Round 2: Bang for your buck?

[Bar-bq]

It appears concensus that the Rams will try to fill one of two holes with their first round pick. Those are offensive line (via Jake Long) or defensive end (Via Chris Long or Vernon Gholston). I've been pondering strategy for round two since the release of Isaac Bruce, and the apparent release of Brandon Chillar, and what's occured to me is this.

We will still have three significant areas of need at pick number 33. They are SLB, WR and either OT/DE. Kinda obvious, huh?

But where it gets complicated is finding "bang for your buck". That is, a player who fills a need with value that co-incides with where you're picking. And it appears we may be spoilt for choice.

So my question is this; depending on how we choose in round 1, where do your priorities lay in round 2? That is, in order, what positions do you want drafted according to who is projected to be available?

If we choose OT, we still have a glaring need at DE, which has to skyrocket to the top of the round 2 priority list, IMO. We could still find a decent player available then and there with a guy like Ellis, Groves, or Jackson. Then you have to look at the strong likelihood that there's a solid wideout avialable, and our lack of depth in the slot. A guy like Tavares Gooden has been mentioned a bit as a candidate in the Pro Day thread, and he could find himself a candidate to replace Chillar here, too- though Devaney has reported to be high on Culberson.

However, if CL or Vernon Gholston ends up a Ram, then you have a whole new ballgame to play. The wealth available at WR may be the best option, but it's neck and neck with insurace at OT, IMO. Again, Gooden remains a posibility.

So my positional big board for round 2, as of today, looks like this, depending on the player we draft in round 1.

If we draft OT, in round 1, my preference is as follows.

DE
WR
SLB

If we look at DE in round 1....

WR
OT
SLB

Your thoughts?

[chiguy]

I'm going to run down to Rams park and physically harm someone if a DE isn't drafted in the first two rounds. It appears that they finally get this and we'll be drafting one somewhere in the first 34 picks. So, I think your "positional ranking" makes some sense. My preference is to get an offensive tackle in the first two rounds too, but I wouldn't cry about them picking a WR in the 2nd round. This LB class doesn't seem good enough nor is our need strong enough with Draft on the roster to push it above any of the other three slots, IMO.

[RamsSB99]

I would prefer DE, WR, OT taken this year. Hopefully we will not be drafting this high for a long long time but since we are our first two picks are in the top 34 and we could come out with two impact players at both DE and WR which is two hard spots to find. OT is also a hard spot to find an impact player. To me SS and CB fall behind those spots. WR is one of the toughest skill positions to find a good guy at. A lot of guys stat out as WR and move to DB if they don't display good hands. I also want us to insure good line play on both sides of the ball which helps all the skill players. IMO LB is no greater need then SS (chavous) and CB (drugs Brown, plus 3rd CB). I would rather take a later LB this year and a higher LB next year.

[TekeRam]

It's true that the Sam position has been overlooked up until this point, however, we do have a veteran(Draft) and a youngster(Culberson) who could potentially step into that position. Further, as can be seen by Chicago's favorite son, Lance Briggs, re-upping with the Bears, the linebacker market is apparently the one that doesn't completely suck. In fact, looking at a free agent list, there's a pretty large number of recognizable names still out there, ranging from younger vets(Gilbert Gardner, TEN, 4 years exp) to older but still very servicable(Clark Haggans, PIT and Rob Morris, IND, 8 years exp), to a good and in his prime LB, Nick Griesen, BAL, 6 years exp.

I very much think that we can fill our SAM spot by the draft using free agency, and wait till next year to try getting a high LB(after Safety).

So my round 2 list would be, assuming that we pick up DE in round one, by hook or by crook:
WR, SS(if one slips), OT, CB, LB.

[RAMarkable]

I'm going to run down to Rams park and physically harm someone....

Hmmm....so what's your 40 time, chiguy? And how much can you bench press? Would you consider a try out? With the way our defense plays we absolutely need someone who will run and play physical. I hope you'll consider it.

WHAT SAY YE?

[Rambos]

If we draft OT, in round 1, my preference is as follows.

DE
WR
SLB

If we look at DE in round 1....

WR
OT
SLB

Your thoughts?

Why does you second round pick change, due to the postion selected in the first round?

[TekeRam]

Why does you second round pick change, due to the postion selected in the first round?

Because DE is the most needed position. OT is deep in the draft and the fall off of OT's is less as you go through the second round than Wideouts. If a DE's selected first, then WR is the next need + availability. If OT's taken first, then we NEED to take the top DE on the board.

[39thebeast]

I think we will go D-Line with the first pick (that means i'm not ruling out Dorsey yet like other guys are). Then in the second I would love to get a guy like Devin Thomas is he slips to us because he is my favorite WR in the class

[Bar-bq]

Why does you second round pick change, due to the postion selected in the first round?

Because then it becomes a question of value, and projected availabilty, as opposed to direct need. DE is probably the biggest need this team has right now. If we don't take one early, we'd better grab one in round 2. That is to say that we can't spend an entire offseason AND the first 2 rounds of the draft solely adressing the offense. There's a surefire path to future defensive mediocrity, right there. You need young players constantly coming through the system to develop into future starters.

But look at the contrast in projected avialablity and value between OT and WR in round two. You could grab Carl Nicks (my current rouns 2 OT preference) but does Nicks have a higher value than, say, a Manningham or a Doucet? I don't necessarily think so.

[chiguy]

Hmmm....so what's your 40 time, chiguy? And how much can you bench press? Would you consider a try out? With the way our defense plays we absolutely need someone who will run and play physical. I hope you'll consider it.

WHAT SAY YE?

I'm only about 175 pounds of pure fat, but I'm mean as hell when I'm angry.

So, we'll call that a maybe.