What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
How do the Rams have the board stacked?
Would you be shocked to find out the Rams FO have the board set and it looks like this?
1) Matt Kalil, OT, Southern California
2) Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU
3) Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama
4) Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State
Most fans are convinced that WR is the biggest need and if Blackmon is there it's a no brainier.
I'm not so sure the Rams FO see it that way.
Actions speak louder then words and if free agency is telling us anything that is the Rams and Fisher see other needs as a higher priority. Fisher said clearly that we would protect Bradford.. Rams add pro bowl C Scott Wells. Fisher said the Rams would be a tough and physical team the Rams add Cortland Finnegan and Kendall Langford.
The Rams quickly cleared cap space to be aggressive in FA and they could have made a run at Vincent Jackson, but they really didn't try, their focused was on Cortland Finnegan, Kendall Langford and Scott Wells.
In fact not one top tier receiver even came for and interview.
Quote:
Fisher listed the tenets of his offensive philosophy: "It's a team that's going to run the football and protect the quarterback."
Trent Richardson and or Matt Kalil, could help accomplish
that.
Fisher is going to build a physical, nasty and tough defense... Morris Claiborne and Cortland Finnegan would really lock up some of the best WR in the NFL allowing Long and Quinn to get after the QB.
Fisher also said we need to get playmakers for Sam... Justin Blackmon would more then fill that role.
So far Fishers and the Rams actions speak loud and clear if you ask me. Receiver is a need just not the biggest one.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Quote:
Would you be shocked to find out the Rams FO have the board set and it looks like this?
1) Matt Kalil, OT, Southern California
2) Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU
3) Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama
4) Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State
Not at all. In fact, put those 4 names in a hat, draw them out one at a time, and that's your draft board. Or rank them alphabetically. Or by hat size. Or horoscope sign. Whatever method you like. There is no possible combination of those 4 names that would surprise me as the Rams draft board. Any and all of them would make this team better, and the daylight between #3 and #6 is minimal.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Claiborne is my preferred choice to be honest. I won't be upset if we take Blackmon but I'm just not convinced he is worth a top 10 pick. Claiborne and Finnegan would shutdown the secondary and with our pass rush would give us a fierce, fierce D.
WRs should only be taken that high if an exceptional talent, I'm not sure Blackmon is.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
I personally have them ranked: (1) Blackmon, (2) Kalil, (3) Claiborne and (4) Richardson, but I don't presume the Rams necessarily see it the same way I do.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
The Rams can rank those players however they want, and they should focus on ranking them the same way they would in any year. It really doesn't matter though, since there is a 99% chance 3 of those 4 players will go before them and they won't have to make a decision.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
codeman123
The Rams can rank those players however they want, and they should focus on ranking them the same way they would in any year. It really doesn't matter though, since there is a 99% chance 3 of those 4 players will go before them and they won't have to make a decision.
Yeah most will be gone but my point is what are the needs of the FO. This off season all signs indicate they do not have receiver as high as most fans do. Chances are if any of the three where on the board the Rams would pick that player over Blackmon.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
I disagree with the notion that Fisher doesn't really care about the passing game as much and the running game. I assume he knows its not 1960. In free agency, the Rams have been in contact with multiple WRs. They were talking to Meachem, Garcon, Manningham, Douglas, ect. They were also rumored to be asking Philly about a trade for Desean Jackson. I think they realize that Bradford needs someone to throw to and have been trying relentlessly to sign someone who fits that bill.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Isn't this discussion a little pointless in the end, though?
Barring a trade up,or an unforseen rise by some player other than the current "Big 6" (Luck, RGII, Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne, Richardson), the Rams are not going to get to choose which of the top prospects they will take. Rather, that choice will be made for them by Minnesota, Cleveland and Tampa.
A better question would be... (see my newest poll!)
