Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45
  1. #31
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    I got a question for you guys.

    Do you think our Defense is completely horrible?

    Honestly when i watched them last year i saw some good stops. ANd they kept us in games and we have a tough red zone Defense.

    I think the problem was our offense consistantly getting 3 and outs or getting 1 st down then out. Our D was gassed.

    We need a QB that can get us down the field.

    Also the only reason Bulger is on our roster is so other GMs dont think Bradford is a lock

    But there is no way we pay over 8mil to Bulger in a year without a cap.
    Our defense is mediocre-to-bad in terms of overall talent and really short of depth. It's especially vulnerable to getting eviscerated up the middle by the run, and is horrible at generating a working and consistent pass rush. It is not functional enough, as presently made up, to be relied upon while we try frantically to bring in the offense.

    ---------------------------------------------

    I've never been sold on Bradford. I thought Bradford screamed bust last year, and obviously this year he has done nothing to disabuse me of that notion. I honestly feel he is Jason White with good publicity. That is why I am opposed to taking him. I don't think he is a franchise QB, nor do I think there is an immediate franchise QB available in the draft.


  2. #32
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by 39thebeast View Post
    Bottom line we are drafting for what could happen in 2010 not 2011. We can't pass on a guy just because we want another guy next year. You never know what could happen maybe we have double digit losses, but another team is worse and takes Locker.
    Or Locker could get hurt/do something bad and dip in the first round, which seems to be the typical. I think Peyton Manning's the last player who was the near-consensus #1 overall as a Junior, went back to school, and still was drafted #1 after his Senior season.

    That said, what you said is probable.

    For what it's worth, I'm a huge fan of drafting a "grooming" QB in the 2nd or 3rd this year. (LeFervour? He looks pretty promising).

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    idk about Scott i think he is more of a rotational DT. It would work if AC can stay healthy. But i agree with you on Ryan.

    Also look at the depth we have at DT

    Ryan
    Carriker
    Scott
    Ramsey

    That is alot of starting experience
    Kyle Boller has a lot of starting experience. Kyle Boller also sucks. Starting experience only goes so far to mask a lack of talent in the NFL. Ryan's the only guy we have on roster who would have a decent chance of starting at DT anywhere else in the league.

  3. #33
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by 39thebeast View Post
    I agree with you Nick and you make some good points. Different teams have handled their rookie franchise QBs in different ways. You have the Ravens and the Jets who had a strong run game and good defense and didn't necessarily have the greatest weapons on the outside. Then you have the Falcons who had a decent defense, but a great defensive coach at the helm. They focused on building a good line and they also brought in a great RB and they already had Rody white as a number 1 wideout. Devaney came from that orginization I think he is trying to do something similar. He really likes the offensive line he has built Steven Jackson is a top 3 back in this league. The complementary weapons seem to be in place, but we definately could use some elite playmakers on the outside and maybe you could get that at the top of round 2. Spags had 2 elite players on that superbowl D IMO Osi and Justin Tuck. When he left Giants went downhill I don't think they were able to regain the affect he had on the defense. I think he and his defensive staff did a great job with what they had even though it didn't show up on the stat sheet. I think Spags and Devaney have made huge strides in setting up an environment where a young QB can succeed and they will continue to do so.
    A couple of things to consider regarding the Ravens, Jets, and Falcons.

    Consider these numbers: 607, 592, and 560. Those are the rushing attempts for the Jets (607 in 2009), Ravens (592), and Falcons (560) during the seasons in which they started their rookie QB. The closest the Rams have come to those figures in the last decade was in the '99 Super Bowl season, with 431 attempts.

    The Rams have not been capable of providing the kind of rushing attack that other teams have used to help protect a rookie QB. Not only do they not have the depth at running back to run that much, but they haven't been able to field a consistent enough offensive line to be effective at it, nor do they have a defense capable enough of keeping them in games so that they can continue to pound the ball.

    Also consider the records of these three teams in the four years prior to their drafting their quarterback: Ravens (33-31; .515 win %), Falcons (30-34; .468 win %), and Jets (27-37; .421 win %). Now consider that over the last four years, the Rams are 14-50, a win % of .218.

    When you look at the Falcons, Ravens, and Jets leading up to their selection of first round quarterbacks, these aren't teams who struggled year after year before taking their franchise QB. They were kind of up and down, a winning record one year and a losing one the next. When you consider this in combination with the players already on these teams that helped those young QBs make an immediate impact, it's clear that these weren't teams that were devoid of talent or ones that had to be blown up and then rebuilt over a few seasons.

    But the Rams, IMO, fit more in that latter description. The Rams have steadily been on the decline since 2001, with a brief spike back into contention in 2004. Since then, though, it's bee a downward slope. There simply is not a lot of talent on this team, partially because of poor drafts, partially because of poor free agent decisions, and partially because the Rams cut ties with players that may have been able to help them now in favor of players they feel can help them in the future.

    I just don't see the Rams, coming off of a 1-15 season, as being the kind of environment where a young quarterback can come in as a rookie and succeed. They certainly don't have the pieces that other recent teams have had in order to help their rookie QBs. Will they after this offseason? Wow, it's hard to say. A watered-down free agency certainly doesn't help.

    It's not that I'm suggesting you don't take a quarterback because he won't be able to be successful in Year One. But I think if you draft a guy first overall, he's going to see the field sooner rather than later. That's why I think you've got to have some pieces in place. And right now, unless the stars align to help the Rams get some good free agents in a watered down signing period and some immediate contributors in this draft class, I'm just not optimistic that the Rams have that right now.

    To me, if the Rams draft a QB, I think they'll enter the 2011 offseason in a position that's more similar to the current Lions than the current Jets or the '09 Ravens or Falcons. And by that I mean, hopefully having seen some signs that the guy they drafted can be a winner down the road, but still a number of pieces away from actually having that kind of team.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #34
    SJacks039's Avatar
    SJacks039 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ILLinios
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    The reason i would rather wait for locker is because i don't think bradford is good enough in my eyes for a first round pick. Clausen is the only qb coming out his year i deem worthy of a first round draft choice IMO. He's shown more toughness, more instinct by reading defenses from the line and he's shown anticipation.

