Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 166
Like Tree78Likes

Thread: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

  1. #151
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,407
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    The PLan is build a championship contender through the draft...If the plan is executed well the result will be WINS and PLAYOFFS

    What we think he is worth and what he thinks he is worth is like the NFLPA and NFL deciding on the CBA...The guy thinks he so great because his early numbers keep being compared to Jerry Rice




    Im glad you brought up how important Free Agency is; because now with the new rookie cap signing premium FA that dont pan out will set your team back further than missing on a 1st round pick...Im telling you Wallace is a good (not great) talent he held out for ridiculous money and didnt produce on a contract year (but on this thread its all the QB's fault so it's okay).

    I hate sounding like spagnoulo era ram fan but this guy is just a situation where the risk outweighs the the reward substantially






    Every time I think of those 2 I think of the guy that got him Bell-Linehan; Brown- Spags those are just 2 memory i dont like thinking about

    It really is crazy thou how the pay for Lineman has escalated to the point of a premium WR...I guess it all comes down to at the end of the day every Free Agent signing carries its own risk...I have my opinion on Mike Wallace and many others have a different opinion

    But it really is interesting because the 2 guys making the decision have a history:
    1) Fisher has never drafted an O-Lineman in the 1st and instead looks for high impact players and has taken guys like Kenny Britt; Mike Griffin (safety), Pacman Jones, VY, Dyson he drafts IMPACT gamechanging players offensive and defensively

    2) Les was there in ATL when they drafted those 2 stud wideouts White and Jones in the first

    Might be easier said then done but you gotta draft your skill position guys early and make sure you dont miss
    I absolutely HATEEEE when people bring up drafting history. What does it have to do with anything at all?!?!??!?!?!? Do you think if we had Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt we'd draft a WR in round 1 "because his history suggests he likes WR's in round 1"?????? Honestly.. Drafting is a matter of filling the weak spots of your roster with quality, young talent. If you need an OT, and there is a great OT, you're taking the great OT, no science or anything else to it at all.



    THE DREAM TEAM

  2. #152
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Im telling you Wallace is a good (not great) talent he held out for ridiculous money and didnt produce on a contract year (but on this thread its all the QB's fault so it's okay).
    Actually it's not, and if you're more interested in misrepresenting the other side's position than debating it, then there's no point in any further responses from my end. I don't recall anyone arguing that Wallace's drops in production were solely the result of quarterback play, but it would be foolish to not recognize that as a big factor.

    If quality quarterback play didn't impact other players on a team and their effectiveness, then the position wouldn't be so highly coveted. We'd have no reason to play Sam Bradford over Austin Davis, because our players would put up the same numbers regardless.

    If you want to suggest that the difference in Big Ben versus Charlie Batch or Byron Leftwich shouldn't have any effect on what Pittsburgh's receivers are going to produce, you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But it's a pretty off-base one, if you ask me.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    But it really is interesting because the 2 guys making the decision have a history:
    1) Fisher has never drafted an O-Lineman in the 1st and instead looks for high impact players and has taken guys like Kenny Britt; Mike Griffin (safety), Pacman Jones, VY, Dyson he drafts IMPACT gamechanging players offensive and defensively

    2) Les was there in ATL when they drafted those 2 stud wideouts White and Jones in the first

    Might be easier said then done but you gotta draft your skill position guys early and make sure you dont miss
    People love to point to a coach's or GM's draft history, and I'm not sure why. It's not as if coaches or front office people could never possibly do something different than what they've done in the past. Prior to 2010, the Rams hadn't spent a first round pick on a quarterback since Bill Munson in 1964. That's why they passed on drafting Sam Bradford and instead drafted... Oh wait, they didn't pass on Bradford. Because history doesn't dictate personnel decisions.

    Fisher and Snead might have past preferences for where they like to get certain players, but I think both men are smart enough to look at the current roster and evaluate ALL options for improving the team, not merely the ones that stick with their past dogma of personnel decisions.

