Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Why does everyone say OL?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> St. Louis Rams
View previous topic :: View next topic  

OL or Skill Player at #2?
OL (Robinson or Matthews)
25%
 25%  [ 6 ]
Khalil Mack OLB
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
Sammy Watkins WO
29%
 29%  [ 7 ]
Jadaveon Clowney DE
41%
 41%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 24

Author Message
Golden_Knight5


Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 188
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:40 pm    Post subject: Why does everyone say OL? Reply with quote

Why does everybody insist we're taking o-line at #2? I know everyone preaches that the past should not dictate what you do in the future, but there has to be some hesitations(Thanks Jason "useless" Smith) am i right? We still do have Long, Barksdale, Saffold who are all in their 20's so I just don't see us having to take an OL at #2. Id rather see us pick a mauler OG at #42 like Cyril or Yankey if they fall.

At #2 the front office needs to select the player that will have the most potential game impact therefore help close the gap on the NFCW. To me, that comes down to three players: Clowney, Watkins, Mack. There should not be discussion of an OL at #2 unless it is for smokescreen purposes. If you take clowney, I understand he's situational but still would be scary. Watkins is the guy that I want because he is literally Julio-2.0. Mack would be nasty with Laurinaitis and Ogletree, and in that event I think Dunbar may be a cap casualty at the position.

Am I completely out of my mind or do you guys think that OL would be the right pick at 2 (Lewan/Matthews/Robinson)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DEE RAWL


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 4515
Location: Southern California
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Golden_Knight5


Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 188
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FRO


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 1155
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2

I would pick Clowney and Watkins over the OTs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kgarrett12486


Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 9659
Location: Busch III
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


It doesn't matter, if you're picking inside the top ten you pick the guy you have rated the highest on your board, whether it's a position of need or not...
_________________

IDOG_det on the sig...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Golden_Knight5


Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 188
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kgarrett12486 wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


It doesn't matter, if you're picking inside the top ten you pick the guy you have rated the highest on your board, whether it's a position of need or not...


Then I'm assuming Fisher and co. would have these ratings on their board:
1. Clowney
2. Watkins
3. Robinson
4. Mack
5. Matthews
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 46521
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


Here's why people prefer OLs(although not at #2 for me), Bradford without pressure vs. under pressure in his good years(excluding that atrocious 2011):
2013
No Pressure - 71.2% completion, 12 TDs to 3 Ints, 106.8 QB Rating
Pressure - 38.8% completion, 2 TDs to 1 Int, 58.0 QB Rating

2012
No Pressure - 66.5% completion, 16 TDs to 11 Ints, 90.7 QB Rating
Pressure - 41.6% completion, 5 TDs to 2 Ints, 61.6 QB Rating

2010
No Pressure - 67.1% completion, 14 TDs to 8 Ints, 88.3 QB Rating
Pressure - 43.1% completion, 4 TDs to 7 Ints, 48.3 QB Rating

Keeping pressure out of Bradford's face will do us much more good than another weapon will.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FRO


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 1155
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


Here's why people prefer OLs(although not at #2 for me), Bradford without pressure vs. under pressure in his good years(excluding that atrocious 2011):
2013
No Pressure - 71.2% completion, 12 TDs to 3 Ints, 106.8 QB Rating
Pressure - 38.8% completion, 2 TDs to 1 Int, 58.0 QB Rating

2012
No Pressure - 66.5% completion, 16 TDs to 11 Ints, 90.7 QB Rating
Pressure - 41.6% completion, 5 TDs to 2 Ints, 61.6 QB Rating

2010
No Pressure - 67.1% completion, 14 TDs to 8 Ints, 88.3 QB Rating
Pressure - 43.1% completion, 4 TDs to 7 Ints, 48.3 QB Rating

Keeping pressure out of Bradford's face will do us much more good than another weapon will.

This honestly changes my mind. Thanks for the info.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DEE RAWL


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 4515
Location: Southern California
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golden_Knight5 wrote:
kgarrett12486 wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


It doesn't matter, if you're picking inside the top ten you pick the guy you have rated the highest on your board, whether it's a position of need or not...


Then I'm assuming Fisher and co. would have these ratings on their board:
1. Clowney
2. Watkins
3. Robinson
4. Mack
5. Matthews


I would think the OL would come before Watkins on their board.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
FRO


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 1155
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEE RAWL wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
kgarrett12486 wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


It doesn't matter, if you're picking inside the top ten you pick the guy you have rated the highest on your board, whether it's a position of need or not...