    I said i could respect bradford as our number 1 pick. I contract that statement completly because it doesn't go with anything else i'm saying. I could respect clausen as our first pick, but suh or mccoy are better for our situation. A QB cannot come in and have very much success yet, especially a rookie. A veteran qb is necessary for us to become a better team this year and a 3rd or 4th rounder(qb) from this year to start grooming or wait untill next year's draft for our future(Locker).

  5. #35
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,371
    Rep Power
    72

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    If a QB in this draft is viewed as franchise-caliber by DeSpags, I want him now. We have spent how many picks & how much FA money upgrading the offense over the last few seasons with little to show for it,win-wise? Bell, Brown, Bajema, Robinson, Karney, Amendola,Gibson, Burton, Avery, Jason Smith , Greco. Not to mention the need to get the best out of SJ in his prime.

    If the above group had stayed healthy, along with Bulger, I think they were a decently talented offensive core. I really don't agree that this new QB has to singlehandedly carry a hapless offensive unit on his shoulders. If they get decimated by multiple injuries again, of course, he's in trouble & probably in for a beating but so is this stud-DT-led defense if only Long or Laurinaitis goes down,imo.

    I really doubt a turnaround will be sparked by a DT unless The Rams put almost every resource they have into the group around him. Starting LBs, DEs, CBs, the other DTs,and even safety need to be either upgraded or coached into a significantly more productive group before you have anything like the unit that Sapp, for eg, had built around him.Better health will help but nearly enough,imo.

    Being patient is one thing but being overly conservative can be just as dodgy as taking a risk with a QB.Personally, I'd rather watch The Rams win 4-6 games & lose another handful in nailbiting shootouts next year than grind out 6-8 baseball score victories. We are a long way from competing with the NFL elite on either side of the ball to go far in the playoffs either way. Let's have some fun with the toys we already have, for cryin' out loud, and buy DeSpags some goodwill/time from the fans & new owner to continue the rebuild overall.
    Last edited by Azul e Oro; -02-27-2010 at 06:56 AM.

  6. #36
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    A couple of things to consider regarding the Ravens, Jets, and Falcons.

    Consider these numbers: 607, 592, and 560. Those are the rushing attempts for the Jets (607 in 2009), Ravens (592), and Falcons (560) during the seasons in which they started their rookie QB. The closest the Rams have come to those figures in the last decade was in the '99 Super Bowl season, with 431 attempts.

    The Rams have not been capable of providing the kind of rushing attack that other teams have used to help protect a rookie QB. Not only do they not have the depth at running back to run that much, but they haven't been able to field a consistent enough offensive line to be effective at it, nor do they have a defense capable enough of keeping them in games so that they can continue to pound the ball.

    Also consider the records of these three teams in the four years prior to their drafting their quarterback: Ravens (33-31; .515 win %), Falcons (30-34; .468 win %), and Jets (27-37; .421 win %). Now consider that over the last four years, the Rams are 14-50, a win % of .218.

    When you look at the Falcons, Ravens, and Jets leading up to their selection of first round quarterbacks, these aren't teams who struggled year after year before taking their franchise QB. They were kind of up and down, a winning record one year and a losing one the next. When you consider this in combination with the players already on these teams that helped those young QBs make an immediate impact, it's clear that these weren't teams that were devoid of talent or ones that had to be blown up and then rebuilt over a few seasons.

    But the Rams, IMO, fit more in that latter description. The Rams have steadily been on the decline since 2001, with a brief spike back into contention in 2004. Since then, though, it's bee a downward slope. There simply is not a lot of talent on this team, partially because of poor drafts, partially because of poor free agent decisions, and partially because the Rams cut ties with players that may have been able to help them now in favor of players they feel can help them in the future.

    I just don't see the Rams, coming off of a 1-15 season, as being the kind of environment where a young quarterback can come in as a rookie and succeed. They certainly don't have the pieces that other recent teams have had in order to help their rookie QBs. Will they after this offseason? Wow, it's hard to say. A watered-down free agency certainly doesn't help.

    It's not that I'm suggesting you don't take a quarterback because he won't be able to be successful in Year One. But I think if you draft a guy first overall, he's going to see the field sooner rather than later. That's why I think you've got to have some pieces in place. And right now, unless the stars align to help the Rams get some good free agents in a watered down signing period and some immediate contributors in this draft class, I'm just not optimistic that the Rams have that right now.

    To me, if the Rams draft a QB, I think they'll enter the 2011 offseason in a position that's more similar to the current Lions than the current Jets or the '09 Ravens or Falcons. And by that I mean, hopefully having seen some signs that the guy they drafted can be a winner down the road, but still a number of pieces away from actually having that kind of team.
    My question to you nick is did we have the chance to run that many times?

    For the last few years Bulger and the other scrub QB taking snaps were just not able to produce many 1st downs.

    Also if we can find a change of pace back maybe in FA like a B-west or LT or a compliment back like Chester taylor or even get a 2nd or 3rd round running back we can run as many times as those teams stated earlier. look for Javid Best in the 2nd or Joe Mcnight in the 3rd.

    Also we spent a 2nd pick on Jason Smith an OT. We spent a high draft pick for him to protect a good QB. Right now he is stuck protecting Bulger who cannot convert a 3rd down.

  7. #37
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,460
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Exactly, and the reason why I would take Suh over Bradford anyday is because Suh is the safest pick in this draft. Bradfords shoulder might be a problem, and he isn't a sure fire franchise QB. If we draft Bradford and he fails, in 2 years people will be criticizing us for passing up on Suh( which would be a huge mistake).

    My opinion: take Suh.

