What is "Plan B" for Round 1 of the Draft?

[Ram Mar Ram]

Hard to say .. i voted trade down. although i dont really care for that, if there isnt an OG worth taking at #14. Trade down to the second / late first, pick up J.Baldwin & BA-OG (Ijalana) / Castonzo. DT Paea in the second round could be an option as well if he drops.

[jerseyramsfan]

Awesome question. Heres another. How about if they sign Rice in FA would you still take Jones?

[berg8309]

Awesome question. Heres another. How about if they sign Rice in FA would you still take Jones?

Jerry Rice!?!?!

In all seriousness, if they sign Rice they will probably use that pick to address a different area.

[GROUND DOG 39]

I went for BPA except QB. I also wouldnt want the Rams to use the 14th pick on a guard, they can be had in any round. Although Im desperate the Rams draft at least 2 this year, maybe the first one as high as the 3rd round. No running backs at 14 either, thank you. Change of pace back in the latter rounds.
Its more and more likely we go defensive at 14, or trade back.

[ZiaRam]

I suppose you and I view the term "BPA" differently. To me, BPA is not a universal standard. BPA for the Rams is different than BPA for the Lions or Bengals or Bears (oh my!). The only arena in which BPA is universal is for the Kipers and Mayocks of the world. The draftniks don't have to factor in need, because they view the draft through the eyes of all 32 teams. When they make a draft board (ie. BPA ranking), need is not part of the factor. However, when the Rams make a BPA ranking, they do so with the Rams need factored in. And for that reason, I say BPA. Don't reach for a specific position if there is a better player (per the Rams position need factored in) is there, take him; even if it is not the position du jour.

When I hear the term BPA, I have to assume DeSpags has done their job and it's more than the Best Player Available; it's the Best Player Available With Position Need Being Factored.

It's just that BPAWPNBF doesn't roll off the tongue.

Without a doubt Hubison! You fit my views exactly on what Spags and Devaney have and will do from thier track history. I listen to every interview I find on Billy D and with everyone I hear him talking about going BPA with need factored into there when asked about it which has to be one of the wisest ways to draft... Being straight out BPA can get you in trouble like the Lions or anyone else that has done that over the years. I'm confident in whoever we take will be a quality guy and will produce on the filed as well and if no one is there that we feel comfortable with we just might trade it which I know they are open to as well to build our future roster some more.

[old school fan]

i know it is not an option but why not trade up and get Green,what would that take.i know we need a lot but a stud WR go with our young QB might be worth it

[BarronWade]

Look at the 2 DE spags has helped draft in New York Osi and Kiwi.

I fullly confident Spags knows what he is doing when drafting a DE. He will draft a beast DE to line up opposite Chris long. If we give Spags a raw DE he can churn out a star

[RAMarkable]

Look at the 2 DE spags has helped draft in New York Osi and Kiwi.

I fullly confident Spags knows what he is doing when drafting a DE. He will draft a beast DE to line up opposite Chris long. If we give Spags a raw DE he can churn out a star

I agree, but what round are you projecting that the Rams draft said DE? At this point I say the Rams are looking at either Cam Jordan or Aldon Smith with the 14th pick.

Others may come into the equation as the process lurches onward, but, for now, I would say its between those two.

WHAT SAY YE?

[HUbison]

i know it is not an option but why not trade up and get Green,what would that take.i know we need a lot but a stud WR go with our young QB might be worth it

Green would be a great addition, but it could possibly take a trade up to the top 5, maybe even #1 overall. That's a lot of movement to get a WR.

[thoey]

Green would be a great addition, but it could possibly take a trade up to the top 5, maybe even #1 overall. That's a lot of movement to get a WR.

But is he worth it for a deep threat true #1 for years to come? Not being tricky or sarcastic, honestly asking the question. But if the kid turns out to be what many are saying, is he worth two #1's to lock in a stud WR to go with Sam for 4 - 5 years?

[AvengerRam]

If potential always panned out then, sure, it would be worth paying a King's ransom to trade up. The problem is, there is always a lot of risk when selecting a WR early.

Not a risk I'd be willing to take.

[old school fan]

all i'm saying is,if you are going to pick your QB of the future #1 overall, you need WR's to throw the ball to,and none of our WR's would be better than a WR #2 on a good team if that high and the rest might be a WR #3.some have said go after VJAX,or S Rice that would take big $$$,if they are available at all,this would cause cap issues.if trading up for green is not an option,then you have to trade up for jones.but if you are going to trade up you might as well get the best WR

[ZiaRam]

I'm sure if we trade up in the top 5 for Green there will be the same issues monetary wise for signing his contract as much as there would be to sign a free agent.

[Goldenfleece]

I went with DE, assuming that a guy we've got rated top five overall doesn't happen to fall into our laps or something of that nature.

My rationale is that you don't normally draft a 4-3 OLB in the first round. When a guy like Clay Matthews gets drafted in the first round, it's because he's going to be a pass rusher in the 3-4. I would feel more confident that we could pick up a capable OLB in say the third or fourth round than I would that we could find a defensive lineman or corner who could make an impact.

At least at this point, I think the drop off between WR #2 (Jones) and WR #3 (?) is pretty significant, and generally I think a guard has to be a pretty special talent to even be worthy of consideration in the middle of the first round. If we did want to take the top guard on the board, I think we would want to look at moving back toward the bottom of the round.

Ingram wouldn't be a bad option. He's not a perfect complement to Jackson, but the combination of the two would let us really grind opposing defenses down.

In the end, BPAWPNBF strikes me as kind of a cop-out. Most of the arguments you're going to see in favor of drafting one player or the other are based on the talent of the player with consideration for the team's needs. It's like answering the question, "What would you like to order?" with "something tasty and nutritious".

[HUbison]

In the end, BPAWPNBF strikes me as kind of a cop-out. Most of the arguments you're going to see in favor of drafting one player or the other are based on the talent of the player with consideration for the team's needs. It's like answering the question, "What would you like to order?" with "something tasty and nutritious".

I disagree, Fleece. It's about a distinction. As I said earlier, yes DeSpags will have already factored in need when they rank their board. And really a draft board is nothing more than one team's listing of BPAWPNBF (it cracks me up that we're using that as a legitimate acronym, but I digress). What frustrates me is when a team goes away from BPA because there is some position they want filled.

But to me, BPAWPNBF is answering the question, "What would you like to order?" with "Well, this place has the best cashew chicken, so I'll have the cashew chicken."