Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

    ive just been woundering why every play we draft usually turns into a big bust like Ryan Leaf. some examples

    2008- Chris Long- hasnt really bein as productive as i would like not putting up good numbers.
    2007- Adam Carriker-Just not a consitant player always gettin injuried
    2006- Tye Hill- Injury prone no longer with the team
    2005- Alex Barron- Not that great of a tackle
    2004- Steven Jackson (hes a beast not a bust)
    2003- Jimmy Kennedy- Just horrible not with the team anymore
    2002- Robert Thomas- Not with the team
    2001- A) Damione Lewis- Not with the team
    B) Adam Archuleta- Not with the team couldnt cover for **** should have been a linebacker
    C) Ryan Pickett- Not with the team
    2000- Trung Canidate-- Not with the team
    1999- Torry Holt (one of the best rams wide outs ever)

    let me know what you think cause it seems like we have no luck with drafting players in the first round.i mean in the past 11 years how many of them turned out to be somethin. only Torry Holt and Steven Jackson. its just bad when they spend the money on these guys and they just suck.i mean Chris Long isnt turning out to be the next Howie Long hell Leonard Little played better last season.:helmet:

  • #2
    Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

    Long = bad rookie season, better this year
    Carriker = inconsistent but can develop if trained well and/or put into the right system
    Hill = I don't even know what the crap he does with the Falcons
    Barron = YOUS NEEDZ HEARING AIDZ MAN
    Steven Jackson = Undisputed, finest breed of RBs in the mid-late '00s

    I won't go with the rest but you forgot Jason Smith for the '09 draft, who's contributed to O-line rehab. Ndamukong Suh is 89.92% boom to our D-line and with Spags as the general, we'll be able to stop running games pretty consistently (most likely). So far, Spags 1st draft is going well and he seems to be better than Linehan and Martz in terms of draft and the defensive portion of the game.


    ♪ R.I.P. Nujabes ♫

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

      I think you need to look at who was pulling the trigger on most of the Drafts mentioned as well. The former "administration" really just sucked at drafting in general. We have some good players from the draft, but not enough obviously.
      A defeated look of consternation, dissappointment, or even pain. The name derives from the look one often gets when challenged by a large BM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

        I'm just going to look at 2004 to the present, since those years are most relevant to the team's recent efforts to rebuild.

        2004 - Martz is still in charge. Faulk is getting older but is still productive, and the Rams are picking in the 20s after a successful 12-4 season. With an eye toward the future, they select a player who is widely considered the best all-around back in that year's draft.

        2005 - The Turley Experiment has been declared a failure. The Team is coming off an 8-8 season that ended with an inglorious mauling at the hands of the Falcons' run game in the playoffs. The team has to be thinking that DT is a problem, but some still want to give Kennedy and Pickett a chance. Unfortunately, at the time, this is considered to be a weak year for defensive tackles. About the only guy rated anywhere close to where we're picking is Mike Patterson (later taken by the Eagles at #31). The Saints select Jammal Brown 5 picks ahead of us, so Barron is the best OT prospect based on what most of the draftniks are saying at the time. Some people think we should have traded up to try to land Brown, who is more of a mauler, but generally most feel that it was wise to address the offensive line at this point.

        2006 - Things didn't work out the way we planned. Martz was hospitalized, but once he was healthy, the team told him not to come back. Now we have a new head coach and a new defensive coordinator, who has already brought in several new defensive starters including Witherspoon, Chavous, and Glover. Unlike the previous year, there's not a lot of agreement as to who we should take. Some people want DT Haloti Ngata, some want CB Antonio Cromartie, others are talking about Chad Greenway or Bobby Carpenter at linebacker. Some people say we should trade up for Vernon Davis or Jay Cutler. If I recall correctly, the coaches said that the logic behind trading down was that they had a number of players closely rated and felt that they'd still get one of the guys they liked. So they let the Ravens move up and take Ngata. Even at the time, fans debated whether this was the best move, especially when they took a smallish corner with the pick.