  8. #38
    Bralidore(RAMMODE)'s Avatar
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    I wouldn't mind either Suh or Bradford. Obviosuly i have concerns over Bradfords shoulder, but you guys dont think Despags does as well? Their scouting department is much better than us average joes at evaluating talent i think its safe to say.

    What about Bradford doesn't warrant the tag franchise guy? He can thread the needle with the ball, decent arm that can throw some intermediate routes with velocity, "one of the guys" type of guy who can lead, intelligent, film room rat, and has experience taking balls from under center, im bewildered at the lack of sense that statement makes.

    Ive heard that guys come back from torn shoulders with stronger shoulders then they had before. Bradford has even said his shoulder feels stronger, although he could be lying i suppose. Hes a solid 236 and that is a testament to his work ethic as its not easy to add 12 pounds of solid muscle to your frame.

    When healthy, our offensive line is average and was ranked around 15th before our guys went down like flies. With us possibly keeping Bulger or the emergence of a Keith Null in training camp to win the starting job, Bradford isn't thrown to the flames haplessly. I predict we're going to run the ball the majority of the time to keep pressure off the Qb and use a dual or a trio of backs so guys dont get worn down.

    Despags possibly needs to take a risk this year and go all in and draft the QB, especially with such a deep draft for DTs this year. Their jobs are probably on the line this year, fair or not, because a lot of people dont understand rebuilding, and you have to win soem games.
    Last edited by Bralidore(RAMMODE); -02-27-2010 at 12:30 PM.

  9. #39
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    I wouldn't mind either Suh or Bradford. Obviosuly i have concerns over Bradfords shoulder, but you guys dont think Despags does as well? Their scouting department is much better than us average joes at evaluating talent i think its safe to say.

    What about Bradford doesn't warrant the tag franchise guy? He can thread the needle with the ball, decent arm that can throw some intermediate routes with velocity, "one of the guys" type of guy who can lead, intelligent, film room rat, and has experience taking balls from under center, im bewildered at the lack of sense that statement makes.
    Bradford is the product of an offensive system that 1) Does not transition well to the Pros, and 2) was able to produce gaudy numbers primarily because Nebraska is the only team in the Big XII that makes a habit of playing defense. Those are notable negatives and need to be considered in addition to his health problems and perceived fragility.

    When healthy, our offensive line is average and was ranked around 15th before our guys went down like flies. With us possibly keeping Bulger or the emergence of a Keith Null in training camp to win the starting job, Bradford isn't thrown to the flames haplessly. I predict we're going to run the ball the majority of the time to keep pressure off the Qb and use a dual or a trio of backs so guys dont get worn down.
    We draft Bradford, he's going in as the starter from Day 1. The rabble will not allow Bulger and his contract to remain in St. Louis, and there is no way we will let Keith Null beat out Bradford's money contract for the starting position. Additionally, our "average" line has major questions, and we lack the running backs to run a multi-back system. Also our receivers still need to learn how to catch the ball.

    Despags possibly needs to take a risk this year and go all in and draft the QB, especially with such a deep draft for DTs this year. Their jobs are probably on the line this year, fair or not, because a lot of people dont understand rebuilding, and you have to win soem games.
    Let's suppose for a second that Suh racks up all these Rookie accolades, while we win "some" games (some being 3 or 4). You don't think folks are going to want to see heads roll over that? Going into "win now" mode with a horrible, rebuilding team is a fool's gamble, and we should no better, because that's what this franchise did in 2008-and that completely set this organization back at least 2 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azul e Oro View Post

    I really doubt a turnaround will be sparked by a DT unless The Rams put almost every resource they have into the group around him. Starting LBs, DEs, CBs, the other DTs,and even safety need to be either upgraded or coached into a significantly more productive group before you have anything like the unit that Sapp, for eg, had built around him.Better health will help but nearly enough,imo.
    Our defense's biggest problems (outside of depth) can be corrected with the addition of a stud DT. A stud DT allows us to crack down on the run. It allows us to (finally) generate a working, consistent pass rush. As a side effect the pass rush helps the secondary by reducing the time QBs have to pick us apart, and helps the linebackers by limiting the number of times plays need to be made by that unit.

    Being patient is one thing but being overly conservative can be just as dodgy as taking a risk with a QB.Personally, I'd rather watch The Rams win 4-6 games & lose another handful in nailbiting shootouts next year than grind out 6-8 baseball score victories. We are a long way from competing with the NFL elite on either side of the ball to go far in the playoffs either way. Let's have some fun with the toys we already have, for cryin' out loud, and buy DeSpags some goodwill/time from the fans & new owner to continue the rebuild overall.
    Our defense is our best toy right now. Additionally, after a decade of Rams QBs being pummeled by the other 31 teams, I want to mount some opposing QB heads on pikes in retaliation. Wouldn't turning the tables on them be very fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    My question to you nick is did we have the chance to run that many times?
    Not really, because we didn't get much on 1st down when we ran, or Barron/idiot lineman du jour took a stupid penalty, and forced us into a passing situation.

    For the last few years Bulger and the other scrub QB taking snaps were just not able to produce many 1st downs.
    This tends to happen when your line is horrible, and your "weapons" are decaying.


    Also we spent a 2nd pick on Jason Smith an OT. We spent a high draft pick for him to protect a good QB. Right now he is stuck protecting Bulger who cannot convert a 3rd down.
    So now it's Bulger's fault we call short patterns on 3rd and medium or worse. Right.

  10. #40
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,371
    Rep Power
    72

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    Bradford is the product of an offensive system that 1) Does not transition well to the Pros, and 2) was able to produce gaudy numbers primarily because Nebraska is the only team in the Big XII that makes a habit of playing defense. Those are notable negatives and need to be considered in addition to his health problems and perceived fragility.



    We draft Bradford, he's going in as the starter from Day 1. The rabble will not allow Bulger and his contract to remain in St. Louis, and there is no way we will let Keith Null beat out Bradford's money contract for the starting position. Additionally, our "average" line has major questions, and we lack the running backs to run a multi-back system. Also our receivers still need to learn how to catch the ball.



