the defense for a big play? Sure it will.

    But I certainly understand where you're coming from with our 3rd and short conversion %. It's very frustrating not being able to get a yard in those instances.

    I still disagree however, that we have to have an Olineman at 2, to fix that deficiency. I believe cohesion and continuity plays an even bigger part in that. Guys playing together for a period of time makes everybody better. That's why the GSOT only needed one 1st rounder on the line to become IMO, the greatest offense the NFL has ever seen.
    I agree that cohesion and continuity are important, but you still have to have talent. IMO, the offensive line is the most critical aspect of an offense, and the Rams OL has been inconsistent, injury prone, and I don't have a lot of confidence in Long, Wells, Dahl, and Saffold all staying healthy. I'm also not sure Barksdale is a solid NFL starter. We not only need improvement, but the stability a young, talented offensive lineman can provide. Because I see the OL as such a critical element of the team, and an element that needs to be upgraded, I want the best possible prospect we can get. That's just the way I see it.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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
  •