    And let's not ignore the fact that past personnel decisions are based on rosters as well. It's entirely likely Jeff Fisher saw no reason to spend a first round pick on, say, an offensive tackle because he walked onto the job with Brad Hopkins already starting at the position, and Hopkins would stay their until 2005. Simply put, there was no need for an elite LT; they already had their man. Does that really prove Fisher WON'T look at linemen in round one?

    The fact that the Falcons took Roddy White at the end of Round One before Snead was director of player personnel for the club is a rather weak correlation, especially when you consider that as Rams GM, Snead already broke with his past by not executing a trade to move up last year and grab either Trent Richardson or Justin Blackmon like the Falcons did with Julio Jones in 2011.

    When you look at the strength of this draft class, specifically in the first round, it's along the lines, both offensive and defensive. Not that he's the end all and be all of the discussion, but to support this point, consider that Mel Kiper currently has six offensive lineman in his Top 25 compared to only one wide receiver (who ranks 24th). If you really think Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are going to ignore any of that talent as potential options for the Rams' picks simply because of things they've done in the past, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
    Last edited by Nick; -12-27-2012 at 10:10 AM.
    jmk321 likes this.

  3. #153
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    I'm really quite amazed at how long this thread is. I haven't read it all, but I find myself wondering how Mike Wallace could be that controversial.

    Here's my view of the subject:

    Mike Wallace is a very good WR. As a potential FA target, he also is valuable because of his youth (26).

    The reality is that many teams will have an interest in a guy like Wallace and, as a result, his price will likely be up there. I suspect, as I believe Nick stated, that he will receive more than a guy like Pierre Garcon but, perhaps, a bit less than Vincent Jackson.

    Is that a good investment? I think that is questionable.

    If you go the draft route, its a gamble. While a draft pick (even an early one under the current scale) will be much cheaper than a FA, there's no NFL track record to go on, and even successful WRs often take 2-3 years to develop.

    What about other FA options? Well, I'm on record as preferring Dwayne Bowe over Wallace. I think his size advantage (6'2, 221 vs. 6'0, 199) makes him more of a match-up problem for defenses, and bigger WRs tend to remain productive later in their careers than smaller "speed WR" types.

    In the end, the question is much tougher than many realize.

    In my mind, the key for the Rams is to resist the temptation (assuming they even have the opportunity) to go the Eagles route - i.e. winning the "offseason championship" with signings that fans love, but coaches question.

    Is Mike Wallace part of the solution? My gut says no, but I'll defer to Jeff Fisher and Les Snead on that one.
    BarronWade likes this.

  4. #154
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I absolutely HATEEEE when people bring up drafting history. What does it have to do with anything at all?!?!??!?!?!? Do you think if we had Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt we'd draft a WR in round 1 "because his history suggests he likes WR's in round 1"?????? Honestly.. Drafting is a matter of filling the weak spots of your roster with quality, young talent. If you need an OT, and there is a great OT, you're taking the great OT, no science or anything else to it at all.
    Just re-read what you wrote there buddy...Because there is more to drafting than just willing the weak spots or we would not be talking about it as much...And no if we had Holt and Bruce a 1st round wideout is not a good idea


    Also no one ever said if there is a great OT available you dont take him...What was said was it is interesting to note the coach and GM's past history. Listen we dont know for sure what Fish and Les have or will have on there mind prior to the draft...so you look back at there prior draft history to gauge what was on there mind according to the picks they made previously...What's interesting about it is Fish always looked at the 1st round to get his IMPACT performer his #1 receiver, QB, and RB (at this point we have our impact QB and RB in place)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    People love to point to a coach's or GM's draft history, and I'm not sure why. It's not as if coaches or front office people could never possibly do something different than what they've done in the past. Prior to 2010, the Rams hadn't spent a first round pick on a quarterback since Bill Munson in 1964. That's why they passed on drafting Sam Bradford and instead drafted... Oh wait, they didn't pass on Bradford. Because history doesn't dictate personnel decisions.

    Fisher and Snead might have past preferences for where they like to get certain players, but I think both men are smart enough to look at the current roster and evaluate ALL options for improving the team, not merely the ones that stick with their past dogma of personnel decisions.

    And let's not ignore the fact that past personnel decisions are based on rosters as well. It's entirely likely Jeff Fisher saw no reason to spend a first round pick on, say, an offensive tackle because he walked onto the job with Brad Hopkins already starting at the position, and Hopkins would stay their until 2005. Simply put, there was no need for an elite LT; they already had their man. Does that really prove Fisher WON'T look at linemen in round one?

    The fact that the Falcons took Roddy White at the end of Round One before Snead was director of player personnel for the club is a rather weak correlation, especially when you consider that as Rams GM, Snead already broke with his past by not executing a trade to move up last year and grab either Trent Richardson or Justin Blackmon like the Falcons did with Julio Jones in 2011.

    When you look at the strength of this draft class, specifically in the first round, it's along the lines, both offensive and defensive. Not that he's the end all and be all of the discussion, but to support this point, consider that Mel Kiper currently has six offensive lineman in his Top 25 compared to only one wide receiver (who ranks 24th). If you really think Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are going to ignore any of that talent as potential options for the Rams' picks simply because of things they've done in the past, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
    Again the Past History is a good way to gauge what and how a coach made a previous decision...I believe AV mentioned in a previous thread about if we really know the positions the Rams will target he brought up trent Richardson as the guy on top of our draft board Richardson was an IMPACT player at an IMPACT position this falls right into Fish draft history countless times he took the gamebreaker impact players

    Let's look back at last year's Rams draft itself and top 4 selections we made...arguably O-line was the biggest need We did not have a LG or RT we needed 2 starters...When we picked Michael Brockers a guard named David Decastro (considered value and a blue-chip prospect) was passed over. DeCastro would have filled the greater need but Brockers is more of the game changer but when it came to draft grade both were probably in the same ballpark so lets move on to our next pick...

    Brian Quick he was (and still is) a project #1 WR...There were OL with 1st round grades still up there like COrdy Glenn and Jonathan Martin but we took the more game changing player...As goes for Jenkins both those lineman were on the board but Jenkins was the bigger game changer (and boy has he done that this year).

    Lets go to the I. Pead pick...There was a quality guard (Osemele) and a project RT (mike Adams) available but we went with I. Pead who carried a lower draft grade...I. Pead's speed was gamebreaking quality

    I think the draft history holds some weight when we try to figure out what is on our Front Office's mind Fish goes for sexy over safe pick more



    Also I just want to give the Mike Wallace's QB thing a response...I understand I have exaggerated the QB argument but it was to make a point (I Hate excuses); I completely respect if you would not like to comment any further about it but at the End of the day regardless of who is around you; you just cannot turn invisible if you are star...Jax has had horrible O-lines and he has still produced...I do however acknowledge the QB is a factor in the low production but Mike Wallace should be held accountable more.

  5. #155
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    I'm really quite amazed at how long this thread is. I haven't read it all, but I find myself wondering how Mike Wallace could be that controversial.
    leave it to a Diva WR to attract so much attention

  6. #156
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Lets go to the I. Pead pick...There was a quality guard (Osemele) and a project RT (mike Adams) available but we went with I. Pead who carried a lower draft grade....
    A lower draft grade according to who? The Rams obviously had Pead with a higher draft grade. I don't think they consult with Kiper, Mayock and McShay.

  7. #157
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    A lower draft grade according to who? The Rams obviously had Pead with a higher draft grade. I don't think they consult with Kiper, Mayock and McShay.
    This is exactly the point I am trying to make...plenty of people here we had Mike Adams and Osemele going in mocks in the early 2nd round...Just like this year we have guys like Mathews and the other OL ranked so high mocking them early but at the end of the draft Jeff Fisher and Co. have there own draft board and a way we can try to figure out what is on there mind is to look back at the past history

    Fish and Co. picked the best player on their board what if in the first round Mathews warmack and lewan are all the board and we end up selecting a Playmaker like Justin Hunter?