    Let's suppose for a second that Suh racks up all these Rookie accolades, while we win "some" games (some being 3 or 4). You don't think folks are going to want to see heads roll over that? Going into "win now" mode with a horrible, rebuilding team is a fool's gamble, and we should no better, because that's what this franchise did in 2008-and that completely set this organization back at least 2 years.



    Our defense's biggest problems (outside of depth) can be corrected with the addition of a stud DT. A stud DT allows us to crack down on the run. It allows us to (finally) generate a working, consistent pass rush. As a side effect the pass rush helps the secondary by reducing the time QBs have to pick us apart, and helps the linebackers by limiting the number of times plays need to be made by that unit.



    Our defense is our best toy right now. Additionally, after a decade of Rams QBs being pummeled by the other 31 teams, I want to mount some opposing QB heads on pikes in retaliation. Wouldn't turning the tables on them be very fun?



    Not really, because we didn't get much on 1st down when we ran, or Barron/idiot lineman du jour took a stupid penalty, and forced us into a passing situation.



    This tends to happen when your line is horrible, and your "weapons" are decaying.




    So now it's Bulger's fault we call short patterns on 3rd and medium or worse. Right.
    With all due respect, Peoria,those are some pretty definitive statements about things that are pretty complex and subjective,imo.

    As I understand it, the conventional caveat about judging a college player's potential impact in the NFL from his college team's system/success or his own personal success is one worth heeding. I'll leave it to the pros to decide who has the upside. I don't have the information or knowledge. It could well be that Suh dominated in large part because he was just physically superior to his opponents in most cases. Ditto for Bradford being a star because of the cast around him/the system. I just don't know.

    Personally, I doubt The Rams wouldn't make either a QB or DT earn his starter spot. They didn't hand it to either Long or Smith & the team desperately needed them to have an impact ASAP in the same way.I think most sensible fans see a vet QB back-up who could start the first few games at least if needed as a necessity, anyway. I know I do. What evidence do you have that "the rabble" influence who stays/starts for Spags?

    Yes, the OL has issues but I think last year they were more injury-related than a lack of viable talent. Right now, the only "hole' I see is at RG if all those starters stay healthy.An upgrade over Barron is certainly desirable but shouldn't you be howling for Okung,not Suh in that case?

    Yes, we need back-up RBs but that is fixable relatively easily,imo. I disagree that the WRs need to learn how to catch the ball in general. Both Robinson and Gibson have excellent hands. Avery & Burton have had more problems with routes & staying healthy than stone hands,imo.

    I think you are grossly over-estimating the impact that Suh will have on the win/loss column. Sapp didn't raise his unit to dominance singlehandedly & they didn't start winning consistently until they had a very good rush attack. Imo, The Rams lost at least 3-4 games last year,imo, because they couldn't score points even when the D was playing pretty well. Remember the game where the D held them to FGs in the RZ several times after turnovers? The Skins game,no?

    Not sure what you are alluding to in comparing the decisions made in '08. As I said in my post, IF Bradford or whoever is, in DeSpags estimation, a good bet for a franchise QB, I don't see how taking him is a fool's errand or shortsighted. We are not talking about buying a guy with multiple future picks or mortgaging the financial future any more than with any other single player at the #1 spot. It is a key investment in the team's future for the longterm. Either way, you are going to take some lumps 7 have to fix other things simultaneously. I just think the O has now taken a lot of those lumps & the jump in productivity with a QB could help protect the ongoing defensive rebuild which,imo, is quite a bit further behind.

    I totally disagree that a DT is the biggest missing piece on the defense. You could throw a dart at the defensive depth chart schematic & hit one just as big,imo. If you think even Lau or Long would have been Pro Bowlers on their individual performances last year if they'd just had a rookie DT in front of/beside them..well...I don't know what to say.

    The Rams running game is their best toy by far,imo. I'm flummoxed to hear you say otherwise.And I'd rather see SJ or Avery doing their dance moves in the endzone than a Ram DLer flexing over a prostrate opposing QB. You don't get points for sacks & I don't believe, based on the past history of other DTs who became dominant in the end, that Suh will generate that many sacks in his first few years,anyway. Nor are the others around him good enough to take advantage of the boost he will bring from the start. Of course, it would freakin' help. That's a given.

    Bottom line, I believe a franchise QB will help this specific group of players more quickly than a franchise DT.

    The question remains whether such a QB is available or even whether Suh is that DT.

  11. #41
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by Azul e Oro View Post
    If a QB in this draft is viewed as franchise-caliber by DeSpags, I want him now. We have spent how many picks & how much FA money upgrading the offense over the last few seasons with little to show for it,win-wise? Bell, Brown, Bajema, Robinson, Karney, Amendola,Gibson, Burton, Avery, Jason Smith , Greco. Not to mention the need to get the best out of SJ in his prime.
    But we've spent money and picks on the defense as well: Long, Carriker, Witherspoon, Bartell, Atogwe, Butler, Laurinaitis, Little, Ryan, Wade. We've spent money everywhere, so I'm not sure how that should affect our decision-making one way or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    My question to you nick is did we have the chance to run that many times?

    For the last few years Bulger and the other scrub QB taking snaps were just not able to produce many 1st downs.

    Also if we can find a change of pace back maybe in FA like a B-west or LT or a compliment back like Chester taylor or even get a 2nd or 3rd round running back we can run as many times as those teams stated earlier. look for Javid Best in the 2nd or Joe Mcnight in the 3rd.

    Also we spent a 2nd pick on Jason Smith an OT. We spent a high draft pick for him to protect a good QB. Right now he is stuck protecting Bulger who cannot convert a 3rd down.
    Well first, Bulger's first down % wasn't great by any means, but there were ten other starting quarterbacks who did worse. But converting first downs isn't just the job of one guy. It requires protection, an accurate and correct decision when passing, and a successful catch (and possibly run afterwards) down field. It's not a stat that you can logically pin on just one person, but like wins and losses, for some reason people think that the quarterback is the guy you hold responsible for it.

