Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    max's Avatar
    max
    max is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CT
    Age
    61
    Posts
    140
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Despite what a lot of us amatuer draft evaluators think, the Rams are interested in Ginn. According to Bernie, we should expect the pick to be Ginn or Carriker. That's the way it is. Some of us think the Rams are making a big mistake if they take Ginn, others (like me) think it's a reasonable move. So you Ginn haters can rant on, just like I did 2 years ago when I ranted on about trading up for Thomas Davis.

    I do acknowledge that if Ginn does not become a #1 WR, picking him is a mistake. But I don't think he won't be a #1 because of his current size. Marvin Harrison and Bruce were small guys coming out of college also. And how big was Lance Alworth? I know it was a long time ago, but I think he could still be a #1 WR now. After all we have CB's like Tye Hill covering these guys.

    If Ginn doesn't make it, I think it will be because he doesn't develop the skills to separate from DB's by leaning how to use his short-area quickness in getting off the line and then out of his breaks. Ginn is only a Junior, but right now he doesn't look like an instinctive route runner. Will playing with Holt and Bruce make it happen? I leave that to Linehan, Ellard, and the boys to decide.
    Last edited by max; -04-21-2007 at 09:06 AM.


  2. #32
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    Despite what a lot of us amatuer draft evaluators think, the Rams are interested in Ginn.
    Maybe, maybe not. Unless you're in those meetings, I don't think anyone can say with any kind of true certainty who the Rams truly are interested in. But I will definitely agree with the thought that the Rams appear interested in Ginn. Whether that interest is legit or is an elaborate smokescreen, we can't say for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    According to Bernie, we should expect the pick to be Ginn or Carriker. That's the way it is.
    You should really think about not using all these "That's the way it is" and "That's all there is to it" as if things are so concrete. Because a lot of times, they most definitely are not.

    What Bernie said, and I'm quoting from his forum, is that "If they trade for Jenkins, there's a very good chance they'll draft Ginn. If they don't get Jenkins, it will complicate things, and they may go Carriker....unless Okoye is still there." So Ginn appears to be an option that's primarily contingent on the Jenkins trade, and even then Ginn isn't a complete lock.

    Again though, like any pre-draft beat writer opinion, it should once again be taken with a grain of salt. NFL teams don't give these guys unheralded access to their master plans.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    So you Ginn haters can rant on
    It's been my experience that the label of a "hater" is more typically applied to someone that just flat out hates a player for no reason. I don't think that's been the case here at the Clan at all. I see nothing wrong with reasonable people disagreeing when they bring thought and logic behind their position, which many of us have most certainly done. I would encourage you to refrain from labeling others like that simply because they disagree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    I do acknowledge that if Ginn does not become a #1 WR, picking him is a mistake. But I don't think he won't be a #1 because of his current size. Marvin Harrison and Bruce were small guys coming out of college also.
    The problem is Harrison and Bruce, who for what it's worth are both listed as being 7-10 pounds heavier and an inch taller than Ginn, make their money with precise route running, sure hands, and being some of the best students of the game. Ginn's route running is generally recognized as a weakness, and he's not a sure handed receiver either.

    Yes, these players are examples of smaller guys having success at the next level, but there are reasons for that - reasons that Ginn does not display as strengths and would have to really work on in the early stages of his career to attain proficiency in them.

    Will he do that? It's hard to say, especially with the rumblings of at least one team thinking about moving him back to corner and Ginn being open to the idea.

  3. #33
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,510
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    According to Bernie,
    That's where I lost interest in your post.

  4. #34
    max's Avatar
    max
    max is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CT
    Age
    61
    Posts
    140
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. Unless you're in those meetings, I don't think anyone can say with any kind of true certainty who the Rams truly are interested in. But I will definitely agree with the thought that the Rams appear interested in Ginn. Whether that interest is legit or is an elaborate smokescreen, we can't say for sure.
    Fair enough.



    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You should really think about not using all these "That's the way it is" and "That's all there is to it" as if things are so concrete. Because a lot of times, they most definitely are not.
    What I meant by that is that many posters are down on picking Ginn and are in denial that it will happen. Others do recognize there is that possibility and get all upset over it. All I'm saying here is that the Rams actions have indicated that Ginn is a possiblity. And that is what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    What Bernie said, and I'm quoting from his forum, is that "If they trade for Jenkins, there's a very good chance they'll draft Ginn. If they don't get Jenkins, it will complicate things, and they may go Carriker....unless Okoye is still there." So Ginn appears to be an option that's primarily contingent on the Jenkins trade, and even then Ginn isn't a complete lock.

    Again though, like any pre-draft beat writer opinion, it should once again be taken with a grain of salt. NFL teams don't give these guys unheralded access to their master plans.
    My point was that Ginn is thought to be a real possibility by the same beat writer who said Hill was a real possibility last year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    It's been my experience that the label of a "hater" is more typically applied to someone that just flat out hates a player for no reason. I don't think that's been the case here at the Clan at all. I see nothing wrong with reasonable people disagreeing when they bring thought and logic behind their position, which many of us have most certainly done. I would encourage you to refrain from labeling others like that simply because they disagree with you.
    My experience isn't that specific. Yes, I've heard guys say they "hate" a player for no reason but I've also heard guys say they "hate" a player because of certain issues: too small, too slow, too lazy, bad hands, bad routes, etc. The question I have for you is, would you "hate" Ginn to be the pick at #13? If so, I'm sure it's for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    The problem is Harrison and Bruce, who for what it's worth are both listed as being 7-10 pounds heavier and an inch taller than Ginn, make their money with precise route running, sure hands, and being some of the best students of the game. Ginn's route running is generally recognized as a weakness, and he's not a sure handed receiver either.