        2007 - Linehan's rookie season doesn't look so bad at this point. We got back to .500 on the strength of our offense, but the defense is still clearly lacking. We think that we're okay at linebacker with Pisa, Spoon, and Chillar if we can get a defensive tackle to keep the blockers off of them. The problem is that this is another underwhelming class at defensive tackle. Amobe Akoye is the wunderkind that will still probably take years to develop, but he comes off the board before we even pick. Do we take a shot with Alan Branch? Pick up a corner like Darrelle Revis? Maybe a safety like Michael Griffin? After Brady Quinn dropped, some thought we should have taken advantage of the situation and pulled the trigger. Instead we picked up DE Adam Carriker to play DT. They said that DT was where he projected best in the NFL because of his hand technique and strength, which kind of made sense. This move seemed a little forced, like the team did think he was the best option available at defensive tackle, but if that was the case, maybe they should have looked at value over need.

        2008 - The top players in the draft play at positions of need for the Rams, but there is some grumbling that maybe overall this is a bit of a weak class. We hear that the Dolphins are in contract negotiations with Jake Long well before draft day. Thus, among fans the big debate is Gholston vs. Long vs. Dorsey. Matt Ryan and Sedrick Ellis are almost dark horse candidates in comparison. Among the three that everybody was talking about at the time, Long has since had the best career. He has also gotten better over time, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that he could get 8-10 sacks one of these years. If he hits double digit sacks, the bust talk will probably end. If not, we'll look back and wonder "What if we had taken Matt Ryan?"

        2009 - We're coming off a completely demoralizing season. Linehan looked lost out there, and many of the top players seemed barely able to hide their displeasure. The good news that comes out of this is that we finally see long needed change in the front office, as well as the coaching staff. The Lions are picking Stafford, and the Rams are picking a tackle unless they feel Aaron Curry is simply a talent they cannot pass up. The big question is Monroe vs. Smith. The team takes the player with more upside, and Smith looks pretty good when he actually sees playing time.


        Looking back, what I would take from this is that you don't let need overrule talent. Jackson was a BPA pick (best player available) and our most successful decision in recent years. You could argue that we forced the issue of need in picking Barron and Carriker.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

          Originally posted by BM_Face View Post
          I think you need to look at who was pulling the trigger on most of the Drafts mentioned as well. The former "administration" really just sucked at drafting in general. We have some good players from the draft, but not enough obviously.
          I'd also like to point to "coaching" as a possible factor, as our defensive coaches sucked at developing the talent they were given.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

            Guys, the truth is, the Rams success in the first round is pretty typical of most teams in the NFL. There are a handful of teams that seem to get it right every year, but they are ATYPICAL.

            In my opinion, for the period presented, you can give the Rams two As (Holt and Jackson) and 4 Bs (Barron, Pickett, Long, and Lewis).

            Go look at the Dolphins, Lions, Bills, Bears, Jaguars, Browns, Bengals, Chiefs, Seahawks, *****, and even the Chargers from 1999 on. Got tired of looking after that. Tell me if you think they drafted significantly better than the Rams in the first round. Let me know what you find out.

            I looked at all of the above teams, plus six teams that clearly outdrafted the rest in the first round: The Cheatriots, Packers, Panthers, Vikings, Steelers, and Cards.

            And keep in mind, from 2000 to 2004 the Rams were drafting late in the round.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

              Linehan is the reason for where the Rams are where they are. Almost every player he picked is either now a starter for some other team, or isn't in the NFL anymore. Either way, he made sure the Rams don't have them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                Originally posted by DieHardRamsFan1381 View Post
                i mean Chris Long isnt turning out to be the next Howie Long hell Leonard Little played better last season.:helmet:
                I didnt see teams double teaming Leonard Little. Fact is Chris Long was our best D Lineman and every team knew it. Towards the end of the season Long was playing lights out. Put some better talent in at DT and at the other end spot and i dont think double digit sacks are out of the question next year.
                @EssexRam_

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                  Your premise makes no sense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                    the fact that a player is not with his original team 5-8 years after the draft does not make him a bust. Go compare how many first round picks are with their original teams 5-8 years after the draft and i bet the rams arent materially worse than most other teams. Damione Lewis was a big disappointment for the rams, but i didnt see anyone complaining about the pick at the time. Both pickett and arch were productive rams and hardly busts.