    As for whether we had the chance to run that much, we didn't for many reasons. Primarily because we don't have the talent on this team to be able to actually commit to the run. The Rams ran the ball 41.2% of the time last year. To compare, the Jets with their rookie QB and good defense ran it 58.9%.

    Simply put, we don't have the depth at running back to run 550-600 times a season. Hopefully we'll add that this offseason, but it's going to depend on who we acquire. But it's not just at running back, because this team needs talent all over the offense, especially if they want to sustain drives as you mentioned earlier. We don't have the consistency on the offensive line to get it done, and since we're likely going to enter 2010 with three new starters than we had in 2009, it's tough to say how well our line will perform next season.

    And finally, we don't have a defense that's going to keep the game close enough to where we can continue pounding the rock. This isn't as crucial to the equation as the first two items (for instance, the Titans ran the ball 50.4% of the time with a defense that allowed two points fewer on average than the Rams), but it certainly helps because some coaches have a tendency to abandon the run when teams get behind. Being able to keep the score close with at least solid to good defensive play is going to allow the Rams more chances to continue running the football.

    This is why, if the Rams draft Bradford, I think his rookie season success resembles Matt Stafford more than it does Mark Sanchez, because Bradford would be entering a situation that IMO is a lot closer to the '09 Lions than it is the '09 Jets. I just don't see the Rams as a team that's going to be able to protect a rookie QB the way the Jets or Ravens did, with a top rushing attack and a top defense. If the Rams draft a QB, I just don't see them as having those kind of strong parts for him to lean on. Maybe the Rams have a great offseason and bring all those things together, but it seems unlikely they'll be able to shore up all of it. And for Bradford, who is going to have to adjust to a pro-style offense and deal with getting hit more frequently and harder than he's used to, it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out in a situation that probably won't be as ideal as what Sanchez or Flacco had.

    Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Only time will tell.
    Last edited by Nick; -02-27-2010 at 05:12 PM.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  12. #42
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by Azul e Oro View Post
    With all due respect, Peoria,those are some pretty definitive statements about things that are pretty complex and subjective,imo.

    As I understand it, the conventional caveat about judging a college player's potential impact in the NFL from his college team's system/success or his own personal success is one worth heeding. I'll leave it to the pros to decide who has the upside. I don't have the information or knowledge. It could well be that Suh dominated in large part because he was just physically superior to his opponents in most cases. Ditto for Bradford being a star because of the cast around him/the system. I just don't know.
    Bob Stoops Oklahoma system has been in place for more than a decade and has produced several highly productive quarterbacks, including one other Heisman Trophy winner. None of them had successful, or lengthy for that matter, NFL careers.

    Personally, I doubt The Rams wouldn't make either a QB or DT earn his starter spot. They didn't hand it to either Long or Smith & the team desperately needed them to have an impact ASAP in the same way.I think most sensible fans see a vet QB back-up who could start the first few games at least if needed as a necessity, anyway. I know I do. What evidence do you have that "the rabble" influence who stays/starts for Spags?
    We started Boller under the pointed duress of "Anybody but Bulger". I think its pretty clear the masses can exert some pressure. DeSpags position is rather precarious, and given St. Louis' noted intolerance for "unproductive" football players with big contracts, sitting Bradford would ignite a firestorm. I'd actually be willing to make a bet with you that barring a lengthy holdout, Bradford would be the Week 1 starter, but I'm not sure what I can feasibly wager.

    Yes, the OL has issues but I think last year they were more injury-related than a lack of viable talent. Right now, the only "hole' I see is at RG if all those starters stay healthy.An upgrade over Barron is certainly desirable but shouldn't you be howling for Okung,not Suh in that case?
    See the above. Consecutive offensive tackles in the 1st, no matter how needed, would never fly in this town. Brown's the only lineman on the Rams I have reasonable confidence in. Smith needs to demonstrate his head isn't made of glass, Bell is still unreliable because he was statistically the worst offensive lineman in the NFL in 2008, and as mentioned, we need a second guard.

    Yes, we need back-up RBs but that is fixable relatively easily,imo. I disagree that the WRs need to learn how to catch the ball in general. Both Robinson and Gibson have excellent hands. Avery & Burton have had more problems with routes & staying healthy than stone hands,imo.
    OK...Robinson is physically fragile and Gibson has dropped his fair share of passes too. He also needs to learn that it isn't pass interference when you drop a pass. I assume he's already hit "Boy who cried wolf" status with NFL refs.

    I think you are grossly over-estimating the impact that Suh will have on the win/loss column. Sapp didn't raise his unit to dominance singlehandedly & they didn't start winning consistently until they had a very good rush attack. Imo, The Rams lost at least 3-4 games last year,imo, because they couldn't score points even when the D was playing pretty well. Remember the game where the D held them to FGs in the RZ several times after turnovers? The Skins game,no?
    You mean the game that Avery single-handedly lost? Yeah, a new quarterback is going to make Avery hold onto the ball. We could also say the Washington game is evidence that Jason Campbell is horrible and stave off the "acquire Campbell" talk still percolating here and there. Conversely, if we get Suh or McCoy, our secondary will improve immensely because that is an instant pass rush, which limits the amount of time opposing receivers have to get open. They are also good enough to severely impair the run. We may not yet be able to effectively cut off the edge, but those plays take longer to develop.

