Why haven't we looked at Iann Scott?

*Varg6* · #1 (**permalink**) -12-03-2007

I'm surprised we haven't even looked at him (as far as I'm aware...)....

Thoughts?

**AvengerRam** · #2 (**permalink**) -12-03-2007

1. He's not a NT.

2. He wasn't even a starter in Chicago (at least, not until Tommie Harris was injured).

3. He's had only 49 tackles in his last 29 games.

4. He's probably no better than L'Roi Glover, and possibly even than Claude Wroten.

5. He probably wants a big contract.

*Varg6* · #3 (**permalink**) -12-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

1. He's not a NT.

2. He wasn't even a starter in Chicago (at least, not until Tommie Harris was injured).

3. He's had only 49 tackles in his last 29 games.

4. He's probably no better than L'Roi Glover, and possibly even than Claude Wroten.

5. He probably wants a big contract.

Thats what I wanted to know!

Thank you

*Goldenfleece* · #4 (**permalink**) -13-03-2007

1. According to the Bears website, Ian Scott "has developed into a sturdy run-stopper during his career with Chicago, starting 26 games at nose tackle over the last 2 seasons."

2. At the beginning of last season Scott was the starter and struggled. After three games, he lost his starting job to Tank Johnson. Then when Tommie Harris was injured, he filled in next to Johnson but played well to finish out the season.

3. The fact that his normal position is at NT helps explain the low number of tackles. Nose tackles often have low totals. Also, he was not the starter in 10 of those 29 games you mentioned.

4. He probably is better than Kennedy, and we have no backup.

5. He probably does want a big contract. I would speculate that it is still possible we might sign him, but by waiting it out we're sending a message that we're not desperate for his services, and we don't intend to overpay.

**Nick** · #5 (**permalink**) -13-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

1. He's not a NT.

Actually, he is. As Goldenfleece pointed out, he's listed as a nose tackle both on the Bears' official roster and in his official bio. ESPN's confirms that he aligns as a nose tackle for Chicago in their scouting report on Scott's player page. Also, a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune article mentioned that the Vikings have expressed interest in Scott who would provide depth behind current nose tackle Pat Williams.

As for the original question about why we're not going after him, John Clayton had this to say about the slow DT market in general: "After seeing the Raiders give Terdell Sands a four-year, $17 million deal, the feeling was the defensive tackle market would be hot. It's been frigid. Ian Scott of the Bears is just starting to make trips this week. Other starters such as Michael Myers of the Broncos, Ron Edwards and James Reed of the Chiefs, and Robaire Smith of the Titans haven't been as active as many thought. It's a pretty good draft for defensive linemen, so many teams are waiting until April to get theirs."

**AvengerRam** · #6 (**permalink**) -13-03-2007

He's a NT, but he was benched, and then returned to the lineup only when the other DT was injured, at which point he didn't play NT.

In my book, that means he's not a NT (or, at least, he's not a starting NT).

If the Rams could sign him for a reasonable price, that would be okay. But I don't see him as the answer to our run D woes.

**txramsfan** · #7 (**permalink**) -13-03-2007

Ok, I know I've been on a soapbox lately but I swear if the Rams DONT draft a DT in the first round of this years draft....and Carriker is a DT/DE.....I'll become another RamTime and swear Georgia is dating the pool cleaner again.