PDA

View Full Version : First Overall Pick - St. Louis Rams


ThePudge
02-12-2010, 03:53 PM
With the First Overall Pick in the 2010 NFL Draft,
The St. Louis Rams select...

This could be better suited for the team boards, but I think it's something that's better and more appropriately discussed here. The St. Louis Rams hold the 1st Overall pick in 2009 and you don't have to be a Rams fan to admit interest in this one. The franchise hasn't had a strong, promising face in years and lacks a true personality on offense or defense. Steven Jackson is still among the league's three best backs in my opinion, but due to shaky OL play, the lack of a passing game, and the futility of the team's defense he hasn't been able to receive the recognition or success he deserves.

Since 2007, St. Louis has picked in the Top 12 three times, and has targeted the DL (Adam Carriker - 2007, Chris Long - 2008) and OL (Jason Smith - 2009). The team will be under coach Steve Spagnuolo for the second consecutive year and considering his defensive background, feeling is this is a guy who will build in the trenches first. Still the question has to be, how long can they put off picking a Franchise Quarterback if they continue to fall flat on their faces during the regular season? Can this team win next year or in 2011 without a passing game? You look at the situation now, realistically, and you see four options.

Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh is the consensus #1 prospect in this years draft right now. Suh took home plenty of hardware this season, and proved to be the most dominant college Defensive Lineman in recent memory. Another interior DL, Oklahoma's Gerald McCoy, perhaps the most explosive lineman to come out in years, will challenge him for the top spot. If Suh is #1 then McCoy is #1B and there is a serious argument to be made which is a better prospect, and more importantly who fits better with what the Rams are trying to do. Sam Bradford, had a miserable injury-ridden campaign this year after claiming the Heisman trophy for Oklahoma in 2008. There is some speculation the Rams would have considered him last year with their Top 5 pick and with a good showing on March 29th (his NFL workout) that interest could be revived. Quarterback Jimmy Clausen from Notre Dame surged to the top of some boards at his position after a strong Junior campaign. He projects as the freshest, most dramatic new face in St. Louis and the team loves his body of work for the Irish.

Two positions. Four prospects. One pick. It's shaping up to be one of the most interesting battles in recent years, and as with the Reggie Bush/Mario Williams situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see this decision made in the final 24 hours. There's not going to be anything I say, or anyone else says, that will break this thing open and force everyone to see the light. There's going to be unrest about this pick, even from more casual football fans, up to the day of the draft. So what's the best move from a business standpoint, and is that the best move from a strictly football standpoint?

http://media.hamiltonspectator.topscms.com/images/6a/bb/80081e95461b8808c97d43a1c361.jpeg

Ndamukong Suh - DT - Nebraska
6'3 7/8 - 307 - 5.00
#2 Defensive Tackle - #2 Overall

The nation's most feared defender, a guy who a defense was already built upon, and perhaps the most dominant college DT in over a decade is also the #1 NFL prospect on mine and many other boards. Most college football fans are familiar with the big Cornhusker, and if there was any doubt about his ability it was squashed in the Big XII Championship when Ndamukong Suh was unblockable. Double teams are routine for Suh and triple teams are also common. He holds the opposing OL to a whole other level of accountability as he can take over a game occupying two blockers. He's the rare DL prospect that makes every single defender's job easier; he makes his teammates better.

So what makes Suh so unstoppable on the field? It starts in his upper body. No DT prospect in years actively threw OL around the way he does. He's very strong in the upper body and uses his hands at an elite level. Suh is quick off the snap, and very quick to engage blockers with his hands. Once he gets his hands inside, he controls OL, and he displays the ability to do this to two blockers at a time. In his lower body he doesn't have a whole lot of girth or anchor strength. Still, a soccer background shows on the field, as his feet are very fluid, he gets good leg drive, and in space Suh shows the ability to track down Quarterbacks and Running Backs. He's surprisingly athletic for a DT, and projects more to NT in a 4-3 because of his ability to engage and occupy & control interior linemen.

There are no glaring holes in Ndamukong Suh's game, though there are some doubts about his projection to the NFL game. First, there's a concern about his knees which required surgery toward the beginning of his career in Lincoln. He has a fairly thin lower body for a 295+ player and will need to add some strength there if he's going to operate in a 4-3 scheme at NT. He doesn't play particularly low either, so injuries are a long-term concern due to the cut-blocking tendencies of interior linemen and pass-blocking RBs. He relies a lot on his hands, strength, and ability to control blockers so shorter explosive drive blocking OL may give him a tough time.

Still, despite a couple doubts here and there, I feel Suh has all the makings of a Pro Bowl DT at the next level. His skill-set is rare, he plays consistently at a high level, and he projects as a player to build a defense around. I've already covered his hands, his upper body strength, his natural athleticism, and his surprisingly nimble feet. No scouting report on Ndamukong would be complete without mentioning his motor and effort on the field. He's willing to contribute in any way he can: he rushes the passer, he makes plays in the run game behind the LOS, he gets his hands up in throwing lanes, and he even blocks kicks at a high level. Suh may be a shade below 6'4, but he has long arms and isn't shy at all about getting them up in the air to disrupt plays while battling double teams. He's a three down player and you can expect his motor to be running strong through the fourth quarter every game.

Though his first sports passion was soccer, Suh was a quick learner in football, a game that suited his size and physicality much better. His football instincts and ability to lead have developed remarkably fast and you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy more respected by his teammates/coaches than him. He displays remarkable intelligence not only on the field, but also in the classroom as an honor roll student. By all accounts I've seen and read, he's a great guy, high character and blue-collar all the way. His mean streak is just what you want to see inside and he's an intimidator to QBs, OL, and RBs alike. If you can believe it (which you have to) Ndamukong Suh has led the Cornhuskers in total tackles each of the past two years, he blocked five kicks in that period, and he made 43 tackles behind the line of scrimmage. His statistics speak loud about his game, especially when you see that he broke up ten passes last year, and he's picked off three passes over the last two years. He's a crushing hitter when he lines up his target and he possesses rare instincts/chase ability inside.

He's as active a front four prospect as I've ever seen following the draft, and he's got all the tools both physically and mentally to achieve his massive potential. Nebraska's Ndamukong Suh leaves college perhaps the most decorated college DT of All-Time and he made a strong late push for the Heisman trophy. The current favorite prospect for many.

Pros
+ Upper body strength, throws OL around and has no problem handling two
+ Hand use, very quick to engage, gets leverage, & controls lineman with his hands
+ Non-stop Motor, Suh will do it all and will keep it going in the 4th Quarter
+ Nimble feet, changes directions surprisingly well, benefit of soccer
+ Makes teammates better, occupies blockers & must be accounted for on every play
+ Football instincts, read-react skills, gets good position, uses hands to defend passes/kicks.
+ Elite level production, perhaps college football history's most decorated DT
+ Mean streak, plays angry, physical, doesn't quit, and intimidates opponents
+ Reliable tackler, delivers big hits, is a natural wrap-up tackler
+ Size, at 6'4 307 with long arms, broad shoulders and a very strong upper body
+ Natural athlete, not sluggish in any way, fluid in chase
+ Terrific football character, strong leader, excels in the classroom
+ Scheme Versatility, fits well at 4-3 NT or 3-4 DE
+ Had a great week in Indy where he outperformed Gerald McCoy in drills/tests

Cons
- Somewhat thin lower body, will have to put in some time in the weight room
- Knee injuries, had a history of knee surgeries earlier in his career
- Lacks elite anchor strength, may struggle with more stout, drive-blocking OL
- Is not overly quick to penetrate and doesn't explode off the snap
- Often stands up a bit too tall out of his stance and relies on his hands
- Has a soft-spoken personality that won't do him favors in the media/with teams like it will some others

Why the Rams will draft Ndamukong Suh 1st Overall- Suh's the current favorite in the early stages of the process. It was his performance in Nebraska's Big XII Championship game that vaulted Suh to the top of most draft boards, and there he's stayed. Right now the Rams lack a true defensive identity, and have been shaky in the front seven. The team is looking for a top talent to build around and Suh fits exactly that, while it's not certain whether NT Clifton Ryan will move to UT in the starting lineup, find himself in a backup role, of staying at NT while the rookie is tried at UT. Ndamukong fits best at NT in a 4-3 scheme, and Spagnuolo typically prefers quicker, more explosive linemen for his UT spot. He'd certainly generate some buzz and confidence among the fan base, as he may have been the biggest name beside Tim Tebow by the end of the season. He's a rock to build a defense around, Spags is a defensive guy that saw a Defensive Line pave the way for a Super Bowl in New York.


Or...


http://images.sportsnetwork.com/cfoot/getty/big12/oklahoma/2009/mccoy_gerald490.jpg

Gerald McCoy - DT - Oklahoma (Jr.)
6'4 1/8 - 295 - 4.96
#1 Defensive Tackle - #1 Overall

Lost in the midst of a Sam Bradford injury and one of the best college seasons ever by fellow DT Ndamukong Suh, Oklahoma's Gerald McCoy had another great season and is a very elite prospect in his own right. The total package of size, strength, explosiveness, and instincts, McCoy was the rock of the Sooners defense the past two seasons. A picture perfect 4-3 UT prospect that lives in opponents' backfields and is a force against the run and pass.

The first thing you notice about him is the first thing you see, his explosiveness off the snap. It can be argued that no interior lineman in college football was as quick off the snap as Gerald McCoy was at an impressive 6'4 295. On the field, he appears to be one of the most athletic players out there, moving like he weighs 15-20 lbs less. He's very quick to get upfield, and it typically takes a double team to keep him out of the backfield immediately. McCoy is a rare penetrator and has found success on big stages (2009 National Championship) rushing the passer and stopping the run behind the LOS. He pushes the pocket from the inside and is athletic enough to change directions in space and run down a QB or RB.

Not everything he does is finesse and there is a lot of power in his game. His trunk is thick and his lower body is very strong. He gets a lot of power from his legs and is terrific when he gets into a lineman's pads. He might not have the raw brute strength of Ndamukong Suh, but McCoy uses his hands very well to shed and control blockers. In space, McCoy shows the feet and athleticism to run & chase and he changes his directions fluidly. The way he explodes off the snap and chases Quarterbacks often makes him resemble a Defensive End. He sets the tone and pace for OL and too often they'll struggle to adjust and need help.

Another thing I like about Gerald McCoy is his versatility. In the past two years at Oklahoma, I've seen him line up at every front four position (including NT in 3-4 and 4-3, DE in 3-4 and 4-3) in addition to his natural 4-3 UT. I've seen him turned loose to run the passer on the outside and I've seen him drop back and make plays in zone coverage against both the pass and against the run. Often his value to Oklahoma team is not evidenced in statistics and I think some confuse his versatility (and attention received) with inconsistency. Like Suh, he has to be accounted for on every single play, receiving constant double teams wherever he lines up. He makes the defense around him better by occupying two blockers, creating one on one situations for his teammates and more flexibility in coverage.

Few Defensive Tackles in the past decade have been able to push the pocket and affect the pass and run game as much as Gerald McCoy. Still, there were a lot of plays the past couple years that he took himself out of by over-pursuit and he's missed some tackles that way. Generally speaking, McCoy plays very smart, pushing the pocket from the inside, forcing the play outside, and (when he plays DE) pushing from the outside, forcing the play up into the teeth of the D. I've seen him overrun plays though and miss potentially big plays. Also, McCoy is occasionally washed down the line, as his defense required him to do a lot of slanting/stunting; this is a big reason why his statistics aren't what say, Ndamukong Suh's, are. He has good football character, he always plays hard, and he's extremely personable. He'll have an easier time than the soft-spoken Suh building relationships with teams and the media.

I completely believe that if Ndamukong Suh hadn't had the year he did, we'd all be talking about a once in a decade Defensive Tackle prospect named Gerald McCoy. He'd have been a Top 5 pick a year ago and figures to go in the Top 3 this year. The gap between he and the #1 DT is very, very small and different teams will prefer either though they're going to be closely rated on every team's board. Some forget that before Suh won Big XII Defensive Player of the Year in 2009-10, McCoy won it as a Sophomore in 2008-09. McCoy is a dominator in his own right and should fit in any scheme. A picture perfect 4-3 UT, but also a damn good 3-4 DE prospect. Top Three lock, #1 a distinct possibility.

Pros
+ Extremely explosive, very quick off the snap, quick to engage & penetrate
+ Thick, powerful lower body, draws his explosion/power from his legs
+ Strong pass-rusher, he pushes the pocket and penetrates from both inside & outside
+ Very versatile, has experience everywhere on the DL and drops back into zone coverage
+ Good hands, flashes a good punch, uses his hands to shed & control OL
+ Strong, physical and powerful playing style
+ Moves well in space, good feet and plenty of athleticism evident
+ Good size at 6'4 295, with a thick, proportionate build
+ Makes plays behind the LOS, active and instinctual in the run game
+ Big hitter, solid tackler and will stay with the play downfield
+ Great motor, gives an outstanding effort in whatever role he plays
+ Draws double teams, frees up teammates in one on one situations
+ College production, Second Team All-American as a Soph. & Junior
+ Strong football character, very passionate about the game
+ Very durable, didn't miss a college start

Cons
- Can overrun plays and can be baited
- Was forced out of some plays when slanting/stunting
- Lacks elite power to consistently handle double-teams
- No real marked improvement in 2009-10.
- Had average Combine #'s with only 23 reps of 225

Why the Rams will draft Gerald McCoy 1st Overall
- Despite what some will have you believe, Gerald McCoy not only deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ndamukong Suh, he should also be garnishing major attention with the first pick. Schematically, there is no doubt that McCoy steps right in and makes everything easier for the Rams, playing the 4-3 UT spot. Coach Steve Spagnuolo prefers explosive, penetrating DL and he has a hole open right in the middle of his defense for McCoy, a picture-perfect fit. McCoy was a Second Team All-American the past two years and was the National Freshman Player of the Year before that. He has perhaps a more NFL-friendly body without the knee injury concerns. His ceiling is unlimited and his floor also seems very high, a truly special talent at all stages of his career and has a top passion and understanding for the game. The game starts in the trenches and Spags gets his rock in the middle.


Or...


http://thematadorsports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/071006_bradford_vmed_4p.widec.jpg

Sam Bradford - QB - Oklahoma
6'4 1/2 - 236 - 4.78e
#1 Quarterback - #3 Overall

Since the day Sam Bradford became the starting Quarterback for the Oklahoma Sooners, he was a star. In his (Redshirt) Freshman year he was the most efficient QB in the nation, and as a Sophomore he won the Heisman Trophy as the best player in college football. If he had declared for the 2009 NFL Draft, he would have likely been a Top 2 Pick perhaps to the St. Louis Rams. In the most recent example of a player making the wrong decision regarding underclassman entry into the draft, Bradford was hurt the first week when he landed on his throwing shoulder, then later re-injured it in October. It's hard to ignore his body of work on the field though and despite his serious durability question (and a few others) he's likely a Top 5 pick in this draft and the top player at his position depending on who you ask.

At 6'4 236, Sam Bradford has the prototypical NFL Quarterback build, he has excellent pocket presence, and he throws an accurate ball with great zip. On film I'm most impressed by Bradford in this class, though his learning curve remains higher than his competition Jimmy Clausen. In college, he may not have played in a pro-style offense, but he did an unbelievable job at surveying the field, reading defenses, and finding the open man. He's extremely smart on and off the field and has the look of a film-room junky. Even on the move, Sam can be seen surveying the field and checking his options. Though he'll have to adjust to dropping back from under center, his footwork and throwing mechanics are solid. He steps into his throws and usually throws with a high release point and a compact delivery. He finds open receivers, gets the ball out on time, and fires off his back foot.

There is some question as to how good Bradford's arm is. He has a good, but not great, NFL arm. His system didn't have him throw too many deep balls and when he did he showed the ability to put the ball downfield accurately, though it's not necessarily the prettiest all the time. He'll need a lot of reps leading up to the draft throwing 40+ yard passes and should be fine. His arm strength really shows on his intermediate throws between 10-25 yards, where he displays great command, a tight spiral, and very good zip. Bradford's capable of making most if not any NFL throw and hits receivers 20 yards downfield on the far hash, in stride, with that same velocity.

He's an extremely accurate passer with a lot of patience and confidence. He fits the ball into to tight spots and is capable squeezing throws in through traffic. Bradford shows a lot of touch on his short passes and can drop balls in downfield as well. His ball is very catchable and he commands his teammates respect on the field and in the locker room. He distributes the ball very well and shows rhythm & timing standing in the pocket. Outside the pocket, his athletic background (including Golf and Basketball) help him as he does not appear so stiff or slow when the heat is on. He's very capable of picking up yards with his feet, and can escape from pressure and throw on the move.

There's a lot of concern over Sam Bradford's injuries and his adjustment to a pro-style offense. His recurring shoulder injuries are going to be obstacle for him to climb and there is legitimate concern that durability is going to be an issue at the next level (especially now that he can't lean on the shotgun formation.) He'll need to check out medically at the Combine and show it's capable of handling reps in workouts. His inexperience in a pro-style offense is another cause for concern, as he played his college career in mostly the shotgun formation behind the nation's best Offensive Line. Bradford's a rhythm passer, and he'll need to adjust his footwork in the pocket and tweak his throwing mechanics to be a consistent player.

At the Combine, where Bradford weighed in impressively, interviewed very well, and scored an exceptional 36 on his Wonderlic. I expect he'll build a strong relationship with the top teams and figures to be off the board among the draft's first four picks. Were it not for injuries, we may be talking about Bradford as the unanimous top pick in the draft realistically. He will be seen as a Franchise Quarterback to the team that drafts him.

Pros
+ Pocket presence, is very calm, patient, and keeps his eyes active
+ Prototypical NFL Size/Athlete at 6'4 236 with athletic background
+ Strong arm, shows great zip on intermediate passes, can make every throw
+ Very precise and accurate, developed great timing, fits the ball into tight spots
+ Footwork in/out of the pocket, steps into his throws, good escapability
+ Very intelligent, cerebral player who reads defense/sees the entire field
+ Leader and a Winner, great command of his team & won games
+ Work ethic, a blue-collar worker on the field, in the weight room, & in the classroom
+ Unbelievably Productive, Decorated QB, 2009 Heisman Trophy Winner
+ Likable Personality, personable guy and a well-liked/respected teammate
+ Good Throwing Mechanics, keeps the ball high and has a compact delivery
+ A young new face for the team that drafts him to play QB

Cons
- Durability a major red flag, recurring injuries to throwing shoulder sidelined him in 2009
- Played in a spread offense, saw mostly man coverage & lined up mostly shotgun
- Needs to make adjustments to his footwork to become a drop-back passer
- Was surrounded by a strong supporting cast and the nation's top OL
- Not the prettiest deep ball, not a lot of experience airing the ball out 40+ yards
- High learning curve for Top 5 pick

Why the Rams will draft Sam Bradford 1st Overall
- The prototypical 6'4 236 Quarterback fits the team's West Coast offense and brings a fresh face and a winning attitude. Sam Bradford brings a well-liked, well-established college football star to St. Louis to turn around the Rams losing ways. He brings all the physical tools necessary to be a star QB, has the intangible qualities you look for, and would likely start from Day One in St. Louis. Last year before the Underclassmen deadline there was speculation the Rams could look to Bradford with the 2nd Overall Pick and the idea makes the same sense today. He goes to St. Louis as a try-hard guy with plenty of God given talent (like Jason Smith) and he brings a much needed fresh face to the passing game. The injuries don't deter Spagnuolo as Bradford's had ample time to heal and has shown the ability to make any throw. A Franchise Quarterback in St. Louis.


Or....


http://www.nfldraftdog.com/draftdogimages/2010%20prospects/jmmy-clausen.jpg

Jimmy Clausen - QB - Notre Dame (Jr.)
6'2 5/8 - 222 - 4.77e
#2 Quarterback - #7 Overall

We all heard about Clausen a few years ago, as he came out of California's Oaks Christian High School touted as one of the most college ready Quarterbacks in recent memory. While he failed to bring Notre Dame back to national glory, he did live up to his own personal hype by his Junior season. This past year, with future early round picks Golden Tate and Michael Floyd, Jimmy looked comfortable, he looked dynamic, and he looked extremely efficient. He projects as the most NFL-ready Quarterback prospect in 2010 and has a good deal of upside with a nice blend of accuracy, arm strength, and intelligence.

He may not be the tallest guy, at just around 6'2 5/8, but he possesses a good, strong build and still makes efficient reads downfield. He displays a terrific feel for the position and has excellent mechanics. His delivery is short and his release is quick, the result is a very catchable ball. His footwork in the pocket and outside the pocket is impressive and he's able to throw well on the move. He shows a good feel for pressure and thinks on the move when the pocket collapses. Clausen is by no means a dual-threat Quarterback, but he shows good athleticism and escapability. He reads defenses well, keeps his eyes downfield and steps into his throws. His draft stock really benefits from his experience under center in a pro-style offense during his college years.

Clausen displays both a strong arm and impressive accuracy. His deep ball could use some work, as right now he often gets too much air under it and it hangs. Still, he shows terrific zip and command on his short to intermediate routes and has the arm to make any throw. He throws a tight spiral, has good touch, and throws a catchable ball. He's very accurate downfield and to the far hash, his timing with his receivers really shows. On the move, Clausen keeps his eyes downfield, displays good patience, and get drive the ball downfield accurately with that same tight spiral. He anticipates both his receivers and the defense well which has allowed him to become one of the most efficient QBs in the college football.

A big question mark some have about Jimmy Clausen is his character. Most questions seem to revolve around his maturity, how good a teammate he'll be, and how big a part the Clausen family will play for any team that drafts Jimmy. I think the maturity/teammate issues are overblown and likely go back more to high school when he was on magazine covers by his Sophomore & Junior years. At Notre Dame, I know he's taken the time and put in work with his receivers and in the weight room. This past summer, Clausen flew Golden Tate, Kyle Rudolph, & Michael Floyd out to California to work on timing and precision. He definitely earned his teammates respect this past year and I buy him more as a leader these days than an immature me-first player. How big a factor his family will be remains to be seen and I think new leaves will be turned during his Combine interviews, private workouts, and contract negotiations (if St. Louis decides to negotiate with 2 or more players).

Ultimately, with so many teams in need of a new face and franchise Quarterback, it would really surprise me to see Clausen escape the Top 9 picks. There are some questions that need to be answered about the Notre Dame product, but he has the tools to be a Franchise Quarterback for a team and appears to be a Top 5-10 value in a weak draft at the position. Expect his name to emerge as a prominent option in the #1 Pick race because of St. Louis' futility in the passing game, their lack of a fresh face, and his fit in their West Coast offense.

Pros
+ Strong football background & rare feel for the position
+ Excellent throwing mechanics, short delivery and quick, clean release
+ Very accurate, shows great timing and fits the ball into tight areas
+ Strong arm, displays great zip and the ability to make any NFL throw
+ Plays smart, very efficient, reads defenses well and anticipates coverage
+ Experience in a pro-style offense, worked under center in college and threw a complete route tree
+ Anticipates the pass rush well, is a quick decision maker
+ Has good feet, shows escapability from the pocket, and steps into his throws
+ Throws well on the move, keeps his eyes downfield, is patient
+ Breakout year in 09', big time production and great TD:INT ratio (28:4)
+ Athletic build, is not fragile
+ Durability
+ Is a leader and a new face for the team that drafts him

Cons
- Deep ball needs work, often hangs in the air
- Average height at 6'2 5/8
- Has to answer some maturity questions with a frat-boy personality
- Uncertainty about his family and contract negotiation
- Was not a real winner in college, average record on a big stage (Probably not his fault)
- Occasionally his feet will be a bit too active and he'll feel pressure that's not there

Why the Rams will draft Jimmy Clausen 1st Overall
- It's hard to think the "Greatest Show on Turf" has been gone for so long, though they looked like they were going in a promising direction just a few years ago (Marc Bulger, Steven Jackson, Torry Holt, Orlando Pace, etc.) Injuries have derailed this franchise and it's time for a fresh new face on offense. The 2009 Rams used Keith Null to start a few games at Quarterback and this QB class really doesn't scream NFL-ready. Jimmy Clausen is an NFL-ready passer that can make all the throws, provides a new face to the struggling franchise, and fits the team's West Coast Offense perfectly. The learning curve is not very steep for Clausen who would likely step in from Day One behind 2009 2nd Overall Pick, Jason Smith. This pick energizes the lifeless St. Louis passing game and takes attention from All-Pro caliber RB Steven Jackson. With so many high picks invested on the defensive line under previous coaching, it may be up to Steve Spagnuolo to revive the offense with a Franchise Quarterback prospect.

bored of education
02-12-2010, 03:59 PM
Whoa, very good write up. I don't know how I feel about the McCoy con of saying God in every sentence. I am still unsure where the Rams go with this pic.

JFLO
02-12-2010, 04:01 PM
I think if St. Louis takes a DT, then they'll end up with McCoy, just my opinion, but I think he fits their scheme a lot better than Suh does, but they couldn't go wrong either way.

However, Bradford will end up being the pick.

ThePudge
02-12-2010, 04:13 PM
Whoa, very good write up. I don't know how I feel about the McCoy con of saying God in every sentence. I am still unsure where the Rams go with this pic.

At that point I was looking for something that could potentially turn teams off. In years past there's been stories of scouts/coaches/GMs being turned off by interviews like that. I don't think it hurts his draft stock in any way really, it's just a personal note that isn't exactly favorable in the interview parts. I, personally, have no problem with the way he speaks and he seems down to earth and matured from past years.

FrankGore
02-12-2010, 04:14 PM
I think they go QB. Clausen is a potential franchise QB, and they are absolutely pitiful at that position right now. Kyle Boller and Keith Null will turn the ball over multiple times every game...just no shot to win with either of those guys. Young regimes love taking QBs because it buys them some time to build up talent before the pressure to perform gets turned up.

Whether that's right or wrong, I think it's pretty true.

Babylon
02-12-2010, 04:15 PM
They need so much there that you could argue for them trading down and getting a couple of higher picks in return. (Pete Carroll might be interested). If they're going to go for a QB then they are taking a player with a significantly lesser grade and i think that gets you in trouble.

The Rams could grab a QB at the top of round 2 as Scott has pointed out or they could wait till next year to grab Locker or Mallett (better than this years top 2 to me). If they really know what they are doing there they might be able to pull something big off but i'm not sure i'd have that kind of faith in them.

Me Likey Rookies
02-12-2010, 04:15 PM
After seeing Suh dominate every offense he played against this year, I cant see them passing on him for McCoy. I really hope they take a QB though.

ThePudge
02-12-2010, 04:18 PM
The Rams could grab a QB at the top of round 2 as Scott has pointed out or they could wait till next year to grab Locker or Mallett (better than this years top 2 to me). If they really know what they are doing there they might be able to pull something big off but i'm not sure i'd have that kind of faith in them.

I feel like there has to be more of an urgency to get wins and results this year than in year's past as it's Spagnuolo's second go round. I don't see any QBs in this class that bring half the Franchise QB promise that Bradford or Clausen have. It's a tough call and Free Agency will likely reveal a lot next month.

Babylon
02-12-2010, 04:20 PM
After seeing Suh dominate every offense he played against this year, I cant see them passing on him for McCoy. I really hope they take a QB though.

I see what you did there.

Thumper
02-12-2010, 04:26 PM
The Rams need to take a QB, they are much more important to a team's success than a DT and the golden rule of the NFL draft is you never pass on a potential franchise QB, like Clausen or Bradford. Plus DTs have a high bust rate and they often struggle with the transition to the NFL.

Babylon
02-12-2010, 04:30 PM
I feel like there has to be more of an urgency to get wins and results this year than in year's past as it's Spagnuolo's second go round. I don't see any QBs in this class that bring half the Franchise QB promise that Bradford or Clausen have. It's a tough call and Free Agency will likely reveal a lot next month.

It's all about wins but you really think Bradford or Clausen mean a jump in wins next year?, i dont.

armageddon
02-12-2010, 09:13 PM
Any of the three, as long as it's not Claussen.

LickaMahfeetz
02-13-2010, 05:32 AM
At that point I was looking for something that could potentially turn teams off. In years past there's been stories of scouts/coaches/GMs being turned off by interviews like that. I don't think it hurts his draft stock in any way really, it's just a personal note that isn't exactly favorable in the interview parts. I, personally, have no problem with the way he speaks and he seems down to earth and matured from past years.
First off, excellent write up. There's really not a whole lot at all I can disagree with on all accounts.

Speaking in regards to McCoy's "God" references, I can only expect that it would actually work in his favor in regards to his prospect potential when it comes to the Rams and here's why:

Anybody who knows anything about Spagnuolo and the Rams current front office, should know about the four pillars ideology. Character is very important to them. More than that though Spagnuolo is a man of strong faith. It's not uncommon at all to hear him speak of God numerous times throughout interviews. He places great emphasis on this. I can only imagine this would be to McCoy's benefit instead of being listed as a con when it comes to the Rams.

descendency
02-13-2010, 05:40 AM
At this point, I don't think you can take an injury concern #1 overall. After that, unless you think there is something wrong with Clausen's leadership, I don't know how you don't take him. He played in Indiana. Moving him to a dome could actually improve parts of his accuracy.

Suh and McCoy would be good picks, but I think the problem is that they have a boat load of money already on the DL. 3 DL in the top 15 of the draft in the past 4 years may be too much.

Great write up though. I just don't understand how the pick isn't Jimmy Clausen.

Clausen had the 4th best completion rating of anyone and was easily the best pro-style QB in college football last year. Easily. The rest were gimmick offenses.

Grizzlegom
02-13-2010, 06:58 AM
i think its gotta be one of the two DTs. There are so many questions about the two QBs that i wouldnt be surprised if they both fell out of the top ten but at the end of the day i wouldn't be surprised if only one of them (Bradford if he checks out medically) ends up in the top ten and i think that it'll be the second half (sea or Den). I think the rams should try to move back as hard as possible (even if its just two spots or so) so they can have the decision made for them a bit.

BaLLiN
02-13-2010, 07:43 AM
i can agree with what you said for McCoy over Suh, Spags both for the eagles scheme he was in and the scheme with the giants had penetrators rather than run stuffers, he is a firm believer in pressure creates good pass coverage, so i could see why McCoy would be the guy over Suh.

What is the news with Carriker? DE or DT?

zachsaints52
02-13-2010, 09:27 AM
and the golden rule of the NFL draft is you never pass on a potential franchise QB,

Unless they already have one, Keith Null!!!!!

But really if Suh goes to the Lions even Matt Millen would make the pick, and Bucs get McCoy.... So a QB to the Rams would make every other team really happy.

Side note: Its a Con if a player is very religious like McCoy?

keylime_5
02-13-2010, 09:39 AM
what's wrong with saying God a lot? I don't get it.

ThePudge
02-13-2010, 11:52 AM
what's wrong with saying God a lot? I don't get it.

This seems to be a very common point of interest and actually one I explained above.

"At that point I was looking for something that could potentially turn teams off. In years past there's been stories of scouts/coaches/GMs being turned off by interviews like that. I don't think it hurts his draft stock in any way really, it's just a personal note that isn't exactly favorable in the interview parts. I, personally, have no problem with the way he speaks and he seems down to earth and matured from past years."

When I lined it up, McCoy really isn't a prospect with a ton of flaws. I have more questions about Suh's NFL future than I do Gerald's because of his injuries, build, and playing style. I could have written something along the lines of "Gets food stuck in his teeth after meals" for McCoy, there's just not much legitimately wrong with his game and nothing I see keeping him out of the Top 3.

Don't worry everyone, I have no problem with a religious player that plays under God rather than for himself. Don't be so sure that coaches/GMs/scouts want to hear all that talk though, as in the past, there have been cases of interviews completely skewed by a players' consistent reference to God. He's a down to earth guy in my opinion and there's a strong passion for the game of football. He'd have to be starting his own religion and traveling the country looking for followers to drop his stock out of the Top 3. This is pretty much a non-factor.

GoRavens
02-13-2010, 11:57 AM
Rams should trade Danny Amendola to Baltimore for Troy Smith..
Then draft Suh with the first pick.
Suh dominated college football last year, and stopping the run is a crucial need for the Rammies

descendency
02-13-2010, 12:20 PM
Rams should trade Danny Amendola to Baltimore for Troy Smith..

Why? Are their benches cold?

BaLLiN
02-13-2010, 12:36 PM
troy would do awful in a wco let alone any offense bc his height. balls would be batted at the line 50% of the time

Michigan
02-13-2010, 02:00 PM
Don't be so sure that coaches/GMs/scouts want to hear all that talk though, as in the past, there have been cases of interviews completely skewed by a players' consistent reference to God.

Sorry to continue on this topic, but out of curiosity, do you have any examples of those cases?

vidae
02-13-2010, 02:08 PM
Crazy write-up, props for that.

Sniper
02-13-2010, 02:15 PM
Rams should trade Danny Amendola to Baltimore for Troy Smith..
Then draft Suh with the first pick.
Suh dominated college football last year, and stopping the run is a crucial need for the Rammies

What would Smith bring to St. Louis? He's never going to be a starter in this league.

ThePudge
02-13-2010, 02:17 PM
Sorry to continue on this topic, but out of curiosity, do you have any examples of those cases?

There was talk about this last year, as anonymous scouts/coaches sounded off on a couple of the talks they had with Top 10-15 guys. Some interviews turned up that some players couldn't name another pro at their position, some showed that a couple were full of themselves, and there was one case of a player that mentioned God too much & it was near impossible to talk to the guy and get good answers. That player remained anonymous and it likely didn't do a thing to his draft stock. I don't think it hurts McCoy in any way, though I don't think putting all of your success on God is what NFL evaluators want to hear. He'll be fine, it's really just a note.

I can remove it and throw it somewhere in the scouting report rather than at the end if it's going to be a big obstacle to people when reading.

armageddon
02-13-2010, 03:20 PM
Whoever the Rams take, it will turn out to be the wrong choice. That's our luck.

keylime_5
02-13-2010, 08:04 PM
This seems to be a very common point of interest and actually one I explained above.

"At that point I was looking for something that could potentially turn teams off. In years past there's been stories of scouts/coaches/GMs being turned off by interviews like that. I don't think it hurts his draft stock in any way really, it's just a personal note that isn't exactly favorable in the interview parts. I, personally, have no problem with the way he speaks and he seems down to earth and matured from past years."

When I lined it up, McCoy really isn't a prospect with a ton of flaws. I have more questions about Suh's NFL future than I do Gerald's because of his injuries, build, and playing style. I could have written something along the lines of "Gets food stuck in his teeth after meals" for McCoy, there's just not much legitimately wrong with his game and nothing I see keeping him out of the Top 3.

Don't worry everyone, I have no problem with a religious player that plays under God rather than for himself. Don't be so sure that coaches/GMs/scouts want to hear all that talk though, as in the past, there have been cases of interviews completely skewed by a players' consistent reference to God. He's a down to earth guy in my opinion and there's a strong passion for the game of football. He'd have to be starting his own religion and traveling the country looking for followers to drop his stock out of the Top 3. This is pretty much a non-factor.

yeah i saw where you put this. i get that some GMs/scouts/etc. have been said to have been turned off by talking about God too much, but never really knew why.

I guess it isn't really the fact that they're religious, it's that instead of answering the questions straight in interviews they just talk about how they owe everything to God and and God wanted it that way or whatever, like you said. interesting topic for discussion nonetheless.

keylime_5
02-13-2010, 08:07 PM
What would Smith bring to St. Louis? He's never going to be a starter in this league.

and Tim Couch and Ryan Leaf are franchise QBs. Seriously, you gotta give a guy chance before you can write them off - it's not like the Rams have anything at all as it is, might as well bring in a young guy with upside who is at least a great leader on the field who can make things happen with his feet. Smith's major detractor is his height really, and the super bowl MVP is the same height. He's not Peyton Manning with his accuracy or anything, but he's not Derek Anderson either. I think he could be a starter, but not a guy you build a team around, kinda like David Garrard or Jon Kitna.

P-L
02-13-2010, 08:30 PM
The Ravens saw him every day in practice for a year before deciding that they needed to draft a quarterback in the 1st round of the 2008 NFL draft. He started two games as a rookie and barely completed 53% of his passes. He hasn't performed well in the preseason in the last two years playing against second string defenses.

I know he was a great college player, but people need to give it up. Troy Smith might make a capable backup but you don't trade a halfway decent player or a pick for him and experiment with him as your starting quarterback. Especially when your team is totally devoid talent. Even if Smith turned out to be a David Garrard or Jon Kitna it wouldn't matter. Neither of those guys would succeed in St. Louis anyways.

Sniper
02-13-2010, 08:37 PM
Smith's major detractor is his height really, and the super bowl MVP is the same height.

The Super Bowl MVP also has the accuracy of an Olympic archer. Smith does not.

thetedginnshow
02-13-2010, 08:38 PM
Troy Smith can be successful, but not in a WCO.

GoRavens
02-13-2010, 08:40 PM
jimmy clausen will be the #1 pick.
you just can't win games with the QBs that play in St. Louis

sup3rdup3r
02-13-2010, 08:42 PM
I think the rams end up trading for Vick, so they will probably take one of the DTs.

keylime_5
02-13-2010, 08:51 PM
The Ravens saw him every day in practice for a year before deciding that they needed to draft a quarterback in the 1st round of the 2008 NFL draft. He started two games as a rookie and barely completed 53% of his passes. He hasn't performed well in the preseason in the last two years playing against second string defenses.

I know he was a great college player, but people need to give it up. Troy Smith might make a capable backup but you don't trade a halfway decent player or a pick for him and experiment with him as your starting quarterback. Especially when your team is totally devoid talent. Even if Smith turned out to be a David Garrard or Jon Kitna it wouldn't matter. Neither of those guys would succeed in St. Louis anyways.


Well it doesn't mean anything one way or another that the Ravens drafted a 1st round QB after a 5th round draft pick's rookie year in which he didn't hardly play (on a team with a really bad offense). I'm not saying you should sign him with expectations to be the answer or trade a bundle for him, but you could do a lot worse than having Troy Smith to be the starter as a stopgap right now. He has decent upside and a good arm and hasn't been given a chance yet at all.

holt_bruce81
02-13-2010, 08:59 PM
props for the write up man. Nice work. I would say it's between Bradford, Suh or McCoy. Rumors floating around that the Rams aren't really that high on Clausen.

HawkeyeFan
02-13-2010, 09:40 PM
The Rams should end up drafting Jimmy Clausen. He's a 3 year starter in the WCO under an offensive guru in Charlie Weis, he's incredibly accurate, good arm, great composure, great presence, also a good leader.

The Rams are also HIGH on Jimmy Clausen per Bernie Miklaz ( who talked to Rams GM Billy Devaney about it ).

zachsaints52
02-13-2010, 10:42 PM
The Super Bowl MVP also has the accuracy of an Olympic archer. Smith does not.

Better then an olympic archer thank you :)

FUNBUNCHER
02-13-2010, 11:02 PM
The Ravens saw him every day in practice for a year before deciding that they needed to draft a quarterback in the 1st round of the 2008 NFL draft. He started two games as a rookie and barely completed 53% of his passes. He hasn't performed well in the preseason in the last two years playing against second string defenses.

I know he was a great college player, but people need to give it up. Troy Smith might make a capable backup but you don't trade a halfway decent player or a pick for him and experiment with him as your starting quarterback. Especially when your team is totally devoid talent. Even if Smith turned out to be a David Garrard or Jon Kitna it wouldn't matter. Neither of those guys would succeed in St. Louis anyways.


Troy Smith would have been the starter in 2008 except for injuries prior to the start of the regular season. The Ravens had no intentions of starting Flacco as a rookie, ( at least not at the beginning of the season), but when the other two QBs went down, he was the default.
Troy Smith has been consistent and moved the Ravens offense whenever he was in the game during pre, IMO he still has upside and at worst is a 2nd stringer.
I could see the Rams bringing him in as a stop-gap if they really prefer drafting Suh/McCoy over Bradford/Clausen.

IMO Spags at this point wants a QB who can manage the game and not lose it for the defense, he doesn't need an MVP as a signal caller. Troy Smith is smart and efficient and fits the profile of a ball control QB. His mobility is an added bonus.

SKim172
02-13-2010, 11:09 PM
The Ravens saw him every day in practice for a year before deciding that they needed to draft a quarterback in the 1st round of the 2008 NFL draft. He started two games as a rookie and barely completed 53% of his passes. He hasn't performed well in the preseason in the last two years playing against second string defenses.

I know he was a great college player, but people need to give it up. Troy Smith might make a capable backup but you don't trade a halfway decent player or a pick for him and experiment with him as your starting quarterback. Especially when your team is totally devoid talent. Even if Smith turned out to be a David Garrard or Jon Kitna it wouldn't matter. Neither of those guys would succeed in St. Louis anyways.

Troy Smith is a controversial one in Baltimore. Some fans think he's lightning in a bottle, a playmaker, who needs to get on the field more. Others go, "He's a backup, who cares." I'm in the latter camp.

I don't count height against him - I don't think height is as huge a factor as people want to make it. Plenty of tall quarterbacks with horrible field vision - stands to reason there may be some short QBs with excellent vision.

I just haven't seen anything of Smith to be impressed with, so I really don't know where the love affair comes from. I think people just want the Heisman trophy winner to be a winner. That's how I explain Tim Tebow.

But I do know Troy Smith wants to start. His agent released a statement during the playoffs that he wants to be traded. He's a restricted free agent this year, so I personally feel if anybody wants to give up a draft pick for a backup, go right ahead. Lots of unproven athletic low-round QBs to choose from and I have more faith in LeFevour or Crompton or even Armanti Edwards than in Troy Smith.

And about the topic - I predict it'll be Suh in the end. Bulger's getting big money already - I don't think the top QB prospects will do enough to get the Rams to feel they'll be a "don't-miss" pick.

Monomach
02-14-2010, 01:09 AM
I think everyone is seriously overthinking this. Clausen seems like the obvious choice. It's really a no-brainer.

Then again, I thought Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aATSUKu0jI) were obvious picks, too...

ThePudge
02-14-2010, 01:19 AM
I think everyone is seriously overthinking this. Clausen seems like the obvious choice. It's really a no-brainer.

Then again, I thought Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aATSUKu0jI) were obvious picks, too...

The Jets trading up to 5th Overall was that obvious?

I don't agree that it's a no brainer, and I expect them to enter negotiations with all four of those players. This is an enormous pick for the Rams.

Monomach
02-14-2010, 01:24 AM
The Jets trading up to 5th Overall was that obvious?No, I mean he was an obvious pick for the Rams.

You know, if they weren't run by a bunch of retards.

I don't agree that it's a no brainer, and I expect them to enter negotiations with all four of those players. This is an enormous pick for the Rams.
That's because you're overthinking it. The way they do...to their detriment.

ThePudge
02-14-2010, 01:34 AM
No, I mean he was an obvious pick for the Rams.

You know, if they weren't run by a bunch of retards.


That's because you're overthinking it. The way they do...to their detriment.

Then why is Clausen the obvious #1? I could make a damn convincing argument for all four of these guys. Stafford was obvious, JaMarcus Russell was obvious, this pick has a number of valid, fitting options. It's the NFL Draft, looking at four options for one pick shouldn't be considered over-thinking the situation, especially in February.

Monomach
02-14-2010, 02:02 AM
Then why is Clausen the obvious #1?...because he is the best QB prospect in this draft by a mile. He'll also have the shortest learning curve, thanks to Charlie Weis. Meanwhile...erm...Marc Bulger?

I could make a damn convincing argument for all four of these guys. Not convincing to me. Need a franchise QB, draft a franchise QB. There's only one franchise QB in this draft that I can see.

Stafford was obvious, Yes. Not sure what that has to do with this, though. It was an excellent pick.

JaMarcus Russell was obvious, Then why was I hating on him leading up to the draft and laughing at the Raiders when they drafted him? :p

He was NOT obvious at all. He was a giant guy with a big arm. Therefore, every fool on this board wanted to carry his fat babies.

this pick has a number of valid, fitting options.That number is one.

It's the NFL Draft, looking at four options for one pick shouldn't be considered over-thinking the situation, especially in February.Except for when you have an enormous gaping hole at QB and a helluva good one is waiting right there for you to draft. Then it IS overthinking. Warren Sapp wouldn't help the Rams more than Jimmy Clausen, and as good as the two DTs are this year, they're no Warren Sapp.

As for Bradford...well, it's a joke that people would even have him in the same conversation as Clausen.

Stranger
02-14-2010, 02:48 AM
And about the topic - I predict it'll be Suh in the end. Bulger's getting big money already - I don't think the top QB prospects will do enough to get the Rams to feel they'll be a "don't-miss" pick.

Bulger's big money and uncapped season = cut. I would be very suprised if he is starting for the Rams next season. He has even been hinting at retirement.

Personally I don't know enough about Bradford or Clausen to have an intelligent read on their abilities, but if the Rams think they have the potential to be a franchise QB I think they have to take them over the DT's no matter how good they are. Otherwise draft Suh/McCoy and try get Vick/Campbell and see where they can take you.

How does the change of ownership will effect the Rams drafting strategy?

descendency
02-14-2010, 10:44 AM
The only thing you can say about the Rams is that they didn't believe that Matt Ryan or Mark Sanchez were franchise QBs.

Babylon
02-14-2010, 12:39 PM
The only thing you can say about the Rams is that they didn't believe that Matt Ryan or Mark Sanchez were franchise QBs.

I think in the case of Matt Ryan they thought that Marc Bulger was still pretty decent. Last year i think they would have taken Stafford if Detroit had passed but Sanchez at #2 was i thought way too high, still do by the way.

Sniper
02-14-2010, 01:38 PM
Better then an olympic archer thank you :)

You're right. The point that he's ridiculously accurate stands.

Paranoidmoonduck
02-14-2010, 01:48 PM
...because he is the best QB prospect in this draft by a mile. He'll also have the shortest learning curve, thanks to Charlie Weis.

I think this is where you may detach from the opinion of a lot of scouts. From what I've heard, Bradford has at least a slight lead on Clausen in terms of general opinion in the scouting community.

Also, I think the "pro offense" argument holds less water here. The offense Clausen played in wasn't quite as simplified as the one Weiss ran for Quinn's only year playing for him, but it definitely didn't ask him to make NFL reads all the time. Meanwhile, while Bradford played in a spread offense, he played in a spread that very commonly asked him to read across the whole field and read up the field three levels, as well as make NFL throws. Beyond footwork, that removes one of the biggest concerns for a spread offense quarterback.

Moreover, it's pretty easy to take the "it's obvious" stance when you're not required to dish out about 40 million dollars of guaranteed money to the kid nor does your job security potential rest on this one pick panning out.

descendency
02-14-2010, 01:50 PM
I think in the case of Matt Ryan they thought that Marc Bulger was still pretty decent. Last year i think they would have taken Stafford if Detroit had passed but Sanchez at #2 was i thought way too high, still do by the way.

If your team doesn't have a franchise QB and you have a franchise QB on the board, no position is too high. You draft franchise QBs immediately. It's the only position I don't think there is a such thing as a reach. If they are not "projects" (meaning 2+ years of development), I say take them as quickly as you can.

3pac
02-14-2010, 02:36 PM
I agree 100% with Monomach.

And no, Jamarcus Russel was DEFINITELY NOT an "obvious" pick. He was the most obvious QB bust I've ever seen.

3pac
02-14-2010, 02:37 PM
If your team doesn't have a franchise QB and you have a franchise QB on the board, no position is too high. You draft franchise QBs immediately. It's the only position I don't think there is a such thing as a reach. If they are not "projects" (meaning 2+ years of development), I say take them as quickly as you can.

This. If STL is smart at all, they take Clausen.

EDIT: The fact I'm sitting here agreeing with a Pats fan says a lot.

ThePudge
02-14-2010, 02:40 PM
If your team doesn't have a franchise QB and you have a franchise QB on the board, no position is too high. You draft franchise QBs immediately. It's the only position I don't think there is a such thing as a reach. If they are not "projects" (meaning 2+ years of development), I say take them as quickly as you can.

I tend to agree with this, but I don't always think that's the best route for a developing team. Sometimes teams will pick up a veteran Quarterback with starting experience and go for an impact defender, left tackle, or the best overall player in the draft. This year could be one argued because the DTs Suh & McCoy are two of the best prospects at their position in the past couple decades while there are serious doubts whether either Clausen or Bradford are prospects worthy of a Top 5 pick.

It's a big question, and one of the toughest #1 Overall's in recent years. I made my pick. Pre-Combine Shane P. Hallam (JBond) and Pudge mock draft coming by Thursday/Friday.

ThePudge
02-14-2010, 02:42 PM
I agree 100% with Monomach.

And no, Jamarcus Russel was DEFINITELY NOT an "obvious" pick. He was the most obvious QB bust I've ever seen.

JaMarcus Russell was absolutely an obvious pick. He wasn't the best player in his draft, not even the best QB prospect, but he was obviously going to go 1st Overall by March or so. He was an obvious pick to the Raiders, very easy to predict.

3pac
02-14-2010, 02:43 PM
I tend to agree with this, but I don't always think that's the best route for a developing team. Sometimes teams will pick up a veteran Quarterback with starting experience and go for an impact defender, left tackle, or the best overall player in the draft. This year could be one argued because the DTs Suh & McCoy are two of the best prospects at their position in the past couple decades while there are serious doubts whether either Clausen or Bradford are prospects worthy of a Top 5 pick.

It's a big question, and one of the toughest #1 Overall's in recent years. I made my pick. Pre-Combine Shane P. Hallam (JBond) and Pudge mock draft coming by Thursday/Friday.

I wasn't hating on your excellent write-up, or the fact that I'm sure the Rams ARE considering all 4 people....... it just seems like common sense to me that as a struggling, boring franchise with low fan interest and a worthless shelf of quarterbacks that you go for Clausen here.

3pac
02-14-2010, 02:44 PM
JaMarcus Russell was absolutely an obvious pick. He wasn't the best player in his draft, not even the best QB prospect, but he was obviously going to go 1st Overall by March or so. He was an obvious pick to the Raiders, very easy to predict.

OK, in that sense I agree. It was definitely obvious he would go #1 overall, but it was DEFINITELY well-disputed as to whether or not he warranted that pick. But I see what you were saying, now.

ThePudge
02-14-2010, 02:53 PM
OK, in that sense I agree. It was definitely obvious he would go #1 overall, but it was DEFINITELY well-disputed as to whether or not he warranted that pick. But I see what you were saying, now.

Yea, I'm not trying to bust any balls here, but we all knew JaMarcus was going to Oakland and this year it's going to be tough because you're seeing two DT's (a big need) worthy of the #1 pick, and two QBs that you wonder if they're Top 5 picks. Clausen's a good prospect, but he's far from the obvious choice at this point... he has a serious obstacle to climb in interviews where he has to prove his maturity should come across as a personable guy if he wants that #1 money.

Bradford, on the other hand, was a near flawless college player and has the more impressive prototype size, intangibles, and generally had the better college game tape. His huge obstacle will be his medical examination in Indy, and his ability to make every throw with that right shoulder. It's a tough choice between the two of them, then with the future All-Pro DTs in the mix it turns in a tough choice.

If people don't think they'll go into negotiations with at least three of those players come April, well, they're a bit delusional. Last year it was obviously Stafford, yet they still were in negotiations with Jason Smith & Aaron Curry. (That wasn't you that said they wouldn't)

descendency
02-14-2010, 05:55 PM
His shoulder, his questions about being able to handle pressure, and his accuracy is not what some people report it to be. (he throws behind receivers and stuff).

Other than that, he's clearly an elite prospect.

edit: I mean Bradford.

ThePudge
02-14-2010, 06:03 PM
His shoulder, his questions about being able to handle pressure, and his accuracy is not what some people report it to be. (he throws behind receivers and stuff).

Other than that, he's clearly an elite prospect.

edit: I mean Bradford.

He's got more bust potential than Clausen due to his shoulder injury history and adjustment to dropping back. Still, on film he's the best Quarterback in this class and one worthy of serious consideration for the #1 pick. At 6'4 225 he's got prototypical Franchise QB size & athleticism, strong intangibles, and a strong, accurate arm. I'm not sure what to make of people questioning his arm strength as he shows the ability to put the ball downfield, and to throw with very solid velocity on intermediate routes (10-25 yds). Very little chance he falls out of the Top 9.

Babylon
02-14-2010, 07:02 PM
If your team doesn't have a franchise QB and you have a franchise QB on the board, no position is too high. You draft franchise QBs immediately. It's the only position I don't think there is a such thing as a reach. If they are not "projects" (meaning 2+ years of development), I say take them as quickly as you can.

I'll go back to what i said before, define a franchise QB. David Carr, Brady Quinn and Joey Harrington probably would fall into that category today if you had to so call grab the QB, it's hindsight but that didnt work out.

Job
02-14-2010, 07:48 PM
IMO, the most intelligent thing would be to go QB, even though Suh and McCoy (and Berry) are the best prospects in this class. If they don't, there is no guarantee they will ever be in position to draft a top-QB again. The last position you want to be in is one like the Jaguars, Chiefs, Panthers or Bears of a couple of years ago, where you consistently field a good team but end up being held back by a QB who's only above average at best.

MidwayMonster31
02-14-2010, 08:15 PM
I agree that Clausen's "character issues" are vastly overblown. Any of his teammates would tell you that he was the hardest worker on the Irish and was a terrific leader. He played well enough to win those games, but NDs defense couldn't do their job.
I think that it comes down to whether or not the quarterback you take is going to take you to that next level (+.500, playoffs and further) and keep you there for 8+ years. I think Clausen is that guy. He is smart enough, tough enough and has the accuracy and decision making to make it in the NFL. If the Rams do not pick Clausen, they better be prepared to pick in the top 10 for at least 3 more years. Unlike the Dolphins in 2008, Pennington won't be available and they don't have as good a defense. (On a side note, I don't think Henne is the answer for them.) Steven Jackson is a great player, but can't do it by himself. Locker might be that guy, but they would have to go 1-15 again to do that. Who's to say that Locker won't regress or get hurt next year? The Rams have to use this pick for their new franchise face, and Clausen is that guy.

descendency
02-14-2010, 11:42 PM
I'll go back to what i said before, define a franchise QB. David Carr, Brady Quinn and Joey Harrington probably would fall into that category today if you had to so call grab the QB, it's hindsight but that didnt work out.

They are busts. It's part of the drafting process. My point is that the risk of busting isn't simply enough to overlook the exceptionally high value of having a franchise QB.

I don't think there is anything quite like having that franchise piece. I don't just mean a big arm QB either. One that makes his OL and WRs play better. One that can make throws and makes big plays in pressure situations. One you really want to count on.

thatguy
02-15-2010, 08:43 AM
I don't think there should be any question about suh fitting into a team or anything like that. He can do everything he would even make the rams o-line better because the players you practice against make you better

Saints-Tigers
02-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Even if one of these guys proves to be a good QB in the future, you don't take just any usable QB when there are guys that can potentially be the best player at his position. Really, Suh could end up being the best D-linemen in the league with his instincts, and you'd think on passing on that for a project that doesn't even have that much upside in Sam Bradford? Lol.

Addict
02-15-2010, 11:18 AM
I agree 100% with Monomach.

And no, Jamarcus Russel was DEFINITELY NOT an "obvious" pick. He was the most obvious QB bust I've ever seen.

you must be kinda new here not to remember the major JR love on the boards 'round those days. Anyone not on the JR bandwagon was on the Quinn bandwagon, what happened to those bandwagons, you ask?

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1941.article.jpg

ThePudge
02-15-2010, 11:37 AM
Even if one of these guys proves to be a good QB in the future, you don't take just any usable QB when there are guys that can potentially be the best player at his position. Really, Suh could end up being the best D-linemen in the league with his instincts, and you'd think on passing on that for a project that doesn't even have that much upside in Sam Bradford? Lol.

You understand that last statement is purely opinion, correct?

2007 - 19th
2008 - 26th
2009 - 28th

The Rams passing game has been in the bottom half of the league the past three years and the situation has gotten more and more desperate. Meanwhile the team has made big money investments on the DL in the past three years, and so far they haven't panned out the best. Michael Vick doesn't have the upside of Clausen or Bradford as an offensive building block. With Steven Jackson, rookie responsibilities wouldn't be too big either. There's only so many years (in a row) you can neglect your need for a Franchise Quarterback. They need a fresh face at that position in the worst way.

HawkeyeFan
02-15-2010, 11:52 AM
Even if one of these guys proves to be a good QB in the future, you don't take just any usable QB when there are guys that can potentially be the best player at his position. Really, Suh could end up being the best D-linemen in the league with his instincts, and you'd think on passing on that for a project that doesn't even have that much upside in Sam Bradford? Lol.
I remember hearing the same about Glenn Dorsey a few years ago, funny isn't it?

Like I've said plenty of times, the Rams have passed up on a franchise QB the last 3 years. They currently have Marc Bulger and Keith Null under contract. Bulger is done, he may have some left but it's not going to come about in St. Louis. I've watched every game the last 3 years, and nothing about him makes me want to say "Keep Bulger for another year and wait for another Franchise QB." Bulger represents a dark, drama filled turmoil that we've had in the Rams organization the last 6 - 7 years, something that we as fans want to get rid of ( the thought ). Suh isn't going to fix our problems, we've drafted way to many DL and OL the last 7 drafts and nothing has gained from it. Drafting Suh won't be any different. The Rams have no one to lead them into the Future. Unfortunately Steven Jackson is getting older, and it hurts me to say that. I love Steven Jackson and he's my favorite Ram to ever play ( over Warner ( and he's even from where I'm currently living ), Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Marshall Faulk ). But having a good Running Game behind you can ease a Rookie into the league ( Look at Mark Sanchez ). We have some Young Wideouts but they are all filled with potential, and if only they could hit that potential. Jimmy Clausen is my favorite QB from last year, this year and next year. I feel he's got all of what you need, and I also feel that his bad rep is because he's a) From Notre Dame ( one of the most hated programs ) and b) Because of past players history ( Clausen is a different player than all of them ). Clausen comes into the NFL from the West Coast offense, same of which the Rams won. He's also got all the tools to become a great QB IMO.