Then I'm assuming Fisher and co. would have these ratings on their board:
1. Clowney
2. Watkins
3. Robinson
4. Mack
5. Matthews


I would think the OL would come before Watkins on their board.

I'm not sure. Snead and Fisher have dedicated little resources into building up the offensive line.

After resigning Saffold I'm starting to think that Clowney may be the guy. I'm so confused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DEE RAWL


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 4515
Location: Southern California
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FRO wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
kgarrett12486 wrote:
Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


It doesn't matter, if you're picking inside the top ten you pick the guy you have rated the highest on your board, whether it's a position of need or not...


Then I'm assuming Fisher and co. would have these ratings on their board:
1. Clowney
2. Watkins
3. Robinson
4. Mack
5. Matthews


I would think the OL would come before Watkins on their board.

I'm not sure. Snead and Fisher have dedicated little resources into building up the offensive line.

After resigning Saffold I'm starting to think that Clowney may be the guy. I'm so confused.


They have dedicated "little" resources? As in dishing out some decent sized contracts to Long, Saffold and Wells? I think they understand the importance of not only protecting Sam, but establishing a powerful running game.

Clowney Im sure is at the top of their board just like he more than likely is for every team, but that doesnt mean theyll take him. Im not saying I dont want Clowney because I most certainly do, but the fact that they are actively shopping the 2nd pick tells me they have other plans (Robinson or Matthews). Which for the record I would be happy with either, just happiER with Robinson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
FRO


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 1155
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I poorly articulated what I meant. They haven't invested draft picks in the line. Then again we had holes everywhere on the roster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Golden_Knight5


Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 188
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FRO wrote:
I poorly articulated what I meant. They haven't invested draft picks in the line. Then again we had holes everywhere on the roster.


Understood. Watkins and tavon have the ability to get open before pressure is felt for bradford. We are at the point where a committee of givens/quick/pettis is a joke. It is in the organizations best interest to finally draft a game breaker on offense. It has been 8-10 years overdue. Watkins/Tavon/Quick/Stacy with a formidable o-line would elevate bradford to new heights
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DEE RAWL


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 4515
Location: Southern California
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golden_Knight5 wrote:
FRO wrote:
I poorly articulated what I meant. They haven't invested draft picks in the line. Then again we had holes everywhere on the roster.


Understood. Watkins and tavon have the ability to get open before pressure is felt for bradford. We are at the point where a committee of givens/quick/pettis is a joke. It is in the organizations best interest to finally draft a game breaker on offense. It has been 8-10 years overdue. Watkins/Tavon/Quick/Stacy with a formidable o-line would elevate bradford to new heights


I partially disagree. As I have said before, Schotty's offense is meant for almost any level of WR to succeed just about equally (assuming they catch the ball of course). Am I saying Watkins wouldnt be an upgrade? Of course not, he would absolutely be one. However, I dont think he would be utilized fully. This is all theory of course.

Really, bottom line is-- we cant go wrong with any of those players. But I will say what I have been saying and I believe that our FO agrees that we need to be able to match up physically and come out on top in the trenches (running the football). Our best chance at doing that would be to insert Robinson at LG. Now, obviously if you combine the two of Robinson and Watkins/Evans some how-- youre going to help run the football not only by having a physically improved OL, but also making the defense respect the pass which they havent had to do.

There are arguments to approach the draft with almost any strategy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Flatlyner


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 5968
Location: WESTCOAST
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golden_Knight5 wrote:
DEE RAWL wrote:
The thing is, Robinson is the best mauler in the draft.


However, I still slightly prefer Clowney if we stay at 2


We haven't had a threat at receiver in 8 years, we need playmakers on offense, the defense is solid.


I disagree. Didn't we move up in the top 10 of the draft last year to draft a threat at WR? Wasn't Bailey stepping up at the end of last year? Shouldn't Quick be given a chance to play? Bailey and Austin played with Clemons for most of the season. For all we know, they would have flourished with Bradford healthy and the running game the developed for Clemons last year. I love Watkins as a prospect as much as the next guy, I'm just not at all in favor of taking him at #2. Clowney or Robinson will be on the board, and I have both ranked above him. To me, we have failed in the draft if we are picking Watkins at #2.
_________________
WELCOME TO THE RAMS:
Greg Robinson
Aaron Donald
Lamarcus Joyner
Tre Mason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> St. Louis Rams All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group