    Yes, these players are examples of smaller guys having success at the next level, but there are reasons for that - reasons that Ginn does not display as strengths and would have to really work on in the early stages of his career to attain proficiency in them.

    Will he do that? It's hard to say, especially with the rumblings of at least one team thinking about moving him back to corner and Ginn being open to the idea.
    i've heard these arguments, all valid except I don't buy the Bruce and Harrison are bigger that Ginn. The question should be what did they weight as Juniors? And I will bet you a beer that Ginn is at least as tall as Harrison. You said fwiw, well I'm sure you know, not much.

  5. #35
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    My point was that Ginn is thought to be a real possibility by the same beat writer who said Hill was a real possibility last year.
    I wouldn't use Bernie bringing up Hill's name as any evidence towards giving his opinion now more validity. There were a number of people that thought Hill was a possibility. ESPN picked up on it a few days/weeks before the draft and I believe even projected it in one of their mocks. I believe the Rams even brought him in for a visit.

    But it was also important to note that Bernie said Ginn had a real chance if we traded for Jenkins. If we don't, he mentioned Carriker and Okoye.

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    The question I have for you is, would you "hate" Ginn to be the pick at #13? If so, I'm sure it's for a reason.
    Would I hate it? No, and as I said before, I'll cheer him on as a Ram and hope he proves me wrong eventually. But I don't think it's good value and I don't think he's going to be a true #1 guy in this league, so it would disappoint me. Especially if we choose Ginn with other defensive prospects available (Anderson, Carriker, Revis, etc), and even more so if the Jenkins trade isn't made.

  6. #36
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,510
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Bernie said a lot of players were possibilities last year, including Jay Cutler.

    When you use a shotgun approach, you're bound to hit something sooner or later.

  7. #37
    max's Avatar
    max
    max is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CT
    Age
    61
    Posts
    140
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Bernie said a lot of players were possibilities last year, including Jay Cutler.

    When you use a shotgun approach, you're bound to hit something sooner or later.
    What's your point? Are you trying to convince yourself that Ginn is not really a serious consideration by the Rams? No need to blame Bernie if it's not working for you.

    Bernie mentioned Cutler, Hill, Bunkley, and Greenway. I believe they were all strongly considered. It may turn out that we made a mistake not taking Cutler, he looks like a good one. Anyway, we picked a guy Bernie had on his short list.

    This year Bernie has Ginn on the short list. To me that means there is a better chance that we pick Ginn (assuming we get Jenkins or Rogers or whoever at DT) than Branch or Hall or Moss. That's not trivial.

    The Rams probably won't take Ginn. As Nick said, they have to get Jenkins first to make it feasible. Then Carriker or Okoye may be there at 13 and they may decide to go that way. But if the Rams do get Jenkins and Okoye and Carriker are off the board they may very well take Ginn over say Revis or Anderson. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

    I will say this since I'm new here. I've been doing this for a long time now. I remember the 3 #1 we had in 1969 (Larry Smith, Jim Seymour, and Bob Klein) who were just as bad as our 2001 picks (actually I remember them being worse). I am simply giving you my opinion after 30 years of following this stuff. If you want to dismiss it that's ok with me. Others may want to hear it though.

  8. #38
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,321
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    I am simply giving you my opinion after 30 years of following this stuff. If you want to dismiss it that's ok with me. Others may want to hear it though.
    Max, no one is dismissing your opinion. The question at hand seems to be how much faith you're putting into a beat writer's opinion simply because he, like multiple others, mentioned Hill as a possible guy for St. Louis last year. The way I see it, the Rams' interest in Ginn is not any more legitimate simply because Bernie is saying it as well. He's reporting what everyone else is reporting, which is very likely what the Rams want them to report. Now, whether they want him to report it because they have a legitimate interest in Ginn and don't mind talking about it or because they have other plans but want to play up an interest in Ginn is probably the real question here.

  9. #39
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,884
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    What's your point? Are you trying to convince yourself that Ginn is not really a serious consideration by the Rams? No need to blame Bernie if it's not working for you.

    Bernie mentioned Cutler, Hill, Bunkley, and Greenway. I believe they were all strongly considered. It may turn out that we made a mistake not taking Cutler, he looks like a good one. Anyway, we picked a guy Bernie had on his short list.

    This year Bernie has Ginn on the short list. To me that means there is a better chance that we pick Ginn (assuming we get Jenkins or Rogers or whoever at DT) than Branch or Hall or Moss. That's not trivial.
    I think what you're missing here is that Bernie's 'short-list' could have been as many as 30 players. He publically discussed...what 5-10 players? But i assure it would have been naive of him to only consider 10.

    Ginn being on one sportswriter's short list is not conducive to the chances of the Rams taking Ginn. Let's remember, our Rams are in no way directly affiliated with Bernie, but what's spoken by the FO and Liehan admittedly does influence his writing.

    We can't be sure if it's truth, or a complete bluff. Just like Cutler last year.

    The point is, the draft is a crap-shoot. Bernie's opinion is just that- opinion. It's foolish to think he isn't considering other possibilites than the one's he's mentioned. If you keep swatting the piniata, you're eventually going to break it open.

    For that matter, his opinion is no more valid than yours. So instead of preaching from the gospel of Bernie, howbout we hear your thoughts?

  10. #40
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Ted Ginn to visit Rams

    I don't think anyone is saying Ginn isn't a possibility, obviously, by virtue of the fact that he is in the draft makes him a possibility.

    The point that most of us is trying to make is that the Rams should be focused on defensive players at the top of this draft, simply because our defense is by far the weakest link of this team.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •