Results 1 to 15 of 16
Is anyone else sick of hearing how the Rams shouldn't draft Bradford because the Rams aren't "ready" for him. I watched the video on NFL.com today about whether or not Bradford is worth the number one pick. Charlie Casserly says that we shouldn't draft him because theres about 5 potential first round QB's next year. I think if we follow Casserly's logic then they'll just bash on the Rams more for passing up on ANOTHER "Franchise QB." Then Bucky Brooks says that Bradford played in the spread offense and had great protection and awesome weapons or whatever. It is just so dumb how people say that we aren't ready because we don't have a strong running game, a good Oline, and a strong defense. lets look at last years draft before the Lions took Stafford, they had no run game, an awful Oline and a horrible defense. I clearly remember last year hearing all these draft pundits saying "oh they need Stafford because they need a face to there franchise" yet they had nothing on there roster. no playmakers no run game, no oline and defense pleaase! when I look at the Rams I see a stud RB, decent Oline with lots of potential and a defense that is capable of keeping us in games. now i know its not a great defense but its not as horrible as people make it seem. the only reason i wrote this was because I was so angry when I saw that video and damn i hopee the Rams draft bradford and the Rams prove that they are ready!
Jeez, you scared me. I was expecting an announcement saying something on the lines of "The St. Louis Rams have just traded their #1 overall pick to Pittsburgh in exchange for their 7th round pick."
-04-19-2010 #3thickandthin Guest
see it's all a scheme the NFL has... The entire NFL is trying it's best to keep us as a losing team... I know.. it's a horrible plot.
There ya go, let it out buddy.
I agree with you, we have a strong running game, decent oline, blooming wr, and a good defense when not tired. I believe we have the means to protect Bradford.
However we all have to remember one player isn't going to turn this ship around, we have temper our expectations and not declare Bradford a bust after one or two seasons.
I tend to agree with Charley Casserly, really gained my respect for him taking Super Mario over Reggie Bush, but he really dropped the ball on this one. We can't look at projected players in next years draft when deciding on this years pick.
Can't wait till Thursday!
Another thread points this out, but they have changed their tunes completely! Before we had no choice, we had to take a QB. Now they are just saying that so they can bring up some mystery. One guy on that video said that we should take Okung, what the hell look back ONE year and you would realize how retarded that sounds
Thats how the media works though..You think they wouldve been happy to have us drafting Bradford as soon as the season was over? I choose not to ride their waves, it sure does save me the headache! I understand where your coming from though, sometimes I wish I could jump into the tv and ask them if they really believe that bs coming out of their mouths..
So, out of curiosity. How many franchise-caliber DTs do they project to be available next year?
-04-19-2010 #8TakeSuh Guest
I sad around waiting 2 hours for that segment on NFL networks (got pretty late here in Denmark). Just because they said they would come up with good reasons not to take Bradford with the 1. And then they come up with this....
For me there are 3 options this draft:
1. We like Bradford and think he has the potential to be our QB of the future and take him (most likely).
2. Somebody (the Browns?) are willing to give us ALOT to trade down and we think this will help us more long term. Not very likely with the highprice of the nr 1 pick this year and the history of how few teams have traded up to nr 1 the last many years.
3. We think Suh or somebody else are MUCH better the Bradford and go BPA on them (could happen).
Taking an OT with the nr 1 must be the most stupid statement about the Rams nr 1 pick this year. I guess today they will make a case for the Rams taking Spiller with the 1 pick?
-04-20-2010 #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Rep Power
Always Backwards....I think you've got it straight.
Here is the video in question. Link has been viewed and approved for posting...
NFL Videos: Is Bradford worth No. 1?
I get the sense that Casserly is playing devil's advocate at the beginning, arguing why the Rams shouldn't take Bradford for the purpose of the segment. If you listen to the whole video, he comes back later and seems to argue very much in favor of Bradford.
That being said, I think these guys bring up some good points. The Rams are not in the same position as the Falcons, Ravens, or Jets have been when they've selected rookie quarterbacks. They're not as strong of a team and they don't have as many surrounding pieces. Let's examine the specific pieces that were brought up in this thread.