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
codeman123
I disagree with the notion that Fisher doesn't really care about the passing game as much and the running game. I assume he knows its not 1960. In free agency, the Rams have been in contact with multiple WRs. They were talking to Meachem, Garcon, Manningham, Douglas, ect. They were also rumored to be asking Philly about a trade for Desean Jackson. I think they realize that Bradford needs someone to throw to and have been trying relentlessly to sign someone who fits that bill.
Fisher said
Quote:
Fisher listed the tenets of his offensive philosophy: "It's a team that's going to run the football and protect the quarterback."
He is a run the ball first coach... I'm not saying he doesn't care about the passing game not at all.. I'm saying from what he said and what they have done... receiver is not as high as other needs...
IMO if we really had a number one receiver as priority one. The Rams would have at least been mention as a team that is going to make a run at getting Vincent Jackson, show me something.
I'm not saying he does not care IMO it's looking like it's not priority number one. Well soon see come draft day.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
I think actions speak louder than words. That they failed is beside the point. They were on a mission to find WRs this offseason.
As far as VJax, the fact that the Rams weren't in on him doesn't mean they weren't looking for a #1. They clearly didn't have the resources to give him 12 million a year. Not only that, but he is a risky buy. He is one of those players that could easily take the money and stop caring as much. If the Rams didn't have holes at every other position they might of given him a ring.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
Yeah most will be gone but my point is what are the needs of the FO.
You fill needs in free agency. You draft for talent.
The Rams have been mentioned at OT, WR and CB in free agency. Don't think you can eliminate any of those from the draft or say one is more likely. If they went out and spent $8 million on an OT right now, that would possibly eliminate adding another OT.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
To run the ball effectively you're going to need receivers.
Think about it.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Ive come to same conclusion as you Rambos, in previous posts. Im not sure if Fisher will see it like the majority of us fans. Because I believe this obsession by Rams fans to snag a true No.1 WR for Sam Bradford, isnt a healthy one. A lot of it is born out of frustration, because of watching all these 3,4, and 5' WR's, pretending to be 1's and 2' WR's, on the Rams offense the last two years.
Sam Bradford has shown he can build a pretty good rapport with a mediocre receiver.(Clayton and Lloyd.) The only problem is the Rams don't have enough mediocre receiver's on their roster, only plenty of 3,4, and 5's. So what Im saying is I believe Bradford doesn't neccessarily need a true 1A WR to move this offense. He will be fine with some good and proper No.2's, in my opinion.
So it need not be all doom and gloom if the Rams miss out on Justin Blackmon.
Im certain Fishead will find other players in this draft to help Sam Bradford, and not all of them being receivers either.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
If the Rams have Blackmon sitting there at 6 and don't take him, its not because they don't value receiver (or value other positions more), its because they don't like him as a prospect. If they like him, they will take him.
Also expect the Rams to draft at least 1 receiver in their first 4 picks (3 rounds). If the Rams are so serious on running the ball that they don't value receiver highly they will still take a guy like Stephen Hill in the second because of his ability to run block. Receivers are important. They are valuable to an offense. Gibson isn't going to do it for anyone. Also, someone else made a post about how the current WRs on the team had a combined 3 TDs. I think the FO has WR pretty high on the do to list.
Re: What how do the Rams FO have the board stacked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
codeman123
If the Rams have Blackmon sitting there at 6 and don't take him, its not because they don't value receiver (or value other positions more), its because they don't like him as a prospect. If they like him, they will take him.
Also expect the Rams to draft at least 1 receiver in their first 4 picks (3 rounds). If the Rams are so serious on running the ball that they don't value receiver highly they will still take a guy like Stephen Hill in the second because of his ability to run block. Receivers are important. They are valuable to an offense. Gibson isn't going to do it for anyone. Also, someone else made a post about how the current WRs on the team had a combined 3 TDs. I think the FO has WR pretty high on the do to list.
Pretty high? I think it's pretty high, but is it the Number One priority? If they pass on Blackmon it might be because they just don't think that he's a top 10 pick but they would be alone on that assessment.
Bottom line, I would have liked to have had at least one of the elite WR FA at Rams park, even if we didn't land him.