    Last year RT and LG we clear needs we had no idea who would start at those positions just about every mock draft on clanram had us taking an Offensive lineman early but when Fish and Co. made there picks we did not get our O-lineman till rok watkins in the 5th and already we are debating about first round Offensive Lineman (for the record i want Warmack)

    The early rounds of the 2012 draft fell right in line with his draft history which is why the draft history should not be overlooked when we debate or create our mocks because the draft history is a way for us to try to determine the coach's perspective

    Like I want an O-lineman early but when draft day comes and we haven't selected an O-lineman by the end of day 2 I would not be surprised as I was this year

  8. #158
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Again the Past History is a good way to gauge what and how a coach made a previous decision...I believe AV mentioned in a previous thread about if we really know the positions the Rams will target he brought up trent Richardson as the guy on top of our draft board Richardson was an IMPACT player at an IMPACT position this falls right into Fish draft history countless times he took the gamebreaker impact players

    Let's look back at last year's Rams draft itself and top 4 selections we made...arguably O-line was the biggest need We did not have a LG or RT we needed 2 starters...When we picked Michael Brockers a guard named David Decastro (considered value and a blue-chip prospect) was passed over. DeCastro would have filled the greater need but Brockers is more of the game changer but when it came to draft grade both were probably in the same ballpark so lets move on to our next pick...

    Brian Quick he was (and still is) a project #1 WR...There were OL with 1st round grades still up there like COrdy Glenn and Jonathan Martin but we took the more game changing player...As goes for Jenkins both those lineman were on the board but Jenkins was the bigger game changer (and boy has he done that this year).

    Lets go to the I. Pead pick...There was a quality guard (Osemele) and a project RT (mike Adams) available but we went with I. Pead who carried a lower draft grade...I. Pead's speed was gamebreaking quality

    I think the draft history holds some weight when we try to figure out what is on our Front Office's mind Fish goes for sexy over safe pick more


    Also I just want to give the Mike Wallace's QB thing a response...I understand I have exaggerated the QB argument but it was to make a point (I Hate excuses); I completely respect if you would not like to comment any further about it but at the End of the day regardless of who is around you; you just cannot turn invisible if you are star...Jax has had horrible O-lines and he has still produced...I do however acknowledge the QB is a factor in the low production but Mike Wallace should be held accountable more.
    I really don't know where to begin, because it seems as if you read my response and then decided to just ignore most of the points in it so you could keep repeating the same argument.

    You completely ignored points about how past history with not drafting a first round QB for 40+ years didn't keep the Rams from selecting Sam Bradford, how personnel issues at OT likely played a big role in why Fisher didn't spend a first round pick at the position while in Tennessee, and how Snead's history of trading up to get Julio Jones did not translate to the Rams trading up to get Richardson or Blackmon.

    This new response makes a lot of assumptions that are pretty arguable. For instance, you claim OL was the biggest need, but that's entirely debatable as wide receiver was argued by many to be the primary focus for this team.

    Heck, NFL Draft Countdown didn't even have the Rams drafting an OL in the first THREE rounds of the draft in their final projection of 2012, and the response from many of us was that we were fine with the projection.

    You also incorrectly claim we went into the draft without a right tackle; at the time, we all assumed it would be Jason Smith, minimizing the perceived hole at that position. It wasn't until he lost his job to Barry Richardson before being traded that right tackle became a more priority position. However, I think many fans were excited to see if this coaching staff could get Saffold and Smith to play up to their potential.

    You also make a lot of assumptions when it comes to what draft grades players had, pushing forward this claim that the Rams passed on higher graded players to take skill position weapons. We have absolutely no idea what grade these players carried with teams, so you're basically just inventing information to fit your argument.

    So I'd say it's pretty debatable how much draft history should be considered when trying to project personnel moves, especially when taking the time to go back and examine the situation sheds new light on why some draft decisions may have been made (again referencing the presence of a veteran OT, thus negating a pressing draft need for one, in Tennessee).

    While I'm sure coaches have perceptions about what types of players they want and where they can find them, they'd be foolish to completely discount a certain population of players (ie. first round linemen) simply because of some perceived personal preference about what picks to spend getting them.