                    Your expectations are way out of line with the reality of the nfl.

                    As for chris long, who would you have rather taken, long or glen dorsey (the other popular pick at the time)?

                    ramming speed to all

                    general counsel

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                      Wait till next year, Long will get 17 sacks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                        I don't think we can label Long a bust. He didn't have a great rookie year, but he did well this year. As for the rest of those scrubs like Lewis, Carriker, Hill, and Barron, ya they suck. I agree, our first rounders haven't come through for us in the most part. We need a dominant force to really help the Rams get back in shape.

                        P.S. - Kennedy, Hill, and Lewis are the worst of the ones you mentioned.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                          Originally posted by Ahmedrams81 View Post
                          I don't think we can label Long a bust. He didn't have a great rookie year, but he did well this year. As for the rest of those scrubs like Lewis, Carriker, Hill, and Barron, ya they suck. I agree, our first rounders haven't come through for us in the most part. We need a dominant force to really help the Rams get back in shape.

                          P.S. - Kennedy, Hill, and Lewis are the worst of the ones you mentioned.
                          I think this problem will be fixed with our current regime who beleives more in tkaing the BPA which is how you do it in the draft....
                          and we have to hit heavy the the BIG FOUR in the draft... QB,DT,OT,CB. we got a OT last year need to get a DT this year and neext year more than likely a QB. Just need to find a good CB or two and plug in a few holes elseswhere..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                            Originally posted by general counsel View Post

                            As for chris long, who would you have rather taken, long or glen dorsey (the other popular pick at the time)?

                            ramming speed to all

                            general counsel

                            You can't forget Vernon Gholston!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: why are Rams 1 round picks always a bust

                              What type of drafting do you expect from a bunch of attorney's? You can blame Martz or Linehan but it really was higher up the food chain where the problems were located.

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              • rNemesis
                                HOW CLOSE IS THIS TEAM TO COMPETING?(VERY LONG)Please provide feedback
                                by rNemesis
                                First of all let me just say that these last few years have been VERY frustrating and embarassing for me as a RAM FAN and I'm sure you guys are just as disappointed. I have watched my team go from the greatest show on turf to, as a washington post columnist said after the redskins loss, " the most miserable mass on grass". MY main question here is , " How far are the rams from being a decent competitive rock solid team? Its a long way to go; it doesnt happen overnight but it shouldnt take FOREVER either.


                                But I am not gonna sit here and talk about that all night. We know what has happened. We know what we've become. 13 straight losses dating back to last season. 3-13 in 2007 and 2-14 in 2008. 5 wins in the last 30 or so games? ( not sure exactly the stats) That is horrible.

                                Let's go back year by year as to how we finished record wise.
                                In the 1990's we were bad. But so were other teams which are now good today. But if you look at our 90's record to others, you will see that we were bad most of those years. Other teams had bad years too during the 90's but it was only really the lions, bengals, cardinals and saints. That should show you how bad of a team the Rams are. We never finished over 7 wins from 1990 up until 1999, which was our superbowl year. Which now tells me that the Rams have been bad, are now bad, and I hope we dont continue to be bad. But lately one has to believe that that is the penalty for our actions.

                                2000- 10-6 DECENT
                                2001- 14-2 ( excellent; we beat the pats that season but lost in the SB to the same :|)
                                2002- 7-9 Not bad
                                2003- 12-4 excellent
                                2004- 8-8 not bad; competitive
                                2005- I think we were 7-9 or 6-10 cant remember
                                2006- 8-8
                                2007- 3-13 horrible
                                2008- 2-14 lousy

                                I am not surprised at how we have fallen so badly. What I cant seem to understand is how fast we have fallen as such. How come we havent been able to stop the bleeding and bounce back like other teams have seemed to?

                                So tell me guys. How far off is this team from competing? Well, I look at the league and I have noticed that most of the other teams have playmakers in a lot of key positions. Why is that? Because they do a great job of DRAFTING PLAYERS THAT FIT INTO THEIR SCHEME WELL. We on the other hand have not done that lately. We have drafted players that have done well IN THEIR SCHEME and so it didnt matter to the previous regime ( Jay ZYgmunt ) if they fit or not the point was they wanted them so much that they drafted them regardless of their college scheme and success. In the era since Martz left, we have drafted the likes of busts ( or so they appear to be) like Tye Hill, Adam Carriker, Claude Wroten, Fakhir Brown, etc. The list goes on and on.