Strong Running Game
Where is it? Look around the league at the kind of running game that other teams have had when protecting/helping their young quarterbacks. The Jets ran the ball 607 times for 2756 yards (172.3 ypg) and 21 touchdowns in 2009. In 2008, the Ravens with rookie Joe Flacco ran the ball 592 times for 2376 yards (148.5 yards per game) with 20 touchdowns. The Falcons with rookie Matt Ryan ran the ball 560 times for 2443 yards (152.7 ypg) and 23 touchdowns. To compare, the Rams in 2009 ran the ball 411 times for 1784 yards and a colossal four touchdowns. In the last decade, the most they've ran was with the '99 Super Bowl team, 431 attempts. The last time the Rams ran the ball 500+ times in a season? 1988.
Even with one of the best running backs in the league, the Rams can't sustain a top caliber running game primarily because (1) they don't have another back who can carry part of the load and keep Jackson fresh/healthy, (2) their passing game isn't strong enough to keep opponents from loading the box against the run, and (3) the defense isn't strong enough to keep them in games or allow them to play with a lead where they can hammer the ball on the ground. It's no coincidence that the Ravens of '08 and the Jets of '09 also allowed less than 16 points a game respectively and were able to run the ball in the manner that they were.
Now, can the Rams add enough pieces to have a strong running game in 2009? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd argue they really don't have one now, despite having one of the best runners in the league in their backfield.
Strong Offensive Line
The Rams have some solid pieces on their line right now. Jacob Bell improved from 2008 to 2009 and looks to be a good player at the left guard position. Jason Brown was a big free agent signing that shored up the center position. So two of the Rams' three interior positions appear to be set. But there's a big hole at the third spot, right guard. The Rams have a number of bodies who could fill the hole, but none of them are very good. Adam Goldberg is a better depth player than he is a starter, though he is a better fit starting at guard than he is tackle. He'll likely be competing with John Greco and Fraley, neither of whom appear to be more than depth options at this point.
Do we even know who our right tackle is going to be? Maybe it's Barron, but the Rams can't be too satisfied with him since they offered him up for a second round pick this offseason. It's possible he could be traded when it's all said and done. Even when he's played at right tackle, he's been average due to a combination of inconsistency and poor concentration. Jason Smith will likely be making the move to left tackle this year, so we'll have a young inexperienced but talented player getting his first significant action on the blindside after dipping his toe at times as a rookie.
There were times in 2009 when the line the Rams fielded - Barron, Bell, Brown, Incognito, and Smith - looked pretty decent. But that's not the group the Rams will be fielding this year. They'll have two new starters (LT Smith, RG _______), and possibly a third depending on what happens to Barron. So who knows whether they'll be similar, better, or worse. The other main problem with the Rams' offensive line that's keeping them from becoming good is that they can't find a way to stay on the field. The Rams haven't been able to keep their starting five offensive linemen healthy for the whole season since 2003. In order to have a good offensive line, not only would the Rams have to field five talented and consistent starters, but they'd all have to stay healthy so they can actually be on the field doing their job. That hasn't happened in half a decade for St. Louis.
I understand the argument that the Rams' defense looked worse than it may have been because the offense was so bad. I think the poor play of the offense was certainly a contributing factor. But let's be honest - a better offense isn't suddenly going to turn the Rams into a Top Five or Ten defense in the NFL. The Rams didn't finish among the league worst in sacks and turnovers forced because they were so tired and worn out all the time. They're simply not a very good defensive team yet. They still have a ways to go before they get there.
To start, they need some kind of pass rush. The Rams were the third worst in the league last year in sacks, and while sacks alone aren't an indication of the strength of a pass rush, all you needed to do was watch the Rams on Sunday to see this was a big area of concern. Any pressure that the Rams would get on opposing quarterbacks from the edges would essentially be nullified because of a lack of pass rush up the middle. Only three players on the defense finished the season with more than two sacks, and the Rams have allowed one of them to walk in free agency (Little) because he's wearing down. They've made little improvement at the DT position, unless you count the addition of Fred Robbins, who shouldn't be counted on as more than a situational player at this point in his career but likely will because we're so questionable at the position.
