Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Potential Trade down Mock

  1. #31
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,554
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Potential Trade down Mock

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I think it's times like these when it's important to remember that the Rams will only play NFC West teams six times out of a 16-game schedule. Build to counter your division rivals is important, but you can't get tunnel vision in that regard. A third cornerback improves this team's ability to defend multiple receiver sets, but also gives the Rams depth should they suffer an injury to either of their starters. And let's not write off the possibility that this third corner, whomever he is, outplays one of our current starters and wins one of those jobs to help improve our base secondary.

    I'm far from ready to give up on Trumaine or Janoris, but I certainly don't think either have done enough to completely rule out the idea of competition at the position. The Rams didn't have a cornerback who graded out positively by Pro Football Focus this season. According to PFF, Jenkins and Johnson had 18 penalties between them, allowed a combined 9 touchdowns, picked off a combined 4 passes, and both allowed over 60% of passes thrown into their coverage to be completed.

    I agree that safety is a bigger area of weakness, but I really wouldn't sleep on a cornerback if the value is there.
    Tim Walton was let go so I have to think the Rams felt it was more scheme and coaching then personnel. Three players all regressed from one year to the next. Also the Lions backfield played much better then when Walton was the coach. 60% of passes thrown into their coverage to be completed heck they where lined up so far off the guy they where covering that's not a shocking number.

    Going to be interesting to see what the Rams do as far a personnel. Do they move on from Cort. I don't think so. Do they draft a CB or S high in the draft? Do they go after former players of Williams in free agency?


  2. #32
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,806
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Potential Trade down Mock

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Tim Walton was let go so I have to think the Rams felt it was more scheme and coaching then personnel.
    Perhaps, but ultimately players have to perform, regardless of the scheme. I think you could make a decent argument that Walton did what he had to do considering this team lacked both quality experience and talent at the safety position; I think this defense ended up missing Quintin Mikell more than they thought they would. It's great in theory to be aggressive at the line, but if you don't have the personnel at safety to protect you while doing that, it could be just as bad if not worse than what we saw in the Rams' secondary this year.

  3. #33
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    927
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Potential Trade down Mock

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Hall was in his way out when Quinn was selected. Long isn't, plus we have Hayes.

    You need to accept that some (most) people here don't agree that we should take Clowney and stop these lame efforts to portray our position as illogical or inconsistent.
    Contrary to your opinion, I am not trying to portray your (and many others) position as illogical or inconsistent. I am merely trying to articulate my views and if they appear lame to you (which pretty much means you don't agree with them) then so be it. No need to get so defensive.

    Since the original post I quoted from you had nothing to do with Clowney, I really don't see where he fits into this argument. Nor do I understand why he was brought up other than the fact you're calling him the BPA in my eyes, which is true. That is not the point I was trying to make and it seems I've confused you.

    You said "If Donald stays in, then Langford sits." Then I brought up my example about how Quinn only started one game as a rookie. If the Rams drafted for their biggest need that year, Quinn would not have been the selection. There is no disputing that. Therefore it would be foolish to draft our biggest need unless the value meets the requirement. The point you bring up about Hall being on his way out is absolutely correct because 2011 was his final season as a player. But going back to Donald, who is to say Langford doesn't get cut the following offseason? That would certainly get Donald on the field more and turn him into a starter and major contributor. Or if you want to use Clowney since you brought him up, maybe the same happens to Long because his contract becomes unmanageable and they want to extend Quinn. Point being, you can not focus solely on next year and if you do that you are setting yourself up to fail. If the Rams did so, they wouldn't have one of the best defensive players in the league in Quinn on their roster.

    I apologize in advance if my efforts here come off as lame.
    Last edited by Bald_81; -01-31-2014 at 01:32 AM.
    sosa39rams likes this.

  4. #34
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,951
    Rep Power
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Bald_81 View Post

    Contrary to your opinion, I am not trying to portray your (and many others) position as illogical or inconsistent. I am merely trying to articulate my views and if they appear lame to you (which pretty much means you don't agree with them) then so be it. No need to get so defensive.