Drafting Jimmy Clausen will take the Rams much further than they'll go if they select someone like Suh.

FlyingElvis
02-15-2010, 12:29 PM
However, Bradford will end up being the pick.
I concur. The Rams have to be hoping that Bradford shows he's back to 100% at the combine so their decision is easy. If he's cleared medically and ready to go I believe he will be the #1 pick.

It's all about wins but you really think Bradford or Clausen mean a jump in wins next year?, i dont.

What? A jump in wins . . . well yes, I'll say right now that regardless of who they draft the Rams will have a jump in wins. All they have to do is win 2 damn games for me to be right.

While I see your point that simply changing the QB won't mean immediate points, it is also pretty clear that the Rams won't be scoring more points by drafting Suh, either. When you can't even reach 11 points per game you absolutely need to add some more offensive talent.

The QB play in every Rams game I watched was pretty terrible. Null looked awesome compared to Bulger. Null did not look very good. lol

The entire draft needs to be considered . . . Bradford / Tate / PBA (TE or Oline) maybe? I'm confident in saying that would definitely mean a jump in scoring, which might mean a jump in wins.

Addict
02-15-2010, 12:33 PM
What? A jump in wins . . . well yes, I'll say right now that regardless of who they draft the Rams will have a jump in wins. All they have to do is win 2 damn games for me to be right.

While I see your point that simply changing the QB won't mean immediate points, it is also pretty clear that the Rams won't be scoring more points by drafting Suh, either. When you can't even reach 11 points per game you absolutely need to add some more offensive talent.

The QB play in every Rams game I watched was pretty terrible. Null looked awesome compared to Bulger. Null did not look very good. lol

The entire draft needs to be considered . . . Bradford / Tate / PBA (TE or Oline) maybe? I'm confident in saying that would definitely mean a jump in scoring, which might mean a jump in wins.

Depends how you define a jump, really. Even with a good draft the Rams are so shot up at this point five wins looks like a fair goal.

SKim172
02-15-2010, 12:49 PM
Franchise QB is important, but I'd also point out there are equivalent cases of teams that have been crippled for years because they paid huge money to a first-rounder that flat-out busted. Joey Harrington crippled Detroit and gave Miami and Atlanta black eyes and one-year headaches on his way out of the NFL. He is largely responsible for ending Mariucci's coaching career.

Imagine if the St. Louis Rams end up with the next Joey Harrington - a guy who seems to have promise, but never wins games. Fans bicker about whether it's the QB or the team, and every bar in St. Louis has arguments about completion percentage and interception ratios, and offensive schemes. And because there's so much money involved, the coaches try to stick with the guy and his generally mediocre play for years. And four years from now, the team owners finally get fed up and clean house - fire the coaches and GM, release the QB and announce they're rebuilding from scratch.

So it's not that simple a decision. You're talking huge risks, because whether he booms or busts, your first-round quarterback will be your "franchise quarterback" in that he will decide the fate of your franchise for the next several years. It's worth considering all the little questions and flaws, as well as alternative options.

Think about it this way - of the past four Super Bowls, three quarterbacks were first-rounders playing for the team that drafted them (Eli was drafted by the Chargers not Giants blahblah, whatever). But one was a second-rounder who was signed as a veteran free agent, one was a sixth-rounder who's become one of the more decorated QBs of the decade, and one was an undrafted free agent who played for Arena football, NFL Europe, and the Hy-Vee grocery chain before an injury got him a starting gig and a Super Bowl Ring, then was kicked the curb and picked up from the trash before being resurrected once more in the desert wastelands.

And one was a first-rounder whose team needed a monstrous defensive stand and record-breaking special teams efforts every game to surmount the impossible odds he created for them and later couldn't get a job in the UFL (oddly enough, did get a job with the Texans).

So my point is, the draft is your best bet to get a franchise QB. But it's also the riskiest. And there are other ways.

FlyingElvis
02-15-2010, 01:00 PM
^ Rarely does a team draft a DT who becomes such an obvious piece of their disatrous struggles, both financially and on the field. The inflated contracts are heavily skewed over the last decade in that the top 10 players get massive deals. In addition, many of the picks are bad teams with lousy QBs so they have to get someone to fill that spot. Very rarely does a team drafting #1 overall look at their roster and say "We're set at QB" or "DT is our biggest need." So QB simply becomes the default need, the default #1 overall pick, and then the default 4-6 year handicap if the player doesn't work out. But a team like KC still hurts if Dorsey can't get the job done.

You're last statement applies to every position in the game.
"the draft is your best bet to get a franchise QB. But it's also the riskiest. And there are other ways."

"the draft is your best bet to get a franchise DT. But it's also the riskiest. And there are other ways."

"the draft is your best bet to get a franchise WR. But it's also the riskiest. And there are other ways."

I could go on . . .
Depends how you define a jump, really. Even with a good draft the Rams are so shot up at this point five wins looks like a fair goal.

Exactly. The "jump in wins" argument is pointless. The Rams have a ton of holes to fill. No single player will be the difference in the number of wins next season. But, if there is one position that can make that major difference, it's QB.

SKim172
02-15-2010, 01:05 PM
True. On the other hand, there's a much lower risk involved investing money in other positions. Glenn Dorsey hasn't been much of a DT, but he is on the field, he can make tackles and it won't break the bank to release him, trade him, or draft a new one. Tell me having a crappy QB won't hurt a team more a crappy WR. I'm a Ravens fan - we've reached a new elevation of "crappy first-round receiver." Hasn't hurt us as much as our "crappy first-round quarterback."

Babylon
02-15-2010, 01:18 PM
I remember hearing the same about Glenn Dorsey a few years ago, funny isn't it?

Like I've said plenty of times, the Rams have passed up on a franchise QB the last 3 years. They currently have Marc Bulger and Keith Null under contract. Bulger is done, he may have some left but it's not going to come about in St. Louis. I've watched every game the last 3 years, and nothing about him makes me want to say "Keep Bulger for another year and wait for another Franchise QB." Bulger represents a dark, drama filled turmoil that we've had in the Rams organization the last 6 - 7 years, something that we as fans want to get rid of ( the thought ). Suh isn't going to fix our problems, we've drafted way to many DL and OL the last 7 drafts and nothing has gained from it. Drafting Suh won't be any different. The Rams have no one to lead them into the Future. Unfortunately Steven Jackson is getting older, and it hurts me to say that. I love Steven Jackson and he's my favorite Ram to ever play ( over Warner ( and he's even from where I'm currently living ), Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Marshall Faulk ). But having a good Running Game behind you can ease a Rookie into the league ( Look at Mark Sanchez ). We have some Young Wideouts but they are all filled with potential, and if only they could hit that potential. Jimmy Clausen is my favorite QB from last year, this year and next year. I feel he's got all of what you need, and I also feel that his bad rep is because he's a) From Notre Dame ( one of the most hated programs ) and b) Because of past players history ( Clausen is a different player than all of them ). Clausen comes into the NFL from the West Coast offense, same of which the Rams won. He's also got all the tools to become a great QB IMO.

Drafting Jimmy Clausen will take the Rams much further than they'll go if they select someone like Suh.

To be honest Marc Bulger was a Pro Bowl QB 3 years ago and they passed on Brady Quinn. Two years ago they passed on Matt Ryan, which is a bad move. Last year they passed on Mark Sanchez at #2, i cant question that move even in hingsight.

Grizzlegom
02-15-2010, 02:01 PM
He's got more bust potential than Clausen due to his shoulder injury history and adjustment to dropping back. Still, on film he's the best Quarterback in this class and one worthy of serious consideration for the #1 pick. At 6'4 225 he's got prototypical Franchise QB size & athleticism, strong intangibles, and a strong, accurate arm. I'm not sure what to make of people questioning his arm strength as he shows the ability to put the ball downfield, and to throw with very solid velocity on intermediate routes (10-25 yds). Very little chance he falls out of the Top 9.

i second this, if there is a QB that goes first overall, its Bradford. He may have the bust potential because he's bound to get hit no matter where he goes and we've seen what happens when he gets hit but he has the best chance to be the next great QB out of anyone in this class. I don't even have Clausen in my top twenty prospects right now, he's going to need to really blow people away at the combine (or hope that Snyder is still calling the shots in Washington) to even be in the top 10 discussion in my opinion.

irishbucsfan
02-15-2010, 04:10 PM
I believe very strongly that the Rams should take a QB. It will help their football team, and stuff.

descendency
02-15-2010, 04:30 PM
Joey Harrington crippled Detroit and gave Miami and Atlanta black eyes and one-year headaches on his way out of the NFL.

This is simply not true. Detroit has had a ton of abysmal draft picks over the years. Joey Harrington was just one of them.

Also, pretending like DTs don't bust that are drafted in the top 10 is insane. First, only 2 DTs have been drafted in the first 4 picks in the last 10 years. Johnathan Sullivan and Gerald Warren. Combined 0 pro-bowls. Corey Simon was also a top 10 DT, 1 Pro-bowl.

As a matter of fact, Kevin Williams (A top 10 DT) has more pro-bowls than the rest of them combined. (Williams has 5, the others have 3 total, 2 John Henderson and 1 for Gerald Warren).

Lots of the guys haven't even started that many years. Most are borderline. And now 2 DTs are supposed to come in, be drafted in the top 10, and be hall of famers? The odds say both bust or that at the very least one busts.

Back the original point, drafting in the top 5 and doing it wrong will set your team back years. You can't afford to make bad picks.

I'd say the group of DTs that have been drafted over the last 10 years in the top 10 are very mediocre at best.

i second this, if there is a QB that goes first overall, its Bradford. He may have the bust potential because he's bound to get hit no matter where he goes and we've seen what happens when he gets hit but he has the best chance to be the next great QB out of anyone in this class. I don't even have Clausen in my top twenty prospects right now, he's going to need to really blow people away at the combine (or hope that Snyder is still calling the shots in Washington) to even be in the top 10 discussion in my opinion.

What??? The more NFL ready of the two QBs is not in your top 10? Are you Todd McShay? Clausen may have less ceiling than Bradford, but he will play through pain and can take a hit. Did you see NDs OL last year? Revolving doors... Their RBs were below average. If Clausen had been the QB at USC, he would have won a national title and been the obvious #1 overall pick. His defense held quite a few of his "game winning drives" from being actual game winners.

FUNBUNCHER
02-15-2010, 04:38 PM
Having the #1 overall SUCKS.

irishbucsfan
02-15-2010, 04:43 PM
We'll take it from you. And we'll even give you Michael Clayton too.

Paranoidmoonduck
02-15-2010, 05:12 PM
We'll take it from you. And we'll even give you Michael Clayton too.

If a team were to make a play for that pick, I'm quite certain it would be the Bucs. They may feel the need to be proactive in pursuing McCoy and if St. Louis were targeting a QB, they would still have their pick at #3.

KCJ58
02-15-2010, 05:18 PM
I really enjoyed reading what everyone thinks about the #1 pick, all very interesting (some dumb) but it's all in good fun, as the day get's closer personally I want Suh but I could be flipping on this and might just want a QB to actually root for, should be very interesting who the Rams take

Babylon
02-15-2010, 05:40 PM
Having the #1 overall SUCKS.

It sucks if you need a QB and that player doesnt have the grade of other players, that seems to be the theme here.

etk
02-15-2010, 05:49 PM
I don't even know the last time I posted, but I had to login to comment here....

MAJOR respect for a well-researched and written analysis of Suh. You're the first person to nail the Pros/Cons without bias or misinformation. Thanks for sharing your knowledge of football.

HawkeyeFan
02-15-2010, 05:51 PM
We'll take it from you. And we'll even give you Michael Clayton too.
Give us your #1, #2 and a 4th. :)

ThePudge
02-15-2010, 06:19 PM
I don't even know the last time I posted, but I had to login to comment here....

MAJOR respect for a well-researched and written analysis of Suh. You're the first person to nail the Pros/Cons without bias or misinformation. Thanks for sharing your knowledge of football.

Thanks man, scouting reports have become my favorite thing about analyzing the draft. Suh and McCoy in particular were real fun to breakdown.

Saints-Tigers
02-15-2010, 07:49 PM
This was excellent analysis and breakdown pudge, but I do disagree about the QBs.

I think Clausen has a noticeably stronger arm and is more accurate. Bradford doesn't go deep enough for me to take it seriously, and I haven't been impressed with his deep ball. Clausen puts the ball where only his guys can get it almost every time, he knows how to throw to pro receivers in a pro style offense.

Bradford is tall, and he can throw really well on bubble screens and such, color me unimpressed.

Oh, and to add to the Suh Vs. opposing d-lines, I'll add McCoy's line:

3 years:

40 games: 83 tackles, 33 tackles for a loss and 14.5 sacks.

That's a tad better than Suh did in 14 games! and it's even less tackles.

I don't think I can ignore that big of a discrepancy in numbers in the same conference, in the same time frame.

If it were a case of one guy getting double and triple teamed more often, I'd see an argument, but I'd argue that Suh saw more attention(it's equal at worse).

What accounts for this massive gap? Is McCoy over running that many plays?

At some point we just have to accept that a guy is special and defies logic and measurements. if Suh gets a hand on a runner or QB, you are not escaping him, and he's always around the play like a LB.

McCoy's first step is probably better, but the second, third and fourth step probably go to Suh.

The guy just had 24 tackles for a loss and 12.5 sacks in 14 games getting double and triple teamed. He's a better run stuffer(by a lot IMO) and a better pass rusher still, maybe he doesn't do it in the quick penetrating way like McCoy, but he just gets it done.

LonghornsLegend
02-15-2010, 08:02 PM
I think it's more interesting wondering who Detroit would rather have at #2, McCoy or Suh for their scheme.


I keep hearing it's Bradford #1, STL has put alot of picks into the D-line for years now, they need a QB eventually and if Bradford's arm checks out it could very well be him and that's a good fit for him inside a dome as well. Say for instance they take Suh and his knees bother him from being a dominant type player and Bradford turns into an upper level QB they'll kick themselves for this for years now.


Still would love to see Detroit on the clock and both DT's are there, granted I'm sure Tampa would love that scenario too but we could somehow see Suh end up at #3 as crazy as it sounds, McCoy is very much an elite prospect and has been for a while now.