At linebacker, the Rams have one promising starter in Laurinaitis and a consistent if not particularly good or dynamic guy in Vobora. They've added Na'il Diggs, who sounds as if he might supplant Vobora on the strong side. There's a gaping hole at weak side linebacker, which may be addressed with a draft pick. But this unit still appears as if it's going to be Laurinaitis combined with two less than ideal options on the outside. In the secondary, Ron Bartell declined in 2009 after signing his new contract, in part due to injuries. He's an effective starting cornerback when healthy, but the Rams have a big question mark opposite him. Will Bradley Fletcher be ready to take on the starting job opposite of Bartell? If he's not, the pickings behind him are incredibly slim. Right now, the competition for the nickel back job appears to be between Justin King and Quincy Butler. Do either of these guys see time in nickel packages on a decent or good team? Doubtful. O.J. Atogwe appears likely to return at free safety, as I don't think the Rams will just let him walk. At strong safety, James Butler didn't have the kind of impact we all hoped he would when he arrived, though he was solid. But unless the team improves their pass rush, these guys aren't going to have much of a chance.
A better offense will improve the defense to some degree, but not enough to make them strong, IMO. The Rams have added two marginal starters - Robbins and Diggs - to a defense in need of talent across the board. That's not going to make a huge difference. And since they're poised to draft Bradford, they're going to be passing up on two elite defensive talents in Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy. The Rams could go defense with later picks, or they could execute a trade. We'll have to see what happens, but I think this unit has about half the players it needs in order to be considered a strong defense.
That begs the question, do you need these things in order to draft Bradford? Absolutely not. As AB pointed out, the Lions didn't really have any of these things and still pulled the trigger on Stafford. Of course, they still went 2-14 the following season and are picking second overall instead of first overall in this year's draft.
And I think this is where Casserly's devil's advocate approach comes in. Let's face it, the Rams probably aren't going to be making a sudden 180-degree turnaround in 2010. Many will be shocked if they do, because this is a team that's been digging a hole for a while now. Six wins in the last three seasons means it's going to take time to get back to a competitive level. If the Rams win four or five games in 2010, it will represent a huge improvement from where they were. But it still likely means they're picking in the Top Ten in the 2011 draft.
As Peoria pointed out, what's the likelihood that the Rams would then be in a position to take a defensive prospect as heralded as Suh has been? Slim to none, because guys like Suh don't come around very often. Yet there are "franchise" quarterbacks in every class. The Lions, Jets, and Bucs took guys they feel are "franchise" quarterbacks last year. The Falcons and Ravens took theirs the year before. A quarterback has been the first pick of the draft something like eight times since Peyton was selected in 1998. There's no shortage of quarterback prospects from year to year. As Casserly pointed out, there could be a number of potential first round quarterbacks in 2011 - Locker, Mallet, Luck, Ponder, Devlin. There are some who would argue for building a stronger team now and then pulling the trigger next year. That's a legitimate strategy, though it would be tough for the Rams to not address the QB position this year given their lack of options there now. Because of that, there are others who would argue for the Rams to take Suh first overall and then come back and take Colt McCoy - a very good fit in the West Coast offense - in the second round, perhaps trading up to get him if need be. The investment in McCoy would be minimal, and wouldn't necessarily prevent the Rams from striking on a first round QB in 2011. But they'd have him for a year and see how he develops, and then would have options next year.
Maybe you don't agree with these arguments. I have no doubt that if the Rams do nothing at quarterback, they'd get blasted. But that's nothing new - draftniks find ways of criticizing anything and everything in this draft. I heard a radio personality on Sirius Radio a few weeks ago say that if Devaney passes on Suh with the first pick, he should be fired. Teams are going to get criticized no matter what they do, so you can't get caught up in that. What you have to do is look at your options and make the best decision for your team. And the Rams do have options and a number of different ways they could go. There isn't just one right way to go about this; you can make legitimate and strong arguments for a number of directions.