    Not sure what you are alluding to in comparing the decisions made in '08. As I said in my post, IF Bradford or whoever is, in DeSpags estimation, a good bet for a franchise QB, I don't see how taking him is a fool's errand or shortsighted. We are not talking about buying a guy with multiple future picks or mortgaging the financial future any more than with any other single player at the #1 spot. It is a key investment in the team's future for the longterm. Either way, you are going to take some lumps 7 have to fix other things simultaneously. I just think the O has now taken a lot of those lumps & the jump in productivity with a QB could help protect the ongoing defensive rebuild which,imo, is quite a bit further behind.
    Going QB now, especially with better QBs available next year, is definitely a move in the "win now" department. Unless Peyton Manning reincarnated is sitting around, the QB position is one of the last a rebuilding team should fill if they want to do a proper job of it.

    The defense is far ahead of the offense. Bulger might be good if he wasn't surround with crap, Jackson is elite, Brown is good, Smith might be good, and the rest of the offense wouldn't start anywhere else in the league. (OK, Barron might, but only in a place that thought he needed a second chance and has the guns to overcome stupid false starts) The defense rebuild appears to be behind because we only have one serviceable DT, and that position is the very foundation of the defense.

    I totally disagree that a DT is the biggest missing piece on the defense. You could throw a dart at the defensive depth chart schematic & hit one just as big,imo. If you think even Lau or Long would have been Pro Bowlers on their individual performances last year if they'd just had a rookie DT in front of/beside them..well...I don't know what to say.
    That rookie DT is much better than what we have now, so yes.

    The Rams running game is their best toy by far,imo. I'm flummoxed to hear you say otherwise.And I'd rather see SJ or Avery doing their dance moves in the endzone than a Ram DLer flexing over a prostrate opposing QB. You don't get points for sacks & I don't believe, based on the past history of other DTs who became dominant in the end, that Suh will generate that many sacks in his first few years,anyway. Nor are the others around him good enough to take advantage of the boost he will bring from the start. Of course, it would freakin' help. That's a given.
    Well, the prostrate opposing QB isn't scoring points, so that also helps greatly. However-Suh will command double teams. That will free up Long, who used to be the guy drawing double teams. Long will then proceed to do immense damage when confronted with only one blocker.

    Bottom line, I believe a franchise QB will help this specific group of players more quickly than a franchise DT.

    The question remains whether such a QB is available or even whether Suh is that DT.
    It's far more likely, IMO, that Suh is that DT than Bradford is that QB.

  13. #43
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,371
    Rep Power
    72

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    But we've spent money and picks on the defense as well: Long, Carriker, Witherspoon, Bartell, Atogwe, Butler, Laurinaitis, Little, Ryan, Wade. We've spent money everywhere, so I'm not sure how that should affect our decision-making one way or another.



    Well first, Bulger's first down % wasn't great by any means, but there were ten other starting quarterbacks who did worse. But converting first downs isn't just the job of one guy. It requires protection, an accurate and correct decision when passing, and a successful catch (and possibly run afterwards) down field. It's not a stat that you can logically pin on just one person, but like wins and losses, for some reason people think that the quarterback is the guy you hold responsible for it.

    As for whether we had the chance to run that much, we didn't for many reasons. Primarily because we don't have the talent on this team to be able to actually commit to the run. The Rams ran the ball 41.2% of the time last year. To compare, the Jets with their rookie QB and good defense ran it 58.9%.

    Simply put, we don't have the depth at running back to run 550-600 times a season. Hopefully we'll add that this offseason, but it's going to depend on who we acquire. But it's not just at running back, because this team needs talent all over the offense, especially if they want to sustain drives as you mentioned earlier. We don't have the consistency on the offensive line to get it done, and since we're likely going to enter 2010 with three new starters than we had in 2009, it's tough to say how well our line will perform next season.

    And finally, we don't have a defense that's going to keep the game close enough to where we can continue pounding the rock. This isn't as crucial to the equation as the first two items (for instance, the Titans ran the ball 50.4% of the time with a defense that allowed two points fewer on average than the Rams), but it certainly helps because some coaches have a tendency to abandon the run when teams get behind. Being able to keep the score close with at least solid to good defensive play is going to allow the Rams more chances to continue running the football.

    This is why, if the Rams draft Bradford, I think his rookie season success resembles Matt Stafford more than it does Mark Sanchez, because Bradford would be entering a situation that IMO is a lot closer to the '09 Lions than it is the '09 Jets. I just don't see the Rams as a team that's going to be able to protect a rookie QB the way the Jets or Ravens did, with a top rushing attack and a top defense. If the Rams draft a QB, I just don't see them as having those kind of strong parts for him to lean on. Maybe the Rams have a great offseason and bring all those things together, but it seems unlikely they'll be able to shore up all of it. And for Bradford, who is going to have to adjust to a pro-style offense and deal with getting hit more frequently and harder than he's used to, it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out in a situation that probably won't be as ideal as what Sanchez or Flacco had.

    Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Only time will tell.
    Of that list of D investments, I only see Long & Lau as part of the group I referred to on offense,most of whom were acquired in the last two years. When a team is as bad as The rams on both sides of the ball, it probably is foolish to talk of building to strengths but I still saw more potential out of those young offensive players. If you assume reasonable health, I think the biggest thing holding them back is now the QB.

    Am I reading you correctly? You think we'll have three new starters on the OL next season? I see a shuffle at OT,for sure, but the only mystery is RG & there's some hope for either Greco or Goldberg, no? Especially considering the injuries,lack of even an attempted back-up run attack, & utterly futile pass game, that group's 4.3 average per carry was pretty respectable. And since pass pro is a complex set of responsibilities that falls on many shoulders, I think health & continuity in personnel and system will help improve that as well. Add the right QB and....

  14. #44
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    2,371
    Rep Power
    72

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    Bob Stoops Oklahoma system has been in place for more than a decade and has produced several highly productive quarterbacks, including one other Heisman Trophy winner. None of them had successful, or lengthy for that matter, NFL careers.

    Isn't the very fact that Bradford is unique among Oklahoma QBs in the high estimation of NFL nabobs the thing I'm talking about ?