    There are some great offensive line prospects in this class. If Jeff Fisher and Les Snead pass on them, it will be because they believe another prospect to be better, not because of some dogma from the past that they're bound to.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Also I just want to give the Mike Wallace's QB thing a response...I understand I have exaggerated the QB argument but it was to make a point (I Hate excuses); I completely respect if you would not like to comment any further about it but at the End of the day regardless of who is around you; you just cannot turn invisible if you are star...Jax has had horrible O-lines and he has still produced...I do however acknowledge the QB is a factor in the low production but Mike Wallace should be held accountable more.
    You would have a point, except it's easy to find games in which even the best receivers - the Megatrons and the Fitzgeralds - have also turned invisible. Holding Wallace to this impossible standard as if he has to be uber-productive in every game he plays is just unrealistic and unfair, but it seems that's what his critics expect out of him.

  9. #159
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    What about other FA options? Well, I'm on record as preferring Dwayne Bowe over Wallace. I think his size advantage (6'2, 221 vs. 6'0, 199) makes him more of a match-up problem for defenses, and bigger WRs tend to remain productive later in their careers than smaller "speed WR" types.
    I'd be fine with Bowe. I'm not married to Wallace, myself. But I do think this team needs to make a push for a legit go-to veteran receiver, someone who can come in on the first day of 2013 camp and be a factor for Bradford and for defenses to focus on. Whether that's Wallace, Bowe, or someone else whose name hasn't come up that much, I want that guy.

    If they're not going to go get one in free agency, then I question how much a rookie receiver is really going to add to the immediate equation and would probably prefer they go after a guy like Eifert. While the draft is a process for the long-term, I think the 2013 Rams showed they were closer to being able to compete than some of us thought they were. This is a team that should be contending for the West in 2013.
    THOLTFAN81 likes this.

  10. #160
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,407
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I'd be fine with Bowe. I'm not married to Wallace, myself. But I do think this team needs to make a push for a legit go-to veteran receiver, someone who can come in on the first day of 2013 camp and be a factor for Bradford and for defenses to focus on. Whether that's Wallace, Bowe, or someone else whose name hasn't come up that much, I want that guy.

    If they're not going to go get one in free agency, then I question how much a rookie receiver is really going to add to the immediate equation and would probably prefer they go after a guy like Eifert. While the draft is a process for the long-term, I think the 2013 Rams showed they were closer to being able to compete than some of us thought they were. This is a team that should be contending for the West in 2013.
    Exact same spot as me. I dont care if its Bowe, Wallace, or even Jennings. Just show that you're willing to go get a guy at WR with a proven track record!!
    Nick, THOLTFAN81 and Vinnie25 like this.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  11. #161
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I really don't know where to begin, because it seems as if you read my response and then decided to just ignore most of the points in it so you could keep repeating the same argument.
    Believe me I am not trying to ignore most of your points at all i agree with a couple of them but still feel like you overlook coach's past history Lets begin

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You completely ignored points about how past history with not drafting a first round QB for 40+ years didn't keep the Rams from selecting Sam Bradford, how personnel issues at OT likely played a big role in why Fisher didn't spend a first round pick at the position while in Tennessee, and how Snead's history of trading up to get Julio Jones did not translate to the Rams trading up to get Richardson or Blackmon.
    Im sorry to say this but the St louis rams history of not taking a QB in 40 years is completely irrelevant to the way Fish is going to draft...Every new coach/gm combo have different views and different strategies when a new coach/gm are put it place it represents a clean slate not getting a 1st round QB in rams history has no impact on the way spags drafted his qb because spags was not there for any of those previous regimes so New Coach/gm = new regime = Clean Slate

    Fish did hold a veteran group on the line he was also pretty good at drafting them when he did...Il eat this one because he drafted Mike Roos pretty high and it seems more attention is being brought to Offensive Line because with the growth of pass rushing DLs O-lineman are going to be more in Demand...and as we talked about earlier O-lineman are getting paid more Evidence:Carl Nicks...To conclude, you win about the O-lineman and the past history should not hold weight in deciding whether to draft one early or not

    However im not ready to give up the main thing about a WR draft or FA...Instead of looking at How they got Julio Jones look at who they got in Julio Jones...We dont have the same roster ATL had when they made the trade so we need to keep the picks we have and even get more...but who they got in Julio Jones was Cheap rookie (at that point we all knew a rookie wage scale was going to be part of the new CBA) Jones playmaking ability made him a bargain...Jones signed a 4 year 16+ mil contract which is 4 a little over 4 million a year...The Falcons hit on this guy; and after the impact this year's draft class has done im fully confident if Fish and Co. their best ranked WR they can hit too

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    This new response makes a lot of assumptions that are pretty arguable. For instance, you claim OL was the biggest need, but that's entirely debatable as wide receiver was argued by many to be the primary focus for this team.