                                THIS HAS REALLY HURT THIS ORGANIZATION SO MUCH THAT IT IS REARING ITS UGLY HEAD NOW. Bad drafting has put us in such a talentless hole that...
                                -09-29-2009, 07:43 PM
                              • Nick
                                A rant about drafting based on past failures
                                by Nick
                                I hear Rams fans talk all the time about how the Rams need to either be hesitant or pass completely on drafting a defensive tackle early in the draft. The reasoning I'm questioning is when people say they should do this because of past failures in Pickett, Lewis, and Kennedy.

                                Can someone explain to me how guys picked in 2001 and 2003 have any barring on the success of players to be selected in 2007? To me, this point of view is basically just fear of history repeating itself even though there have been numerous successful first round defensive tackles taken since that 2001 season.

                                So are we supposed to believe that any player the Rams draft in round one at that position is somehow destined to not live up to his potential simply because he's a DT going to St. Louis? Are we supposed to believe that the Rams would find better fortune drafting a tackle later in the draft, one who either is less talented, has been less productive, or has less upside than the prospect we're passing on in round one?

                                It's one thing to look at a player and say, "I'm not sold on him because of such and such that he displays or doesn't display." But to change your draft strategy based on past failure is a tactic that originates in fear and IMO is no way to improve your organization. Should we have not drafted Steven Jackson because we previously failed on Lawrence Phillips and Trung Canidate?

                                I would encourage fans to judge prospects and form your opinions on who they are and their own merits, not who the Rams have previously drafted that have busted out.
                                -03-25-2007, 01:06 PM
                              • RamWraith
                                Rams beware: Don't try to dictate draft spot
                                by RamWraith
                                By Jeff Gordon
                                STLTODAY.COM SPORTS COLUMNIST
                                Monday, Dec. 15 2008
                                The NFL Draft industry is humming along, filling the Internet with breathless
                                speculation about which young hopeful will go to which also-ran team.

                                The crummy pro teams arenít done jockeying for draft position, of course, and
                                dozens of top draft-eligible underclassmen havenít decided whether to come out.

                                Still, several of these projections have the Rams taking Ohio State cornerback
                                Malcolm Jenkins. Another mock draft had the Rams taking massive Alabama tackle
                                Andre Smith, who has literally outgrown his college uniform.

                                Another had Smith off the board and the Rams taking Mississippi tackle Michael
                                Oher instead. Another had the team taking Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford.

                                A couple of others tabbed Virginia tackle Eugene Monroe for Chip Rosenbloomís
                                juggernaut.

                                All of this is exciting for Rams fans weary of watching the team lose. All this
                                is more fun than speculating about whether the interim owner, management team
                                and coach will remain in place for 2009.

                                Many fans agree with my P-D colleague Bryan Burwell, who sees value in the Rams
                                losing out to secure the highest possible draft position.

                                But hereís the deal: The NFL Draft is, by far, the most overblown sporting
                                event on our professional landscape. The agony and ecstasy experienced during
                                the first day are the most misspent emotions in all of fandom.

                                Of course the draft is important. Of course itís nice to gain better draft
                                position.

                                Weíve learned, though, that fifth-round picks (Clifton Ryan) can turn out
                                better than first-round picks (Jimmy Kennedy). A player picked 19th overall
                                (Antonio Cromartie) can prove infinitely more valuable than a guy picked 15th
                                (Tye Hill) in the same draft.

                                And the draft is just one of the building or rebuilding tools for a football
                                operation. Just ask the Detroit Lions, a franchise that has top picks in every
                                draft and loses every season.

                                A team must accumulate about 60 worthy players in any given season, factoring
                                in injuries, and a good GM will find a couple of impact players and three or
                                four solid players in every draft. That's it.

                                The Rams would get an impact player second overall . . . or fourth overall . .
                                . or sixth overall. What does it matter where the team picks?