    We started Boller under the pointed duress of "Anybody but Bulger". I think its pretty clear the masses can exert some pressure. DeSpags position is rather precarious, and given St. Louis' noted intolerance for "unproductive" football players with big contracts, sitting Bradford would ignite a firestorm. I'd actually be willing to make a bet with you that barring a lengthy holdout, Bradford would be the Week 1 starter, but I'm not sure what I can feasibly wager.

    uh, I thought Boller started because Bulger broke his leg ? No idea who'll be on the team @ QB in Sept, much less willing to bet on who'll start.


    See the above. Consecutive offensive tackles in the 1st, no matter how needed, would never fly in this town. Brown's the only lineman on the Rams I have reasonable confidence in. Smith needs to demonstrate his head isn't made of glass, Bell is still unreliable because he was statistically the worst offensive lineman in the NFL in 2008, and as mentioned, we need a second guard.

    Again, I don't think the town gets a vote, never mind the rabble. The 4.3 per carry average of that OL was very respectable NFL-wide. It will be much the same OL except for RG ( even there both Greco & Goldberg can be expected to be adequate, I think),imo, except hopefully healthier & a switcheroo at OT. Look at the OL power stats on nfldotcom for the details but Bell 7 ,indeed, barron were the better runblocking side of that unit last year. Glass head? Give the kid & the Rams a break. I wish they'd sat SJ, too, after he hurt his back & the QB situation had become a painful joke.


    OK...Robinson is physically fragile and Gibson has dropped his fair share of passes too. He also needs to learn that it isn't pass interference when you drop a pass. I assume he's already hit "Boy who cried wolf" status with NFL refs.

    Injuries can derail the best talent, for sure, but I gotta go with Devaney on Laurent. i liked what I saw & think having your ankle rolled up on & broken is more freak than fragile. Gibson was a sixth round rookie mid season replacement who caught 34 passes in nine games. He was a an exciting find,imo. I don't condone call-begging but you're being exceedingly harsh to say that overshadowed his positive contributions,imo.



    You mean the game that Avery single-handedly lost? Yeah, a new quarterback is going to make Avery hold onto the ball. We could also say the Washington game is evidence that Jason Campbell is horrible and stave off the "acquire Campbell" talk still percolating here and there. Conversely, if we get Suh or McCoy, our secondary will improve immensely because that is an instant pass rush, which limits the amount of time opposing receivers have to get open. They are also good enough to severely impair the run. We may not yet be able to effectively cut off the edge, but those plays take longer to develop.

    I remember a lot of bad mistakes in that game. Avery's were certainly critical but hardly unique. SJ's fumble, dreadful DB play all day,etc. And all against the craptastic Campbell. i'm totally with you on him. Not a fan at all.

    Sorry, still not buying this magical instant impact of Suh either individually or as an overall influence. He will be a rookie & will struggle, particularly because there isn't a lot of talent around him.


    Going QB now, especially with better QBs available next year, is definitely a move in the "win now" department. Unless Peyton Manning reincarnated is sitting around, the QB position is one of the last a rebuilding team should fill if they want to do a proper job of it.

    Once again, what's wrong with winning now if it can be done? Do the Rams need to shut teams out & crush every opposing QB into submission for you to be happy? I agree the D, if healthy & bolstered otherwise could be good enough to keep the Rams in games like vs The Skins but that won't translate automatically into enough points for a victory without a passing game.and the weakest link in the pass game is QB,imo & also the most important position on the team

    The defense is far ahead of the offense. Bulger might be good if he wasn't surround with crap, Jackson is elite, Brown is good, Smith might be good, and the rest of the offense wouldn't start anywhere else in the league. (OK, Barron might, but only in a place that thought he needed a second chance and has the guns to overcome stupid false starts) The defense rebuild appears to be behind because we only have one serviceable DT, and that position is the very foundation of the defense.

    I totally disagree. This D was inadequate in every unit even before the injuries made it worse. I just don't see one rookie DT coming close to rectifying that. I still say bolstering the RB stable & finding a dynamic QB could do that for the offense. I also totally disagree that a DT is the foundation of a defense. Maybe a defensive end but not a DT.


    That rookie DT is much better than what we have now, so yes.

    sez you 7 many pundits but he hasn't played a down yet 7 isn't even the consensus best fit for The rams scheme. he's likely to be very good but it's a guess 7 , as i've said, unlikely to pay off as quickly as a franchise QB would in these specific circumstances. Both you and nick disagree with me on that but i don't see how anyone could deny that SJ is The Rams best player & even an incremental improvement in the pass game to let him do his thing could bring huge dividends with that in mind.


    Well, the prostrate opposing QB isn't scoring points, so that also helps greatly. However-Suh will command double teams. That will free up Long, who used to be the guy drawing double teams. Long will then proceed to do immense damage when confronted with only one blocker.

    I'm very much in favor of improving the pass rush. I just don't think drafting Suh is the only or even the best or fastest way to do it. Keeping the ball out of the hands of the opposing team & changing field position, if not scoring points, also helps keep pressure off the defense.Long was playing better with Scott & Ryan in the middle as well. I worry more about the OLBs and other DE position than DT.

    It's far more likely, IMO, that Suh is that DT than Bradford is that QB.
    Isn't the very fact that Bradford is unique among Oklahoma QBs in the high estimation of NFL nabobs the thing I'm talking about ?

    uh, I thought Boller started because Bulger broke his leg ? No idea who'll be on the team @ QB in Sept, much less willing to bet on who'll start.

    Again, I don't think the town gets a vote, never mind the rabble. The 4.3 per carry average of that OL was very respectable NFL-wide. It will be much the same OL except for RG ( even there both Greco & Goldberg can be expected to be adequate, I think),imo, except hopefully healthier & a switcheroo at OT. Look at the OL power stats on nfldotcom for the details but Bell 7 ,indeed, barron were the better runblocking side of that unit last year. Glass head? Give the kid & the Rams a break. I wish they'd sat SJ, too, after he hurt his back & the QB situation had become a painful joke.