    Heck, NFL Draft Countdown didn't even have the Rams drafting an OL in the first THREE rounds of the draft in their final projection of 2012, and the response from many of us was that we were fine with the projection.

    You also incorrectly claim we went into the draft without a right tackle; at the time, we all assumed it would be Jason Smith, minimizing the perceived hole at that position. It wasn't until he lost his job to Barry Richardson before being traded that right tackle became a more priority position. However, I think many fans were excited to see if this coaching staff could get Saffold and Smith to play up to their potential.
    I also claimed OL was ARGUABLY the biggest need; As for the O-lineman debate its yours

    But really think about it even with all those reports of Jason Smith saying he is ready to take control in the off-season did you ever think he would do anything positive

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You also make a lot of assumptions when it comes to what draft grades players had, pushing forward this claim that the Rams passed on higher graded players to take skill position weapons. We have absolutely no idea what grade these players carried with teams, so you're basically just inventing information to fit your argument.
    When it comes to draft grades isnt it alll assumptions because at the end on the day its NFL not grade school either you produce or you dont

    I wasnt inventing information I was recalling a general consensus from so-called "draft experts" but obviously its not conclusive evidence because Fish and CO. have there own board and there own board...I just had to use that information to try to drive home a point but that was not the right way to go so lets disreguard the grades

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    So I'd say it's pretty debatable how much draft history should be considered when trying to project personnel moves, especially when taking the time to go back and examine the situation sheds new light on why some draft decisions may have been made (again referencing the presence of a veteran OT, thus negating a pressing draft need for one, in Tennessee).

    While I'm sure coaches have perceptions about what types of players they want and where they can find them, they'd be foolish to completely discount a certain population of players (ie. first round linemen) simply because of some perceived personal preference about what picks to spend getting them.

    There are some great offensive line prospects in this class. If Jeff Fisher and Les Snead pass on them, it will be because they believe another prospect to be better, not because of some dogma from the past that they're bound to.
    Ive surrendered victory in the O-lineman debate to you...But to conclude in getting a PLAYMAKER we should look to the draft because Its cheaper and can result in being more effective

    Listen If it aint broke dont break it Fish has drafted his playmakers before and has seen plenty of success


    If you dont answer anything else I have said id understand its just a difference in opinion but please answer this one part because I said it before and you may have ignored it as i have to some of your points and I apologize for that:

    With the new rookie wage scale missing on a premium FA will set your team back further than missing on a 1st round pick... When I say premium FA just for the sake of this argument let's use VJAX contract from last year




    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You would have a point, except it's easy to find games in which even the best receivers - the Megatrons and the Fitzgeralds - have also turned invisible. Holding Wallace to this impossible standard as if he has to be uber-productive in every game he plays is just unrealistic and unfair, but it seems that's what his critics expect out of him.
    Finally we are talking about Mike Wallace again how about lets try to agree on one thing Mike Wallace is not a SUPERstar WR...Idk where you would rank him but I dont think he is a top 10 WR right now

    Dwayne Bowe is a whole different story thou

  12. #162
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Im sorry to say this but the St louis rams history of not taking a QB in 40 years is completely irrelevant to the way Fish is going to draft...Every new coach/gm combo have different views and different strategies when a new coach/gm are put it place it represents a clean slate not getting a 1st round QB in rams history has no impact on the way spags drafted his qb because spags was not there for any of those previous regimes so New Coach/gm = new regime = Clean Slate
    But that's the point I'm getting at. Here's a trend that exists in history that didn't affect the Rams' draft plans in 2010 because of the specific personnel needs of the team.