-04-20-2010 #12Bralidore(RAMMODE) Guest
For all the love that Suh gets, and I give him that amount myself, he seems to be number 2 on most draft anaylst boards. Most fans give Suh the nod however. So if Suh isn't even number one in his position, how is he the best DT in years? Wouldn't Mccoy be the best DT in years? Wouldn't they both be two of the best DT's in years?
I understand the reasons given for not drafting a QB, however I do not agree with them. Who's to say if the Rams liked those other guys as much as they like Bradford. If that's the case then they would not have been worth the pick as much as Bradford is now. You can't label all franchise QBs with the saem grade because that's not the case. People called Manning a franchise QB and Cutler the same. Are they graded the same? Of course not. Nor WERE they graded the same.
So just because there is always guys being called franchise QBs in drafts doesn't mean they are and are worthy of the title. Whether Bradford is remains to be seen. Whether Suh is as good in the NFL remains to be seen. As has been stated he will have to improve his technique because that bullrushing won't fly 9/10.
Regardless of if there is another Suh next year. There IS just abut ALWAYS some great player that can't be passed up, and is passed up. Sometimes it seems that was a mistake, sometimes it was not. God knows how that player would have played in YOUR system. Suh is considered out of place in our system anyway.
So i'm sorry but drafting this year based off of options next year is just a bad strategy no matter how you want to sugar coat it. Devaney isn't even guaranteed a job next year. All of those QBs could get hurt, could pull a Jevan Snead, could be find out to have numerous more flaws than expected. Even if they survive next season and put up good numbers. Its not guarantee they will grade out as high as Bradford or give you all the intagibles you want.
All DTs aren't the same but neither are "Franchise" QBs. Lets not forget that when assuming we will be picking top 10 and assuming the QBs available will be good so we can draft a DT we assume to be good immediately and we assume will fit greatly in our system that he was said to not be a good fit in.
Last edited by Bralidore(RAMMODE); -04-20-2010 at 09:55 AM.
Let's remember that when Peter King conducted an unofficial survey around the league in December, it was Suh - not McCoy - whom people in the NFL considered one of the most highly regarded defensive prospects to come along in years.
It's strange though that you'd seemingly hold this against Suh, considering there are also some who feel Jimmy Clausen is the #1 quarterback in this draft.
And while not every "franchise quarterback" carries the same grade, there's no shortage of quarterbacks being drafted first overall. Nine of the last 12 drafts have had a QB taken with the first pick. In that same span, 33 total quarterbacks have been taken in the first round.
Simply put, there is no shortage on guys who are labeled as "franchise quarterbacks," nor is there a shortage of quarterbacks who are viewed as being worthy of the first overall pick from year to year.
-04-20-2010 #14Bralidore(RAMMODE) Guest
Well Nick, my point was that Suh isn't universally regarded as the best player or even defensive player in the draft, though yes, after i posted i realized i probably overexaggerated that.
I'm not holding anything against Suh, I'm simply saying that he isn't universally considered the best prospect, even though its rare that you'd find a guy who is.
I don't care how often a guy or QB is drafted first overall, does not mean the Rams would ahve taken him first overall. Same with Locker, noone knows how the Rams had Locker graded, and reportedly one of the reasons Locker stayed in school was because he graded out of the first round by a scouting agency. I've also read information from multiple sources that the Rams were interested in Vick, doesn't give them a cred of credibility.
I don't get how you didn't understand the second quote. All guys regarded as "Franchise QBs" by the media aren't graded similar nor are they seen as such by all NFL teams. Every draft SOMEONE has to go 1 overall, doesn't mean they deserve it. Alex Smith went 1, the ***** reportedly weren't keen on it.
I know that some guys think Jimmy is better than Bradford and I wasn't arguing that, I was simply saying that Suh isn't universally regarded as a man god and the best defensive guy in the draft, let alone ever. Devaney himself states that he couldn't choose between Suh and Mccoy.