Also on McCoy, maybe you just didn't have enough cons to list but:

- Can't talk to him without hearing "God" in every other sentence


That may not be the preference of some, but I certainly don't see that as a con. How many players who use so many references to God have been known to get into constant trouble? Maybe it's a stereotype, but typically these players work hard, aren't big on the night life, and do exactly everything you ask of them to do. Wasn't Reggie White the exact same way?

JFLO
02-15-2010, 08:14 PM
I keep reading the opposite, that St. Louis would rather have a veteran presence like Mike Vick and draft Suh or McCoy.

Still over two months 'til the draft so there is a lot of movement to be made, but I agree in the fact that Bradford or Clausen ends up being the pick.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Schwartz select McCoy over Suh as he is more of the disruptive type player that he likes.

LonghornsLegend
02-15-2010, 08:19 PM
I keep reading the opposite, that St. Louis would rather have a veteran presence like Mike Vick and draft Suh or McCoy.

That would be a pretty good start to their off-season depending on who they grab in FA honestly if you asked me, but I also don't think it would be the worst thing to draft Bradford and sit him behind Vick for 2 years. Teams traditionally are so impatient with stuff like that, but that would probably help Bradford alot and in that time work on developing more weapons for him and a solid line.


I think if they went that route they could still find a great DT next year because their still not a playoff team, maybe not the caliber of McCoy or Suh but even with Vick I think their picking top 12 and having Vick, your franchise QB behind him also, leaves alot of options for next year.

JFLO
02-15-2010, 08:38 PM
Would you rather have Bradford/Clausen with Odrick/Houston

or

Suh/McCoy with Colt McCoy/Tony Pike?

I think I would take the second option just because you still have at least a decent project QB with McCoy/Pike, plus, it's less money.

Monomach
02-15-2010, 10:15 PM
How many players who use so many references to God have been known to get into constant trouble?
Well, Tommie Harris is a lazy jerkoff who held the Bears over a fire for a huge contract and disappeared right after signing it. Every time he gives an interview it's all JEEZUS GOD FAITH BAWWWWWWWW. I guess teh JEEZUS forgot to tell him to not punch people on the field and no-show to practice.

ThePudge
02-15-2010, 10:20 PM
Also on McCoy, maybe you just didn't have enough cons to list but:

That may not be the preference of some, but I certainly don't see that as a con. How many players who use so many references to God have been known to get into constant trouble? Maybe it's a stereotype, but typically these players work hard, aren't big on the night life, and do exactly everything you ask of them to do. Wasn't Reggie White the exact same way?

Yea, I've had to answer for that earlier. It was a note, just something that may or may not turn teams off in interviews. I don't think it affects him any, he seems plenty down to earth.

Halsey
02-15-2010, 10:20 PM
What's funny is all the Rams fans that will say "Wait till next year to get a QB! This year is a weak class and next year's will be great!"

The same thing that fans who don't understand the value of QBs say every year.

descendency
02-15-2010, 10:25 PM
What's funny is all the Rams fans that will say "Wait till next year to get a QB! This year is a weak class and next year's will be great!"

The same thing that fans who don't understand the value of QBs say every year.

In all fairness, the class last year was extremely top heavy and some doubted those guys even. Then you have a very deep class, with no standouts really (Clausen and Bradford have obvious flaws).

Last year, they were looking at a much stronger top end for this class and most of those guys fell apart.

P-L
02-15-2010, 10:35 PM
What's funny is all the Rams fans that will say "Wait till next year to get a QB! This year is a weak class and next year's will be great!"

The same thing that fans who don't understand the value of QBs say every year.
That is what many Lions fans said last year. "Let's take Aaron Curry this year and we take Sam Bradford next year." What happens if Ryan Mallett has a terrible, Jevan Snead-like junior season and Locker suffers a serious injury. Then they're in the same damn position as this year. I don't suggest taking a quarterback just for the sake of taking a quarterback. If you don't think either Bradford or Clausen are franchise quarterbacks then don't take them. However, if you think one or both of them are it would be stupid not to draft one just because they aren't #1 on your board. Anyone think Atlanta wishes they would've taken Glenn Dorsey instead of Mat Ryan?

Saints-Tigers
02-15-2010, 10:53 PM
Eh, I'm not for taking QBs just for taking them either, and at this point, if I'm building a squad I want to start building around the best possible players.

I'm not taking a QB because I think he's going to be pretty good, or starting quality, or what not, I am only passing up guys like Suh and Berry if I think this QB is going to be an absolute Stud, or I can turn him into that.

FUNBUNCHER
02-15-2010, 11:11 PM
Clausen may not make people gasp with his play, but I question the point that he has obvious 'flaws' in his game. In fact, I would say he's solid across the board and still the most pro ready prospect available.

Before Tommie Harris jakced his knees, after a healthy Urlacher he was the best player on the Bears' D. This talk about him being lazy and whatnot, well, if that's the case the Bears need about 10 more 'lazy' starters on D and 11 more on offense.

Morton
02-15-2010, 11:17 PM
Why should the Rams take a quarterback when they have a perfectly adequate former Pro Bowler Marc Bulger, and they need tons of help on defense anyway?

Suh could make an immediate impact for them. A QB has a higher potential bust rate and even if he doesn't bust, he'd take another 2+ years to fully develop...

Job
02-15-2010, 11:22 PM
How in ******* hell is Marc Bulger perfectly adequate?

Scotty D
02-15-2010, 11:33 PM
Why should the Rams take a quarterback when they have a perfectly adequate former Pro Bowler Marc Bulger, and they need tons of help on defense anyway?

Suh could make an immediate impact for them. A QB has a higher potential bust rate and even if he doesn't bust, he'd take another 2+ years to fully develop...

Bulger is done, he is terrible.

Halsey
02-16-2010, 01:13 AM
QB's have high bust rates. The Rams need to stick with safe picks....like Chris Long. Remember how safe he was?

If there's one thing that's overrated, it's the 'safety' of picking non-QBs with high Draft picks. Let's just look at D-lineman as an example of what I'm talking about. Without thinking hard I can come up with numerous 'safe' D-lineman who didn't/haven't played up to their Draft position, for one reason or another:

Steve Emtman
Dan Wilkenson
Gerrard Warren
Gaines Adams
Andre Wadsworth
Courtney Brown
Aundrey Bruce
Chris Long
Jamaal Anderson
Amobi Okoye

Those guys were all safe picks. Fans always remember the high profile QBs who didn't pan out, but many seem to forget that there's been plenty of players who didn't pan out at other positions. If you could break down the hit-miss rate for QB's and D-lineman, it probably wouldn't be as different as you think. Even when a D-lineman turns out to be a stud in the NFL, the wear and tear on their body can make their careers short. If a team hits on a QB, they stand a good chance of filling that need for a decade or more. If a team hits on a D-lineman, they're fortunate to get 6 or 7 good years out of him.

Saints-Tigers
02-16-2010, 01:17 AM
Even if they have the same bust rate, do you take a pretty good QB over a dominant DT?

Halsey
02-16-2010, 01:23 AM
Even if they have the same bust rate, do you take a pretty good QB over a dominant DT?

You mean like Drew Brees over Gerrard Warren?

In the case of this year, it just depends on multiple variables. I'd have to know things like the health status of Bradford and Clausen, how they do in a 'chalkboard session with the Ram's coaches, how the Ram's coaches feel they fit into their system, etc.

ThePudge
02-16-2010, 01:28 AM
Even if they have the same bust rate, do you take a pretty good QB over a dominant DT?

I care more about getting the Quarterback position nailed down for the next ten years than I do inside at Defensive Tackle. The question is how sold are the Rams on Clausen & Bradford. If they see one of those two as a Franchise QB then the pick will likely go there due to their anemic, low-scoring offense.

Saints-Tigers
02-16-2010, 01:50 AM
You mean like Drew Brees over Gerrard Warren?

In the case of this year, it just depends on multiple variables. I'd have to know things like the health status of Bradford and Clausen, how they do in a 'chalkboard session with the Ram's coaches, how the Ram's coaches feel they fit into their system, etc.


No point in taking a QB in the first round, every second rounder will be Drew Brees anyway, and all DT's will be Gerrard Warren.

Monomach
02-16-2010, 02:50 AM
Before Tommie Harris jakced his knees, after a healthy Urlacher he was the best player on the Bears' D. This talk about him being lazy and whatnot, well, if that's the case the Bears need about 10 more 'lazy' starters on D and 11 more on offense.

The douchebag no-shows to practices and takes a ton of plays off. There's no "before he jacked his knees." His knees were jacked in college. That's why he fell to the mid-first round.

So, no...we do not need 10 more of those. We need to cut the one we have.

wordofi
02-16-2010, 02:53 AM
What's funny is all the Rams fans that will say "Wait till next year to get a QB! This year is a weak class and next year's will be great!"

The same thing that fans who don't understand the value of QBs say every year.

You don't pass on a dominant defensive tackle for a quarterback. Dominant defensive tackles rarely come around. Name me a year since the NFL-AFL merger when a quarterback didn't go in the top 10?

CC.SD
02-16-2010, 02:54 AM
I'm on Team Jimmy and it is strictly needs based. For a million reasons already stated Suh is the better prospect, but the time has finally come for the Rams to GET ******* REAL with their QB situation. When rookies from division XIII are starting for your NFL football team, what you are doing is telling every single other player on your roster that the organization doesn't give one single damn about winning. #2, #2, #1, that is the last three years overall pick for the Rams. It's a QB league and between picking an OT last year and actually having a playmaker at RB, the setup is at least kind of sort of there for QB success. Clausen is the best prospect in this class at that position so it's time.

TonyGfortheTD
02-16-2010, 04:38 AM
Lets see:
-Likely a new owner coming in to take over the team. New owner that just paid a ton of money to buy team will want a player that will boost ticket sales.
-Ranked in the bottom 5 for passing yards, dead last for points scored
-Passed on taking a QB for the last two years hoping that building the lines would do something. Spent the last 3 first round picks using this method and have 6 wins over that span to show for it.
-Have nothing to work with at QB. Bulger is done and the Rams need to continue flushing remains of the previous era.
-Even as a stopgap, I still wouldn't want a QB that has attempted 15 passes including the postseason since the 2006 season. Trading for Vick would basically amount to throwing a draft pick in the trash. Even if they do bag Vick, QB still should be the choice.

I'm gonna laugh if they pass on taking a QB, again.

FrankGore
02-16-2010, 04:57 AM
You don't pass on a dominant defensive tackle for a quarterback. Dominant defensive tackles rarely come around. Name me a year since the NFL-AFL merger when a quarterback didn't go in the top 10?

Atlanta did that a couple years ago when they took Matt Ryan over Glenn Dorsey and it didn't turn out too shabby.

I know, I know, Suh is supposed to be an even better prospect than Dorsey, but back then, Dorsey was about as dominant/productive and decorated at the college level as a DT could get. The Chiefs were supposedly getting the best player in the draft at #5. I'm sure some of his under-performance in KC is a result of system/coaching, but just speaking in general terms, the Falcons did what you said a team can't do, and came out with a franchise QB and so far, a better player.

Organizations need to do what is best for them. There is no such thing as a "you do not ____" when it comes to this, IMO. If the Rams feel like one of those QBs can become their long-term starter, I wouldn't fault them in the least for taking one. Suh may go on to do great things but the Rams are a team that desperately needs direction, especially at the QB spot, so we'll just have to see how the evaluation process goes.

Soapy Papoose
02-16-2010, 07:45 AM
You don't pass on a dominant defensive tackle for a quarterback. Dominant defensive tackles rarely come around. Name me a year since the NFL-AFL merger when a quarterback didn't go in the top 10?

2000, 1997, 1980, 1978, 1977.....
For proof.....
Link (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/history?year=-1&round=1&position=8)

GoRavens
02-16-2010, 08:59 AM
You need a QB to win ball games, plain and simple.
Draft Jimmy Clausen #1, then get Geno Atkins in the second round.

MidwayMonster31
02-16-2010, 09:18 AM
Let's remember that the success rate of 2nd and 3rd round quarterbacks is atrocious. There are way more John Becks and Brian Brohms then are quarterbacks like Drew Bress.
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/23qb/23qbs.php
Let's update this:
2007
Kevin Kolb (?)
John Beck (fail)
Trent Edwards (benched last year)
2008
Chad Henne (marginal starter)
Brian Brohm (fail)
Kevin O'Connell (already got cut once, chances are he will get cut from the Jets next season: fail)
2009, no quarterbacks (unless you count Pat White) were selected in rounds two and three. That's 1/6 quarterbacks starting, could be 2 next season. Henne might be solid, and so might Kolb, but that's it. I doubt that either one sniffs a Super Bowl.
I don't think that either Colt McCoy nor Tony Pike will be starters in the NFL. The Rams won't be able to be patient for Tim Tebow. The Rams have to go quarterback in the first round, since they probably won't get anything good in the second. You can get a quarterback in the first round and a DT in the second. Odrick or Houston would at least be solid starters for them. I would rather take a shot at a potential star quarterback and a decent starter at DT, then a star DT and a backup quarterback.

Grizzlegom
02-16-2010, 09:21 AM
What??? The more NFL ready of the two QBs is not in your top 10? Are you Todd McShay? Clausen may have less ceiling than Bradford, but he will play through pain and can take a hit. Did you see NDs OL last year? Revolving doors... Their RBs were below average. If Clausen had been the QB at USC, he would have won a national title and been the obvious #1 overall pick. His defense held quite a few of his "game winning drives" from being actual game winners.

Clausen may be more NFL ready of a QB but I just don't see him as an all-pro at the next level. I think his ceiling is Matt Hasselbeck in his prime and his floor is Jake Delhomme. Both were good enough to get to the Super Bowl when he had a great run game and offensive line paired with a decent defense and receivers but he is not the type of player that can lead any group of bums to the playoffs. If i'm getting a QB in the top ten i want that player to be someone who can take over my team and lead them to the playoffs year in and year out despite not having the greatest supporting cast.

If he goes top ten i could see his career going similar to Justin Smith, good at everything but not great at anything. He was a solid producer for the Bengals every year and is now an important piece of the 49ers defensive puzzle but he was never an elite player and never played up to his top ten draft stock. If you want a player like that in the top ten then enjoy but I would prefer to take a player that i feel has the ability to be a pro bowler year in and year out and in my analysis Clausen isn't that guy. There's plenty of time to prove me wrong, we haven't even hit the combine yet but as of now, i have him on the outside looking in at the top ten.

