Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
-03-03-2010 #1
Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
I understand the need at DE and WLB but our offense was horrible last year. And at this point its tough watching the Rams i mean last year how many boring games did i have to sit though? The most exciting parts (aside from a TD) was steven jackson 1st down run or Gibby making a nice leaping catch. And those did not happen too often.
Our passing game is straight awful.
So do you think we should get a QB, Clutch 3rd down possession WR, then a TE in that order of the draft?
I remember last year how we were having discussion about getting an OT then have the rest of the draft all Defense. Last year we were focusing mainly on D.
How every thing has changed lol.
-
-03-03-2010 #2
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
I think we have enough holes that we have the luxury (?) of choosing BPA pretty much through the draft. If that happens to be offense, I'd have no problem with it (although I do want Suh if we remain at #1). Like you said, our offense last year was terrible, and it was our defense that was keeping us in any game that we had a shot of winning. But I don't want to pass on a great DE prospect for a mediocre TE one just because of which side of the ball he plays on.
And unfortunately for you at least, it seems that defense is the strength of this draft, so you probably won't get your wish.
-
-03-03-2010 #3
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
possible? yes
likely? no
-
-03-03-2010 #4
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
It certainly is a possibility.
Let's say the Rams take Bradford first. Who will be the BPA at pick #33. Maybe Jahvid Best. Maybe Demaryius Thomas. Maybe an OT.
So let's say the Rams go Bradford, then Thomas.
Who would be the BPA in Round 3. Maybe Montario Hardesty. Maybe Ben Tate. Again... maybe an OT.
The Rams are not going to fill every need in this draft, so they have to just focus on getting better. Also, don't forget that some of the holes could be filled in FA before the draft.
Welcome to the St. Louis Rams!
-
-03-03-2010 #5
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
We need so much, that any legit 1st round talent that falls to the second round, the Rams are sure to snatch up.
Sadly, I'd go for a reciever in the 2nd, like Lafell, Golden Tate, etc. But I suspect Sean Weatherspoon would be rated higher than these recievers and he has a good chance of slipping. So the odds of getting him are pretty high. I dont like it, but I'm just saying it like it is.Last edited by The Optimistic Lamb; -03-04-2010 at 03:14 AM.
-
-03-03-2010 #6
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
I do think its possible if we draft Bradford first. I was going to start a thread with an all offensive first five rounds before I saw you thread. I know that is not realistic but here would be what we might be able to get with an extra second round pick for Barron (wishfull thinking) as well.
1. Sam Bradford QB 6’4 225
2A. Jahvid Best RB 5’10 200 4.35 40
2B. Demaryius Thomas WR 6’3 230
3. Rob Gronkowski TE 6’6 265 / Aaron Hernandez TE 6’2 250 / Jimmy Graham 6’6 260 (IMO 1 of first 2 could fall)
4. Jared Veldheer OT 6’9 321 (5.0 40) (32 bench reps)
5. Mitch Petrus OG 6’4 315 (5.1 40) (45 bench reps)
Offense:
QB- Bradford 6'4 225
RB-Jackson 6'2 235 and Best 5'10 200
FB-Karney 5'11 260
TE-Gronkowski 6'6 265
WR-Laurent Robinson 6'2 195 and Thomas 6'3 230
WR-Avery 5'11 185 and Gibson 6'1 205
LT-Jason Smith 6'5 305
LG-Bell 6'4 295
C-Brown 6'3 320
RG-Greco 6'4 315 and Petrus 6'4 315
RT-Goldberg 6'7 320 and Veldheer 6'9 321
I agree DE and WLB are our two biggest needs on D and possibly CB if Fletcher has problems. I would not mind us signing or resigning veterans for those spots and draft offense this year. I still want Suh #1 but if we went Bradford I would not care if we had a heavy offensive draft.Last edited by RamsSB99; -03-03-2010 at 10:32 PM.
-
-03-03-2010 #7
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
Bradford a WR, then OT/RB/TE possible. We definately need some offensive weapons no question there.
-
-03-03-2010 #8
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
Could we? Yes.
Would it be smart? Probably not. Just because our defense is our "better" unit doesn't mean we can slap a couple of late round picks on the unit as a bandaid and call it good. They lack the consistency (even in the first half) to be relied upon while our offense attempts to figure out what its doing during the odd remotely successful drive.
-
-03-04-2010 #9
Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Ontario
- Posts
- 162
- Rep Power
- 9
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
If I had my way, we'd make a trade to 3 to Tampa for their second rounder and the draft would go like this.
1- Sam Bradford
2- Sean Weatherspoon
2- Demaryius Thomas
3- Dexter McCluster
4- Brandon Lang (DE, Troy)
5- Ciron Black (RT)
5- Trade to Denver for Tony Sheffler
I think that would be a draft that would give me full blown wood.
There is some logic to drafting heavy on offense this year. Offense usually takes a little longer to gel than defense, so starting the offense now, then focusing on defense next season might make sense.Last edited by rams_man13; -03-04-2010 at 01:07 AM.
-
-03-04-2010 #10
Re: Is it possible for us to go mainly Offense with our first 3 picks?
...drafting mostly defense next season makes sense? Forgot about the little detail that this is one of the best defensive drafts in decades? Patience... offense will come around, but lets not loose our heads.
I got 3 concerns about your mock draft:
1) Bradford was playing behind an awesome O-line in college (Fact). The NFL is 100x faster, more brutal, and we have no line to speak of (Fact). I dont know what you think Bradford is gonna do differently than Bulger. You cant blame Bulger for getting crap beat out of him. You're adrdessing issues out of order. Fix the line before you bring in a new QB.
2) Demaryius Thomas is a big target yes, but there's more to the position than being big and fast. How is his route running? Did he have to rely on any other skills other than his size? There might be a transition problem here. Rams don't need another project WR, we need a legit #1 talent.
3) This is the exact opposite of the Demaryius Thomas issue. McCluster has a lot of talent but no beef to absorb the shock of getting hit. He's like 165lbs! There are RB's in high school who weigh more than that. Rams have enough injury issues, we can't take the chance.
Similar Threads
-
Rams' offense offers some signs of progress
By eldfan in forum RAM TALKReplies: 2Last Post: -08-17-2008, 02:40 PM -
Postgame With Gordo
By RamWraith in forum RAM TALKReplies: 0Last Post: -10-22-2007, 02:43 PM -
Postgame With Gordo
By RamWraith in forum RAM TALKReplies: 0Last Post: -10-14-2007, 08:47 PM -
Linehan defends his offense
By RamWraith in forum RAM TALKReplies: 6Last Post: -09-20-2006, 10:59 PM




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote




Bookmarks