    Yes, it's a bit different when you're talking about coach history vs. organizational history, but the point remains that trends can be bucked when the need exists and the value matches up with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    However im not ready to give up the main thing about a WR draft or FA...Instead of looking at How they got Julio Jones look at who they got in Julio Jones...We dont have the same roster ATL had when they made the trade so we need to keep the picks we have and even get more...but who they got in Julio Jones was Cheap rookie (at that point we all knew a rookie wage scale was going to be part of the new CBA) Jones playmaking ability made him a bargain...Jones signed a 4 year 16+ mil contract which is 4 a little over 4 million a year...The Falcons hit on this guy; and after the impact this year's draft class has done im fully confident if Fish and Co. their best ranked WR they can hit too
    "Instead of looking at the point you're making, let's look at this different point."

    The point remains the same - if Fisher's history is that he prefers playmakers and Snead's history is that he will trade up to get them, then you have to acknowledge they bucked that history by not moving up for Richardson or Blackmon.

    In fact, they did the exact opposite by trading down and taking an interior defensive lineman. So Fisher and Snead themselves, in only one offseason with the Rams, have shown the ability to go against things they've done in the past.

    That's why it makes little sense to argue their strict adherence to supposed trends of the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Ive surrendered victory in the O-lineman debate to you...But to conclude in getting a PLAYMAKER we should look to the draft because Its cheaper and can result in being more effective

    Listen If it aint broke dont break it Fish has drafted his playmakers before and has seen plenty of success
    It's a silly argument though, because EVERYTHING is cheaper in the draft due to the wage scale. If that's your argument for getting a receiver, it should be your argument for getting everything and we shouldn't even take part in free agency.

    Veterans are more expensive, but you get certain benefits for the increased cost, such as experience, proven performance in the league, and immediate impact. All things the Rams could use, IMO, at the WR position.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    If you dont answer anything else I have said id understand its just a difference in opinion but please answer this one part because I said it before and you may have ignored it as i have to some of your points and I apologize for that:

    With the new rookie wage scale missing on a premium FA will set your team back further than missing on a 1st round pick... When I say premium FA just for the sake of this argument let's use VJAX contract from last year
    That's true, but that's always been the case. And even though rookies now come cheaper, missing on a first round pick is still pretty devastating, not so mucb financially but in the hole that it doesn't fill and the time you've wasted unsuccessfully trying to fill it.

    The possibility of failure isn't a reason not to try. I don't think anyone is suggesting we turn into the Eagles or the Redskins and just throw money at everything, but when a specific need exists and players are available to meet those needs, it's worth considering.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Finally we are talking about Mike Wallace again how about lets try to agree on one thing Mike Wallace is not a SUPERstar WR...Idk where you would rank him but I dont think he is a top 10 WR right now

    Dwayne Bowe is a whole different story thou
    You're dodging the point. Your criticism against Wallace is that he sometimes turns invisible, and you don't think you can turn invisible if you are star. And yet my response is, even players who are better than Mike Wallace turn invisible from time to time, so how is it fair to hold him to a standard in which he isn't allowed to have those kinds of bad games?

    I appreciate you going point by point though and trying to offer a response to everything. I'm just not sure we're really any closer in the discussion, so perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. I simply don't see much convincing evidence to think that individual draft history plays such an important role in projecting the future.

    As I said before, if Jeff Fisher and Les Snead pass on offensive lineman in the first round of this class, it will be because they believe another prospect to be better, not because of some dogma from the past that they're bound to or refuse to deviate from.
    sosa39rams likes this.

  13. #163
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    As I said before, if Jeff Fisher and Les Snead pass on offensive lineman in the first round of this class, it will be because they believe another prospect to be better, not because of some dogma from the past that they're bound to or refuse to deviate from.
    I agree.

    From a prior thread, here is a list of Fisher's first round picks:

    DE (4): Henry Ford (1994), Kenny Holmes (1997), Jevon Kearse (1999), Derrick Morgan (2010)
    DT (2): Albert Haynesworth (2002), Michael Brockers (2012)
    CB (2) Andre Woolfork (2003), Adam "Pac Man" Jones (2005)
    QB (2): Steve McNair (1995), Vince Young (2006)
    WR (2): Kevin Dyson (1998), Kenny Britt (2009)
    RB (2): Eddie George (1996), Chris Johnson (2008)
    Traded Pick (2): 2001, 2004
    LB (1): Keith Bulluck (2000)
    S (1): Michael Griffin (2007)

    While it is true that there are no OL on this list, apart from DE (which may be the least likely position the Rams would look to upgrade in Round 1), there isn't a single position that Fisher has targeted more than two times in 18 drafts.