Mccoy has been slated as our pick by ESPN analyst because he fits our scheme better as a one gap penetrator. Suh himself states that teams point out his main weakness is being that penetrator and pass rusher. Check out his interview from yesterday or today (i forgot which day). If you haven't heard that then you simply did not see some of the mock drafts and reasonings that I have on NFL.com. As I remember Mayock had Mccoy ahead of Suh in overall rankings.
When I said out of place, i was wrong. I meant to say more people than Mayock believe Moccy is a "better fit" than Suh is in our system due to his explosiveness and gap pentration skills. Said the wrong thing there.
One, an anonymous source told Pro Football Talk that Locker didn't receive a first round grade from the Draft Advisory Committee, which has a history of giving conservative grades so they don't cause an underclassman to declare based on bad expectations. This committee also gave Vernon Gholston and Jerod Mayo second and third round projections (respectively) when they came out, and both went in the Top Ten.
Two, quoting Scott Wright:
"Based on the people I've spoken to it was a virtual certainty that Jake Locker would have been the first quarterback selected in this draft. I don't think he would have gotten past both the Rams and Browns, which means Top 3 overall."
"Had Jake Locker entered the 2010 NFL Draft, Rams general manager Billy Devaney would have had an easy decision to make. He could have traded out of the first overall slot, banking at least one extra pick in this deep draft, then drafted Locker later in the first round. But Locker stayed in school, so Devaney is still weighing his options."
Quoting the Seattle Times as recently as two weeks ago:
Pro Football Weekly draft expert Nolan Nawrocki also held a conference call recently and said he would have rated Locker as the top QB for this year's draft and that he expects Locker to be just as valued next year.
"If you go back and look at the tapes, it's very clear the progression that he made," Nawrocki said. "He took big strides. To me, he was considerably more gifted than (Oklahoma's) Sam Bradford (generally considered the top QB for the 2010 draft). Sam Bradford's Pro Day was exceptional, the accuracy is what you want in a quarterback (he completed 49 of 50 passes and the one incompletion was dropped).
"So he's got everything you want and is going to be a solid pro. But if it were me making the decision and I had to pick, Jake Locker is the guy I would feel more comfortable with. He has more raw talent, is just more gifted physically and with his character and that he's a big, strong leader and super competitive, he would have gotten consideration with that first overall pick."
Now, do we know for sure that the Rams would be taking Locker right now if he was in this class? No, but there's every reason to believe he would have been just as much of a contender for the pick as anyone else, especially if he would have been viewed as the top quarterback in this class.
Which brings me back to my point - there is no shortage of guys who are drafted with the expectations of them becoming "franchise quarterbacks." There are at least two this year, there were three last year, and have been thirty-three drafted in the first round in the last twelve drafts. Nine of them went first overall.
No one is suggesting that simply having the label "franchise quarterback" means they're all graded the same way, but teams aren't very likely to spend first round picks on quarterbacks if they don't envision them becoming their franchise QB in the future. The point is you can get them every year, and it's not as if that's suddenly going to change in 2011.
As for the second part of your quote, I would be very interested in seeing the source regarding San Francisco drafting Alex Smith first overall and giving him tens of millions in guaranteed money over the course of a six-year deal despite not being keen on him. I have serious doubts that any NFL team would draft a player that high and pay him that much simply because they had to pick someone and it might as well have been him. That doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
I'd also point out that McShay originally projected Jake Locker to the Rams with the first overall pick, but a day or two later, Locker announced he was returning to school, so McShay changed the pick to Suh.
As for what Suh is capable of doing, I'd quote Jim Schwartz in a discussion about McCoy and Suh regarding scheme:
"You pick up amateur scouts' reports on Suh and McCoy, they say, 'Hey, if you want a penetrator, you go McCoy. If you want a stout guy, you go with Suh.' It's like, 'Well, is that what they are or what they're asked to do?' There's a difference there. You look for different characteristics and I think that both of those guys fit what we're looking for and I think both of them would do well in what we would ask them to do."
So yes, there are some people who believe McCoy would be a better schematic fit. But even if you believe McCoy is a better fit, it doesn't mean Suh is out of place, which you acknowledge.