LizardState
02-16-2010, 09:43 AM
Well, Tommie Harris is a lazy jerkoff who held the Bears over a fire for a huge contract and disappeared right after signing it. Every time he gives an interview it's all JEEZUS GOD FAITH BAWWWWWWWW. I guess teh JEEZUS forgot to tell him to not punch people on the field and no-show to practice.

The Bears need to revamp their d-line, it's true. I saw only one Chicago game last yr so I have limited data, but it seems like:

1) Tommie Harris has yet to return to his form since his serious leg injury that kept him out of their SB, put up or shut time for him may have come & gone last season
2) they need to get more out of Mark Anderson who has declined since his terrific rookie season, is he still even on the roster?
3) Jarron Gilbert needs a hell of a lot more playing time at DE. He led the nation btw in TFLs in 08 at San Jose St, give him his shot.

Other draft needs trump d-line though, like pass defense & protecting an underachieving Cutler.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
02-16-2010, 10:41 AM
Just wanted to laugh at something Skip Bayless said this morning it was something like "I liked Brady Quinn more as a prospect in big games against USC he made plays"

HawkeyeFan
02-16-2010, 11:17 AM
You don't pass on a dominant defensive tackle for a quarterback. Dominant defensive tackles rarely come around. Name me a year since the NFL-AFL merger when a quarterback didn't go in the top 10?
Also, if your doing the "Name a year where a QB didn't go Top 10" route,
Let's look at DTs;
In 2009, BJ Raji went #9.
In 2008, Glenn Dorsey ( a once in a decade DT ) went #5, Sedrick Ellis went #7.
In 2007, Amobi Okoye went #10.

I could go on for awhile, but I'm on Campus and need to finish up some homework, so I don't have time right now to keep providing legitimate arguments vs you, regarding your post.

Suh isn't a once in a decade player, we have "once in a decade" players every year. He's no different than Glenn Dorseys hype at the time was.

Morton
02-16-2010, 11:21 AM
First of all, how do you guys know Glenn Dorsey and Chris Long are going to be busts? They're both only 2 years into their rookie contracts on bad teams. They have plenty of time to develop into solid starters.

Here's the thing about Suh: he's practically guaranteed NOT TO BUST. This is about as sure-fire of a DT prospect in the NFL since Warren Sapp. In fact, he's probably going to be as dominant as Sapp, if not even more dominant.

So do you take a QB, who, if he succeeds, will probably be more valuable to your franchise, BUT who has a 40-60% chance of busting... or do you take a Warren Sapp / Reggie White prospect who has only a 5-10% chance of busting?

You can always get a QB through free agency, or say, in next year's draft, but a once-in-a-lifetime prospect like Suh comes along, well, once in a lifetime.

This isn't just "another good lineman" like Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, or whatnot.

ThePudge
02-16-2010, 11:36 AM
First of all, how do you guys know Glenn Dorsey and Chris Long are going to be busts? They're both only 2 years into their rookie contracts on bad teams. They have plenty of time to develop into solid starters.

Here's the thing about Suh: he's practically guaranteed NOT TO BUST. This is about as sure-fire of a DT prospect in the NFL since Warren Sapp. In fact, he's probably going to be as dominant as Sapp, if not even more dominant.

So do you take a QB, who, if he succeeds, will probably be more valuable to your franchise, BUT who has a 40-60% chance of busting... or do you take a Warren Sapp / Reggie White prospect who has only a 5-10% chance of busting?

You can always get a QB through free agency, or say, in next year's draft, but a once-in-a-lifetime prospect like Suh comes along, well, once in a lifetime.

This isn't just "another good lineman" like Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, or whatnot.

Glenn Dorsey's playing good football in Kansas City, albeit out of position at defensive end in a 3-4 scheme. Chris Long started to come on toward the end of last season and could still develop into a good player, especially if the Rams go defensive tackle at #1. No one's guaranteed not to bust, not Suh, not Peyton Manning, not anybody. Injuries, coaching, and work ethic/attitude have been the cause of most busts and it's impossible to say anyone is a 100% guarantee.

Suh's got a history of knee surgeries, plays relatively high, and has a thinner lower body. Someone dives on his knee once the wrong way (not uncommon in the trenches) and his entire career in jeopardy. His athleticism & change of direction skills in space are part of what make him great and one has to wonder how his skills could slip if there was an injury. McCoy and Clausen are the two more durable options and therefore "safer" in my opinion.

FlyingElvis
02-16-2010, 11:41 AM
First of all, how do you guys know Glenn Dorsey and Chris Long are going to be busts? They're both only 2 years into their rookie contracts on bad teams. They have plenty of time to develop into solid starters.

Here's the thing about Suh: he's practically guaranteed NOT TO BUST. This is about as sure-fire of a DT prospect in the NFL since Warren Sapp. In fact, he's probably going to be as dominant as Sapp, if not even more dominant.

So do you take a QB, who, if he succeeds, will probably be more valuable to your franchise, BUT who has a 40-60% chance of busting... or do you take a Warren Sapp / Reggie White prospect who has only a 5-10% chance of busting?

You can always get a QB through free agency, or say, in next year's draft, but a once-in-a-lifetime prospect like Suh comes along, well, once in a lifetime.

This isn't just "another good lineman" like Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, or whatnot.

You miss the point on every level.

Long & Dorsey have both struggled after being considered sure-fire, safe prospects who would be immediate, impact players. The point is that they were not supposed to be guys who needed 2, 3 or more years to develop.

Awesome job making up completely arbitrary bust percentages. Care to substantiate those numbers?

Did you really just type and post the phrase "You can always get a QB through free agency" . . . ???? Drew Brees isn't available every year. That was a one time thing and really was only because his injury made it too risky for SD to tag & trade.

Suh has the same hype. None of the players you mention were consider just "another good lineman."

Nobody is ever, ever, ever, guaranteed NOT TO BUST.

Saints-Tigers
02-16-2010, 12:02 PM
You don't take ANY safe picks, you don't make a superbowl team with a team full of safe, high floor guys anyway.... Take the guy you think has the best chance of being dominant, not who has the best chance of being pretty good.

Caddy
02-16-2010, 01:04 PM
I honestly expect the Rams to choose a QB with the #1 pick. When you're a crappy team ala the Rams, what better way to get your franchise back on track than to select your franchise player.

Last year Tampa Bay was in a similar situation albeit with a much better record. We lacked a lot of things including receivers, running backs, corners and defensive lineman and there were several great ones on the board when we picked. Instead we opted to go with Josh Freeman who was nowhere near BPA, but was a franchise player - a guy who you draft to be a quarterback for the future.

It was a fantastic decision and one I don't regret in a heartbeat. I think if the Rams go with a lineman they are just setting themselves back another year.

Babylon
02-16-2010, 01:10 PM
I think the bottom line is do the Rams feel they have to get a QB out of this draft. If the answer there is yes do they want Suh and Tebow/Colt McCoy......or do they want Clausen/Bradford and Brian Price/Jared Odrick/Dan Williams........ In that scenario i might want the latter.

NFLSoup
02-16-2010, 01:45 PM
While the popular thought is that Ndamukong Suh will go first, there's just no way in our minds that St. Louis passes up the opportunity to take a franchise passer.

Detroit knew it last year, and while it seems like the Raiders botched the decision with JaMarcus Russell, they at least had the right idea a few years back.

It's likely coming down to Jimmy Clausen and Sam Bradford, which I change my mind on every day, but I firmly believe the Rams will go for a quarterback.

This also leads me to believe that there is a very good chance they trade down with Detroit, knowing full well that the Lions want Suh and don't need a passer.

There are a lot of reasons to like Bradford, but when you watch tape on Jimmy Clausen, it's hard to find another passer in this draft, or even last year's draft, with his kind of fluidity and play-making ability on the run.

He needs a lot of refinement with his footwork and his tendency to let the ball loose before his feet are set, but physically, he's by far the best quarterback prospect in this draft.

CC.SD
02-16-2010, 02:18 PM
While the popular thought is that Ndamukong Suh will go first, there's just no way in our minds that St. Louis passes up the opportunity to take a franchise passer.

Detroit knew it last year, and while it seems like the Raiders botched the decision with JaMarcus Russell, they at least had the right idea a few years back.

It's likely coming down to Jimmy Clausen and Sam Bradford, which I change my mind on every day, but I firmly believe the Rams will go for a quarterback.

This also leads me to believe that there is a very good chance they trade down with Detroit, knowing full well that the Lions want Suh and don't need a passer.

There are a lot of reasons to like Bradford, but when you watch tape on Jimmy Clausen, it's hard to find another passer in this draft, or even last year's draft, with his kind of fluidity and play-making ability on the run.

He needs a lot of refinement with his footwork and his tendency to let the ball loose before his feet are set, but physically, he's by far the best quarterback prospect in this draft.

Wow, you speak as a collective. Pretty cool schtick. If only Scott weren't so adamantly against other sites advertising on his own...

NGSeiler
02-16-2010, 02:50 PM
It sucks if you need a QB and that player doesnt have the grade of other players, that seems to be the theme here.

Pretty much.

What's funny is all the Rams fans that will say "Wait till next year to get a QB! This year is a weak class and next year's will be great!"

The same thing that fans who don't understand the value of QBs say every year.
That is what many Lions fans said last year. "Let's take Aaron Curry this year and we take Sam Bradford next year." What happens if Ryan Mallett has a terrible, Jevan Snead-like junior season and Locker suffers a serious injury. Then they're in the same damn position as this year. I don't suggest taking a quarterback just for the sake of taking a quarterback. If you don't think either Bradford or Clausen are franchise quarterbacks then don't take them. However, if you think one or both of them are it would be stupid not to draft one just because they aren't #1 on your board. Anyone think Atlanta wishes they would've taken Glenn Dorsey instead of Mat Ryan?

I agree that you can't justify passing on a quarterback this year simply because you think you'll be able to get one next year. That being said, if the Rams' rankings end up looking sort of like Scott's recent update (Suh/McCoy @ 1/2, Clausen @ 10, Bradford @ 12), can they really jump ten spots down their draft board to take one of the quarterbacks with the first overall pick?

If the Rams view one of these guys as, say, one of the top 3-5 players in this class, I can understand passing up a few others to take him because of the value of his position. But if they've graded him as being borderline top ten in this class, as some have, I'm just not convinced they should make that pick. I don't think reaching that much for need with the number one pick - even if it's a big need, and even if it's at the game's most important position - is the way this organization is going to successfully turn things around.

Monomach
02-16-2010, 03:12 PM
First of all, how do you guys know Glenn Dorsey and Chris Long are going to be busts? They're both only 2 years into their rookie contracts on bad teams. They have plenty of time to develop into solid starters.

Here's the thing about Suh: he's practically guaranteed NOT TO BUST. This is about as sure-fire of a DT prospect in the NFL since Warren Sapp. In fact, he's probably going to be as dominant as Sapp, if not even more dominant.

So do you take a QB, who, if he succeeds, will probably be more valuable to your franchise, BUT who has a 40-60% chance of busting... or do you take a Warren Sapp / Reggie White prospect who has only a 5-10% chance of busting?

You can always get a QB through free agency, or say, in next year's draft, but a once-in-a-lifetime prospect like Suh comes along, well, once in a lifetime.

This isn't just "another good lineman" like Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, or whatnot.
http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/Kool-AidMan.jpg

Drink Up!

FUNBUNCHER
02-16-2010, 04:15 PM
Not to hijack this thread, but can we stop talking about Warren Sapp like he was one of the greatest DTs to ever play??

I'd take Randy White over Sapp-ling all day long.

Halsey
02-16-2010, 04:51 PM
Pretty much.
I agree that you can't justify passing on a quarterback this year simply because you think you'll be able to get one next year. That being said, if the Rams' rankings end up looking sort of like Scott's recent update (Suh/McCoy @ 1/2, Clausen @ 10, Bradford @ 12), can they really jump ten spots down their draft board to take one of the quarterbacks with the first overall pick?

If the Rams view one of these guys as, say, one of the top 3-5 players in this class, I can understand passing up a few others to take him because of the value of his position. But if they've graded him as being borderline top ten in this class, as some have, I'm just not convinced they should make that pick. I don't think reaching that much for need with the number one pick - even if it's a big need, and even if it's at the game's most important position - is the way this organization is going to successfully turn things around.

When it comes to QBs, rankings should be thrown out the window. The way the Rams should handle the #1 overall pick can be put in simple terms really: If they see a QB available in this Draft who they believe can be an above average starter for a long time, they need to get him. If not, then take Suh or Mccoy or whoever. Having a long term answer at starting QB is so important, even if he's not the next Peyton Manning.

NGSeiler
02-16-2010, 05:10 PM
When it comes to QBs, rankings should be thrown out the window.

That seems a bit extreme. It's hard for me to imagine NFL teams throwing out their rankings as part of their evaluation and decision making process. For instance, did the Ravens throw out their draft board in 2008 and draft Joe Flacco with their eighth overall pick?

The way the Rams should handle the #1 overall pick can be put in simple terms really: If they see a QB available in this Draft who they believe can be an above average starter for a long time, they need to get him. If not, then take Suh or Mccoy or whoever. Having a long term answer at starting QB is so important, even if he's not the next Peyton Manning.

Problem is, if I'm a team taking a quarterback with the first overall pick, for the money I'm going to have to pay that player, I want something more than an "above average starter."

CC.SD
02-16-2010, 05:52 PM
Here's the thing about Suh: he's practically guaranteed NOT TO BUST. This is about as sure-fire of a DT prospect in the NFL since Warren Sapp. In fact, he's probably going to be as dominant as Sapp, if not even more dominant.

So do you take a QB, who, if he succeeds, will probably be more valuable to your franchise, BUT who has a 40-60% chance of busting... or do you take a Warren Sapp / Reggie White prospect who has only a 5-10% chance of busting?

This isn't just "another good lineman" like Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, or whatnot.

Where are you getting these percentages from? 5-10% bust chance? Is there a chart? :D Better prospects than Suh have bit the dust before, and spectacularly. It is as simple as combining a history of knee issues with being 300 pounds. He does not have a conventional DT body type either, and you always have to keep both eyes on the prospects who succeed because they are simply physically superior to other college students, because that doesn't always work in the NFL and the technique has to develop. It's part of why Suh was not out of this world as a player until just this year.

I am extremely high on him but to guarantee he will not bust is silly. Nothing is guaranteed. Hate to say it but Suh has some flags that he will probably overcome, but the key word is probably. Sapp had flags too, if he's going to be used as the measuring stick for can't miss prospects, the guy fell out of the top 10. If anything the gold standard for DT prospects in my memory is Gerrard Warren, so there's something right there.