                                The team needs everything but a kicker and a punter, so any of the consensus
                                top 10 players would help. The Rams could trade down from a higher pick and get
                                extra middle-round picks, but all that would accomplish is (maybe) adding some
                                depth.

                                So the Rams might as well try to win another game this season, allowing the
                                cornerstone players to...
                                -12-16-2008, 05:30 AM
                              • ramhard
                                Clearing up the BUST debate - Long
                                by ramhard
                                There is one comment that always sparks heated responses on this forum - calling someone a draft BUST (well, and bringing up Martz or Warner but that's for another thread). The arguments usually start with someone calling a player (this year it's Long or Smith) and then angry responses to the contrary. The arguments against usually are something along the line of:

                                1. You can't judge a player after X years (fill in the blank), you gotta have patience.
                                2. He is a productive player, have realistic expectations.
                                3. He's playing as well as Y player, why don't you call that player a bust.
                                4. For a low drafted player - he's only a (5, 6, or 7th) round choice, most don't pan out anyway.

                                Arguments in favor of a bust are usually:

                                1. He's not playing at Pro Bowl caliber.
                                2. He doesn't have the stats of Z player (someone drafted equal or lower in a similar draft).
                                3. He 2 years he only has ______(fill in the appropriate statistics) so he's a bust.

                                The problem is that the arguments are mixing issues. Here are some groundrules for judging the returns to a player:

                                1. Draft Position - where a player is drafted DOES matter. Why? Because a player drafted in the top 5 of a draft has very different cap implications than a player drafted in the 4th round. A player who eats up $5-$10 million of your cap room needs to have a higher impact than a player who eats up $400k. People have often argued that's why in the current system, no one wants to trade into the top 5 draft picks because the cap hit is so high and if you miss on a player it hamstrings you for 3-4 years with your cap.

                                So yes, a player drafted in the top 5 draft picks can be a bust with average performance; while the same player drafted in the 4th round with the same performance isn't a bust.

                                2. Playing Position - the position a player plays DOES matter. Why? Again back to cap implications, but also to when the typical player makes an impact. Position matters because certain positions have higher average salaries than other positions, so missing on a low average position kills you more than missing on a high average position. For example, if the average QB costs (across the league) is $4M, while the average offensive guard is $1M, if you draft a guy high and give him a big bonus at QB (say a $5M average) you only lose $1M on your cap because of what you have to pay to an average replacement QB; while at guard you would lose $5M.

                                Also, certain positions have quicker impact than other positions. For example, reaction positions like RB and LB (and maybe OT) the top players are good quickly. While at other positions like QB, C, and DT they often take longer. Now of course there are exceptions to every rule, and things change over time. For example, it looks like at the QB position, the development time is starting to be reduced - in part because of the control of...
                                -10-23-2009, 11:18 AM
                              • txramsfan
                                Defensively, the Rams are offensive
                                by txramsfan
                                Little is getting old and Adeyanju is only average. Glover is about to sign up for his AARP card and Eric Moore is just a body out there. Carriker is a bright spot but Ryan is still a work in progress. Not a front line that's going to scare anyone's running game.

                                Now the LB's. Spoon is probably our best defensive player right now and probably would be up there on any team. However, Pisa is either hurt or overpursuing a play, Culberson is raw and green, Draft is right in line with Glover at AARP and McGarigle can't get off the practice squad. Not an intimidating front 7.

                                Then the secondary. Some say that the lack of a pass rush hurts them and that's true, but let's look at this group. Brown is our best CB and he's probably gone. Hill, well to me he's been a disappointment but I'll give him another year. Bartell? only a nickel at best. Wade? Really struggled his rookie year. Looked out of place most of the time.

                                OJ is a bright spot. Great talent to build around. Chavous is in front of Glover and Draft in that same line.

                                This defense is going to take last years draft, this years draft, and next years draft to get competitive. They may get better this year but not competitive. So, who's at fault here? I say it's the front office. I don't really have time to look over everything but starting with Dre Bly, everyone on the defensive side of the ball has been "overpriced" while on the offense they go out with a Brinks truck and sign players like Bennett.
                                -03-20-2008, 08:27 AM
                              Working...
                              X