Jake Locker or Ryan Mallett in 2011

[HUbison]

Something is wrong with the poll. The only choices are Locker or Mallett, but with all the conversation there must be a "Suh" choice on there somewhere.


To answer the question, right now, I'd have to flip a coin. Mallett is strictly a pocket passer, but I thinker he's a better pocket passer. Locker is all-around better, but I'm not sure he has the ceiling as high as Mallett's.

I don't know, I could go either way........but I would bet (right now) they're the first two off the board next year.

[sdobbers]

Not entirely. In two separate replies today (1, 2), you seemed to take issue with posts that only went so far as to say that Suh would be a starter this season. You then continued to speak against hyperbole that wasn't present in either of the posts you quoted.

Yeah I did target posts that said Suh would be an immediate starter, because like I said...we don't know for sure whether he will or not (just like we don't know if Clausen/Bradford would be). I am just trying to make people see that he still has to earn the spot, and that just because he was dominant in college doesn't mean he'll be as dominant in the NFL. It seems people get offended when I suggest that we should wait until we can see what Suh can do against NFL lineman before immediately calling him a starter and saying we're going to build our franchise around him.

Do I think we should immediately build our franchise around Clausen/Bradord? No, they need to prove themselves too. I am just saying that IF Devaney/Spags see someone in the draft that they believe is a franchise QB, in my opinion, the franchise QB should be drafted before a DT.

You're right in that you're not running around saying Clausen or Bradford are unbustable, but you're not exactly making it a point to say they're just as risky either. When you make statements like, "Not taking a franchise QB just does not seem like a smart idea," the clear implication you're making is that there's a franchise QB to be had. Just like with Suh, we don't know for sure how any of these guys will translate. If it's premature to even call Suh a starter in the NFL, how is not also premature to call either Clausen or Bradford franchise quarterbacks?

Actually I believe I said this...

There's a risk in taking a QB #1 overall, and there's a risk of taking a DT #1 overall. Both have a good chance of being busts.

It is premature to call Clausen/Bradford franchise QB's. However, if Devaney/Spags think that one of them rate out as OUR franchise QB, I believe we should take him. If neither does, then we take Suh, easy as that. Do I think Clausen/Bradford will start this year? No, I hope they are mentored first and eased into the starting lineup.

[Nick]

Yeah I did target posts that said Suh would be an immediate starter, because like I said...we don't know for sure whether he will or not (just like we don't know if Clausen/Bradford would be). I am just trying to make people see that he still has to earn the spot, and that just because he was dominant in college doesn't mean he'll be as dominant in the NFL. It seems people get offended when I suggest that we should wait until we can see what Suh can do against NFL lineman before immediately calling him a starter and saying we're going to build our franchise around him.

I don't think anyone is of the mindset that Suh isn't going to have to earn his spot. Rather, I simply think that, because of Suh's natural ability and skills, the fact that he'd be drafted so high, and our own personnel at DT, people expect him to be a starter on this DL. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.

Actually I believe I said this...

You did, after I specifically brought up it up in this thread. But in previous responses before my post in this thread, while you may have felt that none of these guys were guaranteed anything, it was an argument you seemed to only be making in discussions about Suh.

All I'm saying is I just don't see a reason to hold it against Suh or bring it up regarding him specifically when it applies to anyone the Rams would pick. Since we've gotten off topic, I'll leave it there.

[fliptalianstallion]

I want Jake Locker because of him upsetting USC, pretty weak and ignorant reason though but I really don't know much about the guy except he's projected to be a right-handed Steve Young kind of person. I'll pay more attention to what he can do senior year.

[Blankman17]

As far as the face of a franchise, how's this:

When I say "Pittsburgh Steelers", who's the first current player you think of?

Also: I believe Clausen will be at the combine. Well, Suh will be there as well. Let's see how they stack up at their respective positions and perhaps that will give us even more to discuss.

[PeoriaRam]

As far as the face of a franchise, how's this:

When I say "Pittsburgh Steelers", who's the first current player you think of?

Also: I believe Clausen will be at the combine. Well, Suh will be there as well. Let's see how they stack up at their respective positions and perhaps that will give us even more to discuss.

Troy Polumalu

[Blankman17]

Troy Polumalu

We have a winner.

[Shan the Ram Man]

Back to the Question!

I picked Locker! I think if he came out this year he would be the #1 pick in the draft.

I hope they draft a late round QB but not with the #1 pick this year.

Next year the Rams will pick Mallott or Locker. Not all Franchise QB's are drafted in the first round! ! ! !

[jerseyramsfan]

Back to the Question!

I picked Locker! I think if he came out this year he would be the #1 pick in the draft.

You know what the scary part is about this. Last year at this time alot of us were saying that Bradford was the #1 guy coming into 2010. Things change so fast....

[HUbison]

You know what the scary part is about this. Last year at this time alot of us were saying that Bradford was the #1 guy coming into 2010. Things change so fast....

Even worse..........Snead was a sure thing top 5 selection.

[sosa39rams]

I love locker, hes reallllly good. But i would hate to see us have another horrible season to get a good pick