    Since the original post I quoted from you had nothing to do with Clowney, I really don't see where he fits into this argument. Nor do I understand why he was brought up other than the fact you're calling him the BPA in my eyes, which is true. That is not the point I was trying to make and it seems I've confused you.

    You said "If Donald stays in, then Langford sits." Then I brought up my example about how Quinn only started one game as a rookie. If the Rams drafted for their biggest need that year, Quinn would not have been the selection. There is no disputing that. Therefore it would be foolish to draft our biggest need unless the value meets the requirement. The point you bring up about Hall being on his way out is absolutely correct because 2011 was his final season as a player. But going back to Donald, who is to say Langford doesn't get cut the following offseason? That would certainly get Donald on the field more and turn him into a starter and major contributor. Or if you want to use Clowney since you brought him up, maybe the same happens to Long because his contract becomes unmanageable and they want to extend Quinn. Point being, you can not focus solely on next year and if you do that you are setting yourself up to fail. If the Rams did so, they wouldn't have one of the best defensive players in the league in Quinn on their roster.

    I apologize in advance if my efforts here come off as lame.
    It's easy to say all of that in hindsight, but the reason Quinn was taken was that he fell to #14. If Clowney falls to #13 (he won't) the Rams might take him too despite the current depth at DE.

    As for Donald, I'd consider him in the late first or second round, but at #13 I'd rather take a CB, S, or WR.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -01-31-2014 at 08:30 AM.
    punahou likes this.

  5. #35
    Vinnie25's Avatar
    Vinnie25 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Potential Trade down Mock

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I think it's times like these when it's important to remember that the Rams will only play NFC West teams six times out of a 16-game schedule. Build to counter your division rivals is important, but you can't get tunnel vision in that regard. A third cornerback improves this team's ability to defend multiple receiver sets, but also gives the Rams depth should they suffer an injury to either of their starters. And let's not write off the possibility that this third corner, whomever he is, outplays one of our current starters and wins one of those jobs to help improve our base secondary.

    I'm far from ready to give up on Trumaine or Janoris, but I certainly don't think either have done enough to completely rule out the idea of competition at the position. The Rams didn't have a cornerback who graded out positively by Pro Football Focus this season. According to PFF, Jenkins and Johnson had 18 penalties between them, allowed a combined 9 touchdowns, picked off a combined 4 passes, and both allowed over 60% of passes thrown into their coverage to be completed.

    I agree that safety is a bigger area of weakness, but I really wouldn't sleep on a cornerback if the value is there.
    I think scheme had more to do with our corners struggling, not their lack of talent. Most CB's will get burned for 60% pass completions when their playing 10 yards off the line, especially with no safeties behind them providing help. However, with Greg Williams hopefully playing a more aggressive defense next year, I think our CB's will be pretty good. I do think we should draft another CB, I just wouldn't reach for one.

  6. #36
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,858
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Potential Trade down Mock

    Didn't the Seahawks often line up with 3 WRs in the Superbowl? Tate, Baldwin and Kearse? It's much more common in the NFL than it used to be

  7. #37
    Vinnie25's Avatar
    Vinnie25 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Potential Trade down Mock

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    Didn't the Seahawks often line up with 3 WRs in the Superbowl? Tate, Baldwin and Kearse? It's much more common in the NFL than it used to be
    True, but IMO I think that having a Safety who's good in run support and can also cover some TE's/WR's is more important than having a 3rd CB

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Vetting potential trade partners: Falcons
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -01-24-2014, 04:49 PM
  2. Potential Trade?
    By sosa39rams in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -03-10-2013, 07:41 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: -03-16-2012, 03:54 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: -03-09-2012, 01:51 AM
  5. ramifications of potential Texans/Falcons trade?
    By tomahawk247 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: -03-22-2007, 01:33 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
  •