    Injuries can derail the best talent, for sure, but I gotta go with Devaney on Laurent. i liked what I saw & think having your ankle rolled up on & broken is more freak than fragile. Gibson was a sixth round rookie mid season replacement who caught 34 passes in nine games. He was a an exciting find,imo. I don't condone call-begging but you're being exceedingly harsh to say that overshadowed his positive contributions,imo.

    I remember a lot of bad mistakes in that game. Avery's were certainly critical but hardly unique. SJ's fumble, dreadful DB play all day,etc. And all against the craptastic Campbell. i'm totally with you on him. Not a fan at all.

    Sorry, still not buying this magical instant impact of Suh either individually or as an overall influence. He will be a rookie & will struggle, particularly because there isn't a lot of talent around him.

    Once again, what's wrong with winning now if it can be done? Do the Rams need to shut teams out & crush every opposing QB into submission for you to be happy? I agree the D, if healthy & bolstered otherwise could be good enough to keep the Rams in games like vs The Skins but that won't translate automatically into enough points for a victory without a passing game.and the weakest link in the pass game is QB,imo & also the most important position on the team
    I totally disagree. This D was inadequate in every unit even before the injuries made it worse. I just don't see one rookie DT coming close to rectifying that. I still say bolstering the RB stable & finding a dynamic QB could do that for the offense. I also totally disagree that a DT is the foundation of a defense. Maybe a defensive end but not a DT.

    Sez you & many pundits but he hasn't played a down yet & isn't even the consensus best fit for The Rams scheme. he's likely to be very good but it's a guess 7 , as i've said, unlikely to pay off as quickly as a franchise QB would in these specific circumstances. Both you and nick disagree with me on that but i don't see how anyone could deny that SJ is The Rams best player & even an incremental improvement in the pass game to let him do his thing could bring huge dividends with that in mind.

    I'm very much in favor of improving the pass rush. I just don't think drafting Suh is the only or even the best or fastest way to do it. Keeping the ball out of the hands of the opposing team & changing field position, if not scoring points, also helps keep pressure off the defense.Long was playing better with Scott & Ryan in the middle as well. I worry more about the OLBs and other DE position than DT.

    I hope DeSpags feel as strongly about it one way or the other as you do. Personally, I dunno...
    Last edited by Azul e Oro; -02-28-2010 at 08:04 AM.

  15. #45
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Jon Claytons take on the Rams pick

    Quote Originally Posted by Azul e Oro View Post
    Of that list of D investments, I only see Long & Lau as part of the group I referred to on offense,most of whom were acquired in the last two years. When a team is as bad as The rams on both sides of the ball, it probably is foolish to talk of building to strengths but I still saw more potential out of those young offensive players. If you assume reasonable health, I think the biggest thing holding them back is now the QB.
    But if the discussion is about an allocation of resources, the Rams spent picks and money on these guys to a similar extent as the offense, even if you exclude Witherspoon for being too far back. Long was a second overall pick, Carriker a Top 15 pick, Bartell just recently got an extension, Atogwe was our franchise player last year so he made some bank, Butler was brought in as a free agent last year, Laurinaitis a second round pick, Little was brought back despite a high salary in 2009, Ryan will be getting a high RFA tender this offseason. Wade was a third round pick.

    Again, I just don't see a big disparity in the Rams using a lot of resources towards one side but not the other. And again, even when health wasn't an issue for this team earlier on in the season, they still struggled. One of the problems with this team going into 2009 was that the organization thought the status quo at wide receiver would be good enough to succeed with. That didn't prove to be the case at all. At some point, we have to recognize that many of our pieces are not good enough to win consistently with, if we hope to get better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azul e Oro View Post
    Am I reading you correctly? You think we'll have three new starters on the OL next season? I see a shuffle at OT,for sure, but the only mystery is RG & there's some hope for either Greco or Goldberg, no? Especially considering the injuries,lack of even an attempted back-up run attack, & utterly futile pass game, that group's 4.3 average per carry was pretty respectable. And since pass pro is a complex set of responsibilities that falls on many shoulders, I think health & continuity in personnel and system will help improve that as well. Add the right QB and....
    Smith will be a new starter at left tackle. With Richie gone, we'll have a new starter at RG. And I wouldn't be surprised if this team tries to upgrade over Barron at RT, though perhaps as a RFA he keeps his job.

    Still, the line will look fairly different than the one the Rams fielded last season, and that can't be understated. One of the most important things for an offensive line is continuity and getting experience playing beside the guy next to you. The Rams don't appear as if they're going to have that going for them from the 2009 season to the 2010 campaign.

    Adding the right QB to the equation would certainly be a benefit, if you can surround him with enough tools to be able to grow and be successful. I'm not convinced the Rams have that yet, and I think when you look at the recent young QBs who have been able to become successful, they've entered into favorable situations. Do the Rams represent a favorable situation?

    I don't expect Sam Bradford to come to St. Louis and pull off what Ryan did in Atlanta or what Flacco did in Baltimore, because the Rams don't have the supporting pieces on offense or defense to compare to those teams, IMO. And I think it should be noted that all three first round QBs from last year's draft put up numbers that were worse than Bulger's in the Rams' offense.

    So it's no guarantee that the Rams see an improvement in their passing game with a rookie QB at the helm, especially in Year One. Down the road? Maybe, or maybe not. The variables make it tough to predict, but if at the end of April the Rams have Bradford either graded equally to the DTs or even only slightly less, then I have a feeling we're going to find out. And I hope he proves me wrong and is able to hold up to the punishment an NFL QB has to be able to take, because that's my biggest concern about him right now.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Gordo Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -03-17-2008, 07:59 PM
  2. Jim Thomas Live-Feb. 5th
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -02-06-2008, 12:24 PM
  3. Postgame With Gordo
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-14-2007, 08:47 PM
  4. Thomas Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -09-19-2007, 01:06 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
  •