Second quess

[smitheRAM]

So we picked Bradford, but what if we could of picked Suh and now Clausen. Would you have rather done have them?

[sakl18]

Re: Second quess

I'm glad we took Bradford. If we took Suh, the draft would have played out differently, and better safe than sorry (in getting a QB).

[rammiser]

Re: Second quess

Hindsight is twenty twenty but yeah that would have been ideal. Getting Suh and getting Clausen would have been fantastic. However we got Bradford and I will support him just like I do every Rams player.

[smitheRAM]

Re: Second quess

Sorry for the grammer.

[Warner4prez]

Re: Second quess

I'll have to wait and see who we take tomorrow. Shocking to see Tebow get snapped up before Claussen and McCoy though.

[Bralidore(RAMMODE)]

Re: Second quess

Lets just say this, there's a reason he was passed on by all 32 teams in the first round.

[Rambunctious]

Re: Second quess

No. Why? Because more than one team wanted to trade up to get Bradford and several teams that needed a qb had the chance and said no to Clausen.

Only time will tell if they are right but as much as he was poked and prodded by people who make a living evaluating players... I feel comfortable we the fact we got Bradford.

[bigredman]

Re: Second quess

To say there's a reason Clausen was passed on by everyone else as a reason we shouldn't have waited to pick him up, is nonsensical logic. What about all the teams that passed on Joe Montana? There have been many pro bowl QBs that have fallen out of the first round. To say that we wouldn 't be in better position if we had taken Suh and then Clausen is just stubbornly being a rah rah boy for Bradford. Now, could we have reliably depended on Clausen being there when we picked in the second round, no, but McCoy could reasonably have been and I would have been satified with that as well. We invested too much for our QB of the future in this draft in my opinion. We should have went after a QB last year in the first round which would have been better than what we've ended up with this year.

[01d 0rd3r]

Re: Second quess

We should have went after a QB last year in the first round which would have been better than what we've ended up with this year.

Who? Mark Sanchez? The guy who played on a far superior team then ours and still flailed around uselessly through the season? Bradford is a far superior QB then sanchez.

[rammiser]

Re: Second quess

To say there's a reason Clausen was passed on by everyone else as a reason we shouldn't have waited to pick him up, is nonsensical logic. What about all the teams that passed on Joe Montana? There have been many pro bowl QBs that have fallen out of the first round. To say that we wouldn 't be in better position if we had taken Suh and then Clausen is just stubbornly being a rah rah boy for Bradford. Now, could we have reliably depended on Clausen being there when we picked in the second round, no, but McCoy could reasonably have been and I would have been satified with that as well. We invested too much for our QB of the future in this draft in my opinion. We should have went after a QB last year in the first round which would have been better than what we've ended up with this year.

I totally agree with that. Plenty of great qb's have been passed up and picked in later rounds. I will support Bradford but have always felt like a Suh/Colt Mccoy draft would have been great. Seeing the fact that Clausen dropped all the way to the second round makes me think we missed out on a great defensive tackle in Suh. Alas we have Bradford and we better hope he isnt a bust because number one overall qb busts send teams reeling for years.

[CanadianRamsFan]

Re: Second quess

To say there's a reason Clausen was passed on by everyone else as a reason we shouldn't have waited to pick him up, is nonsensical logic. What about all the teams that passed on Joe Montana? There have been many pro bowl QBs that have fallen out of the first round. To say that we wouldn 't be in better position if we had taken Suh and then Clausen is just stubbornly being a rah rah boy for Bradford. Now, could we have reliably depended on Clausen being there when we picked in the second round, no, but McCoy could reasonably have been and I would have been satified with that as well. We invested too much for our QB of the future in this draft in my opinion. We should have went after a QB last year in the first round which would have been better than what we've ended up with this year.

Why? Because you say it is? Fact is if a team saw Clausen as a franchise QB they would have taken him when they had the chance. We have no idea how the draft would have gone if we had taken Suh. To say that Clausen or even McCoy would have for sure been there is utterly ridiculous.

Bradford is our QB like it or not, being upset about it wont change that

[Goldenfleece]

Re: Second quess

I'm not second guessing the decision here. In fact, if we had taken Suh with the first pick, I'd probably take Colt McCoy at this point. I don't get a good feeling about Clausen, and as much help as he has gotten over the years, I get the feeling that he's already pretty much making the most of what he's got. If Bradford and Clausen are close now, I think Bradford will be well ahead in his development in a few years.

Personally, I think that Bradford would have been the best quarterback in last year's draft if he had come out, and based solely on production to date, I would prefer him to the quarterbacks in next year's draft. Given that a lot can happen in a year and that we might not even be in position to take one of the top quarterbacks next year anyway, that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. The point is that I think that even outside of the weak 2010 quarterback class, Bradford rates as a legitimately highly ranked quarterback prospect. And if we didn't take him now, I am not convinced that we could simply address the position as well just whenever we wanted to.

If both Suh and Bradford play up to the expectations that come with a top 5 pick, I think we will be happy that out of the two, we took the quarterback.

[AvengerRam_old]

Re: Second quess

I think Bradford will be a much better NFL QB than Clausen, so I'm fine as is.

[JimmyG37]

Re: Second quess

No, I'm not second guessing the Rams given the results of the 1st round. For starters, if we had taken Suh the draft might have played out differently and Clausen might have been taken by now. For instance, the Vikings were able to trade down to #34 (assuming they are considering Clausen) because they knew we wouldn't be taking Clausen at #33. Also, if we were sitting there at #33, I think it's safe to say that it wouldn't be a secret that we would be looking at a QB there. As a result, there would've been more urgency for a team to trade back into the last 1st round if they wanted Clausen.

Finally, Notre Dame is my favorite college football team, so I've seen Clausen quite a bit over the last few years. For some reason he's just always rubbed me the wrong way. I can't quite pinpoint it, but there's just something that I haven't liked about him. He could turn into a good NFL player, but I could just as easily see him being mediocre in the NFL. I've heard sometimes in sports when there is a group of brothers that all play the same sport successfully, the older ones tend to be the least talented, but have more desire, while the youngest ones tend to be the most talented, but tend to take things for granted. I wonder if things are that way with Clausen.

[Alec22]

Re: Second quess

Not at all, there is logic as to why over 10 teams called the rams about moving up to the #1 to get bradford, yet 0 out of 31 picked clausen. I am happy with a bradford/kindle package