  14. #164
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    While it is true that there are no OL on this list, apart from DE (which may be the least likely position the Rams would look to upgrade in Round 1), there isn't a single position that Fisher has targeted more than two times in 18 drafts.
    Which means with our two first round picks, we've got a chance to put OL right up there on the list!

  15. #165
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    "Instead of looking at the point you're making, let's look at this different point."
    not gunna lie this really made me laugh idk y thou



    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I appreciate you going point by point though and trying to offer a response to everything. I'm just not sure we're really any closer in the discussion, so perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. I simply don't see much convincing evidence to think that individual draft history plays such an important role in projecting the future.
    This might be the dumbest thing I ever disagree about but I feel as thou we are closer than it might appear here is something you said that I have always been in agreement about:
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    if Jeff Fisher and Les Snead pass on offensive lineman in the first round of this class, it will be because they believe another prospect to be better
    My argument was that Fisher's tendencies showed he valued playmakers over the "safe" pick but I really do understand the point you made about organizational draft history and I understand every draft has it's own distinct variables or needs

    I believe this whole thing comes back to Mike Wallace because it seems like when Dwayne Bowe's name appeared my position on drafting a WR as opposed to signing one completely changed because I am actually in favor of getting bowe...So lets bring it back to Mike Wallace:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You're dodging the point. Your criticism against Wallace is that he sometimes turns invisible, and you don't think you can turn invisible if you are star. And yet my response is, even players who are better than Mike Wallace turn invisible from time to time, so how is it fair to hold him to a standard in which he isn't allowed to have those kinds of bad games?
    here is what I said:

    Also I just want to give the Mike Wallace's QB thing a response...I understand I have exaggerated the QB argument but it was to make a point (I Hate excuses); I completely respect if you would not like to comment any further about it but at the End of the day regardless of who is around you; you just cannot turn invisible if you are star...Jax has had horrible O-lines and he has still produced...I do however acknowledge the QB is a factor in the low production but Mike Wallace should be held accountable more.
    The hoodini act he pulled vs. the Bengals is just not how a star should play (wow I cant believe but I sound like Skip Bayless talking lebron). That invisible comment was about that game because that game was for his team's entire season...You know as well as I do that was more than just 1 game It was do or die it was that type of put up or shut up game

    Dez Bryant with a dislocated finger put the whole game on his shoulders in a similar situation game even AJ Green made the plays that counted...Look who was around Wallace a guy like Terrance Newman who is no longer in his prime he is in his mid-30s now if im not mistaken this is the type of guy your star WR should beat when the game is on the line

    Other than screen passes where is Mike Wallace most effective when he can get behind the secondary (notice how I said most effective NOT that that is the only routes he runs) This season where has Chris givens been most effective its similar to where Mike Wallace....Now Look at Bradford at times he has shown lazar sharp accuracy on throws short medium and to the middle of the field his deep ball accuracy has improved this year but its still not at an elite level...I just think it would benefit bradford and this offense more to have a guy with size where bradford can showcase his accuracy put it up high and let the big guy make a play like he did with that brian quick fade in St louis a couple weeks ago...And even when we need the big play Givens is there to take the top off the defense and Bowe is no slouch on the deep routes either.

    If we sign a FA WR the goal is to maximize his talents and potential within our offense I feel as though Bowe and even a tall and quick rookie receiver will be better in our offense than Wallace

    At this point I have come to an agreement with you on impact of previous drafts but we can agree to disagree on Wallace

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: -04-13-2012, 03:24 PM
  2. A Mike Wallace tidbit
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -03-23-2012, 07:44 PM
  3. Mike Wallace , WR RFA -- Pittsburgh Steelers
    By richtree in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: -02-24-2012, 11:36 AM

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
  •