Rams need a QB more than they need a DT it's just a more important position for a franchise that doesn't have squat going on right now. If they decide the QBs aren't worth taking that high then I'm sure they'll move on to the other spots, which is totally okay if they trust their scouts. But in my opinion they need to get someone who touches the ball every play.

Halsey
02-16-2010, 06:21 PM
That seems a bit extreme. It's hard for me to imagine NFL teams throwing out their rankings as part of their evaluation and decision making process. For instance, did the Ravens throw out their draft board in 2008 and draft Joe Flacco with their eighth overall pick?



Problem is, if I'm a team taking a quarterback with the first overall pick, for the money I'm going to have to pay that player, I want something more than an "above average starter."

The Ravens didn't need to take him at 8. They knew no team between 8 and 18 was going to Draft a QB. According to most people, Flacco wasn't 'rated' high enough for pick 18 either.

The Rams wanted more than a quality starting QB the past 2 Drafts. That's why they're picking #1 this year.

FrankGore
02-16-2010, 06:37 PM
Problem is, if I'm a team taking a quarterback with the first overall pick, for the money I'm going to have to pay that player, I want something more than an "above average starter."

Actually, the way veteran quarterbacks are signing new deals, if the #1 pick turns out to be a stable, above-average starter, the money will line up with what they would give to a veteran within just a year or two. And if he's better than that, he becomes sort of a bargain. It only seems bad when they first sign...a few years down the line deals for guys like Stafford and Sanchez won't seem bad if they can stabilize their teams at the position.

NGSeiler
02-16-2010, 10:15 PM
The Ravens didn't need to take him at 8. They knew no team between 8 and 18 was going to Draft a QB. According to most people, Flacco wasn't 'rated' high enough for pick 18 either.

Whether or not they needed to take him at eight didn't appear to be important. I thought the argument was, if you've identified a franchise QB, you take him? Now it appears as if there's more to consider than that - ie. can he be had later? - which I agree with. There is more to consider, rankings being among the factors rather than something to just throw away. You're probably right in that one factor in the Ravens' decision to trade down was Flacco's potential availability later in the first round. However, I think it's plausible to think that another factor in their decision was that Flacco simply wasn't good value at the eight-spot.

A somewhat similar situation in this draft, I think. Especially if the Rams' draft board looks anything like Scott's most recent update or, just as another example, the current Scouts Inc draft board. And why, if the Rams want a QB, I would like to see them move down as well. Ideally by swapping picks with Tampa, picking up something else in the process, and then taking said QB at the three-spot. The Bucs GM has already said they're open to the idea of moving up, and I think if the Rams are going to pass up better prospects to take a passer, they should at least get an additional pick in the process.

The Rams wanted more than a quality starting QB the past 2 Drafts. That's why they're picking #1 this year.

That seems like an incredible oversimplification, IMO.

Actually, the way veteran quarterbacks are signing new deals, if the #1 pick turns out to be a stable, above-average starter, the money will line up with what they would give to a veteran within just a year or two. And if he's better than that, he becomes sort of a bargain. It only seems bad when they first sign...a few years down the line deals for guys like Stafford and Sanchez won't seem bad if they can stabilize their teams at the position.

Perhaps. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how many stable, above-average quarterbacks get $72 million contracts with $41+ million in guaranteed money over the next year or two. ;)

Halsey
02-16-2010, 11:22 PM
If the Rams can trade down and still get a QB who they believe can be a quality starter, more power to them. Not likely, however.

PACKmanN
02-17-2010, 06:28 AM
Not to hijack this thread, but can we stop talking about Warren Sapp like he was one of the greatest DTs to ever play??

I'd take Randy White over Sapp-ling all day long.

Sapp is a top 10 DT of all-time, and is the prototype of the Cover 2/Tampa 2 DT.

FUNBUNCHER
02-17-2010, 07:05 AM
Sapp is a top 10 DT of all-time, and is the prototype of the Cover 2/Tampa 2 DT.

Warning - thread is about to be 'jacked.

Please give me your top 10 DTs alltime, sir. Or how about you best since 1980??

Sapp will eventually be in the HOF, but he's not the prototype of the Cover 2 DT. When Dungy became the HC of the Bucs, he was looking for the next John Randle, the player he coached in Minnesota, not the next Warren Sapp.

I'm not going to rip Sapp, since he will be one of the few true DTs inducted in Canton, but I've heard several whispers about him being the GOAT for the position, and that's just nonsense.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2010, 10:44 AM
Warning - thread is about to be 'jacked.

Please give me your top 10 DTs alltime, sir. Or how about you best since 1980??

Sapp will eventually be in the HOF, but he's not the prototype of the Cover 2 DT. When Dungy became the HC of the Bucs, he was looking for the next John Randle, the player he coached in Minnesota, not the next Warren Sapp.

I'm not going to rip Sapp, since he will be one of the few true DTs inducted in Canton, but I've heard several whispers about him being the GOAT for the position, and that's just nonsense.

Huh? How could Dungy be looking for the next Warren Sapp when Sapp hadn't even played in the NFL yet. That makes no sense at all.

And for the record, the prototype Cover 2 DT is Mean Joe Greene.

LizardState
02-17-2010, 10:46 AM
I know there's no such thing as a franchise DT but there s/b. And Suh is that player, clearly a better choice than Clausen or Bradford for a franchise that hasnt been able to stop the run in ....... forever.

Since there's no Franchise QB Superhero like Stafford in this draft at QB, better to take Suh 1st overall & pay him 1st overall $, your 1st pick should be the solution to your biggest problem & if you've seen the Rams defense lately you have little doubt it's their biggest problem among many. There's not that much of a dropoff in the QBs behind Clausen & Bradford so pick up Bulger's successor with pick #33.

FlyingElvis
02-17-2010, 11:17 AM
I know there's no such thing as a franchise DT but there s/b. And Suh is that player, clearly a better choice than Clausen or Bradford for a franchise that hasnt been able to stop the run in ....... forever.

Since there's no Franchise QB Superhero like Stafford in this draft at QB, better to take Suh 1st overall & pay him 1st overall $, your 1st pick should be the solution to your biggest problem & if you've seen the Rams defense lately you have little doubt it's their biggest problem among many. There's not that much of a dropoff in the QBs behind Clausen & Bradford so pick up Bulger's successor with pick #33.

10.9 points per game.

I have more than a little doubt that run defense was their biggest problem. Even if Suh pans out and the Rams have a mediocre run D, they still have a bad pass D and can't score enough points to beat anybody.

The anemic offense is their biggest problem. 10.9 points per game. The 2006 Raiders and 2000 Browns are the only teams worse in the entire decade - 10.5 and 10.1, respectively.

Addict
02-17-2010, 11:40 AM
I know there's no such thing as a franchise DT but there s/b. And Suh is that player, clearly a better choice than Clausen or Bradford for a franchise that hasnt been able to stop the run in ....... forever.

Since there's no Franchise QB Superhero like Stafford in this draft at QB, better to take Suh 1st overall & pay him 1st overall $, your 1st pick should be the solution to your biggest problem & if you've seen the Rams defense lately you have little doubt it's their biggest problem among many. There's not that much of a dropoff in the QBs behind Clausen & Bradford so pick up Bulger's successor with pick #33.

Incidentially, Bulger was a sixth round pick. Just sayin'.

Though I want to have said it be careful throwing tags like 'sure thing' and 'bust proof' around, even when it concerns Suh. Sometimes the most unlikely bust. I'm not even talking Robert Gallery or something here, there's plenty of examples of lesser busts and guys who haven't lived up to their 'sure thing' label. Remember Chris Long?

descendency
02-17-2010, 12:14 PM
"There is not that much of a drop off between Clausen/Bradford and the next guys"

Yea. Not much difference between a potential starter (Clausen, Bradford) and a bench player (Tebow, McCoy, Pike, etc). I agree.

MATTYxICE
02-17-2010, 12:20 PM
I say they give Keith Null a chance. He really didn't do to bad for a 6th Round pick from a small college on a really bad team....

Halsey
02-17-2010, 12:28 PM
Here's something to keep in mind about Suh/Mccoy vs Bradford/Clausen:

Suh and Mccoy had 5 and 4 years, respectively, of college to learn positions with smaller learning curves. Bradford and Clausen each played 3 years of college. If Bradford and Clausen had 5 years to work on their games, they might be significantly better prospects.

Saints-Tigers
02-17-2010, 12:30 PM
They might be, but they'd probably be picked apart to hell and back and drop like a senior rock.

AntoinCD
02-17-2010, 12:46 PM
Every time I sit down to start a mock draft I end up getting side tracked writing a improportionally large explanation for the Rams. For a long time I had them taking Jimmy Clausen however recently I had put Suh in there. Im starting to talk myself back round to Clausen though.

A few things I think regarding this pick:

The Rams have no one even close to a franchise caliber QB and I dont think they can get one through free agency or trade. How many perfectly healthy quality passers are traded or released. Drew Brees had serious questions over his shoulder injury and Phillip Rivers was ready to step in. Matt Schaub had Michael Vick's contract to contend with. Jay Cutler acted like a ***** enough to make staying in Denver impossible. It is a simple matter in football that a franchise QB is the most important piece and teams that have one dont get rid of them unless there is a serious issue. I dont see any of those this offseason.

In 4 of the last 5 years the St Louis Rams have drafted either an offensive or defensive lineman. While it is the case that none of those players could even be considered above average at this moment I dont see how the Rams can afford to ignore the rest of their team to right the wrongs if you will.

If they draft Suh, the Rams would have three high first round players who may be best suited to play 5 technique in a 34 playing in a 4 man front.

With the current financial issues surrounding rookie salaries through the draft I think teams have to value positional value over talent value. Drafting a stud DT at #1 and paying him over $75million over 6 years with approx $45million gauranteed does not make sense financially. Albert Haynesworth is the highest paid DT in the NFL with a 7 year $100million contract with $41million gauranteed. If the Rams draft Suh, they will pay him a contract similar to Haynesworth and he hasnt played a down in the NFL.
If the Rams are going to pay that highly for a defensive player then he really should be almost gauranteeing double digit sacks every year.

This brings me to why the Rams should get either Clausen or Bradford. With the NFL now being a passing league the emphasise on positional value has changed. Teams priorities should be

Get a franchise QB
Protect your QB
Rush and sack the opposing QB
Stop the opposing QB from making easy throws-CBs

The Rams drafted Alex Barron and Jason Smith to protect the QB. They drafted Adam Carriker and Chris Long to rush the QB. They drafted Tye Hill to shut down WRs. It doesnt matter that so far none of those picks have been what they were intended to be. The Rams do not have a QB.

'If you do not have a franchise QB and one is available then you have to take him'. This could not be more applicable than in this scenario.

I dont think anyone can doubt that Suh and McCoy are the two best players in this class and it could be argued that neither Clausen nor Bradford are even top 5. However the added positional value has to put them top of the board.

Anyone who thinks franchise QBs are not the most important thing just needs to look at the playoff teams from last year.

NO Saints-Drew Brees
Ind Colts-Peyton Manning
Min Vikings-Brett Favre
NY Jets-Mark Sanchez
Ari Cardinals-Kurt Warner
Bal Ravens-Joe Flacco
SD Chargers-Phillip Rivers
Dal Cowboys-Tony Romo
Cin Bengals-Carson Palmer
NE Patriots-Tom Brady
Phi Eagles-Donovan McNabb
GB Packers-Aaron Rodgers

With the exception of Sanchez(rookie) and Flacco(second year player) each of those QBs is a bona fide franchise QB and I would be willing to bet that Flacco and Sanchez will join them in a year or two.

Also from that list, if you take out Tom Brady and Kurt Warner(who are both literally one in a thousand cases) and Tony Romo who went from a late round draft choice to pro bowler then you are left with highly drafted QBs.

Brett Favre was drafted 33rd overall and was described as a gunslinger etc. For Atlanta, then coach Jerry Glanville literally said 'it would take a plane crash for him to start'.

Drew Brees fell to the second round also because he was 'too short' to play the position.

The rest of the QBs were drafted in the first round, five of them in the top 5.

In the 2010 NFL draft first round, of the top 16 picks, 9 teams have a QB that was not drafted in the first round.

In the 2010 NFL draft first round, of the bottom 16 picks, 5 teams have a QB that was not drafted in the first round.

Of those 5 teams, the QBs are Matt Schaub(pro bowler), Tom Brady(pro bowler, former NFL MVP, 2x SB MVP and future HOFer), Tony Romo(pro bowler), Brett Favre(pro bowler, 3x NFL MVP, and future HOFer) and Drew Brees(pro bowler, SB MVP and probable future HOFer).

It is no coincidence that the best teams all have franchise QBs. Some teams have gotten lucky(NE, Dal etc) however they still have their QB. The last team to win the SB without a franchise QB was Tampa Bay with Brad Johnson, however the Tampa Bay defense which intercepted Rich Gannon 5 times probably had something to do with that win.

If St Louis has any desire to rise from the mediocrity of their current situation then they simply have to gamble on their top rated QB.

Who knows, Ndamukong Suh may help them win an extra 3 or 4 games next year and take them out of the running for Jake Locker or Ryan Mallett.

Sorry for ranting

FlyingElvis
02-17-2010, 12:50 PM
Great post.

LonghornsLegend
02-17-2010, 07:04 PM
Whether or not they needed to take him at eight didn't appear to be important. I thought the argument was, if you've identified a franchise QB, you take him? Now it appears as if there's more to consider than that - ie. can he be had later? - which I agree with. There is more to consider, rankings being among the factors rather than something to just throw away. You're probably right in that one factor in the Ravens' decision to trade down was Flacco's potential availability later in the first round. However, I think it's plausible to think that another factor in their decision was that Flacco simply wasn't good value at the eight-spot.

A somewhat similar situation in this draft, I think. Especially if the Rams' draft board looks anything like Scott's most recent update or, just as another example, the current Scouts Inc draft board. And why, if the Rams want a QB, I would like to see them move down as well. Ideally by swapping picks with Tampa, picking up something else in the process, and then taking said QB at the three-spot. The Bucs GM has already said they're open to the idea of moving up, and I think if the Rams are going to pass up better prospects to take a passer, they should at least get an additional pick in the process.




There is a big difference between the Baltimore situation and the Rams one that your missing. The Rams have the #1 pick in the draft, the Ravens had the 8th. It's much easier to trade back at that spot then it is the #1 spot for alot of different reasons.


Also, at that time everyone said Baltimore got ripped off and didn't get enough for moving back. Nobody wants to trade into the #1 spot, it always sounds great for the team wanting to move back, but I doubt that anyone wants to pay that price even for Suh.


If you were picking anywhere else then yea maybe, but your not going to trade out of the #1 spot, and still your talking about QB's who are rated highly from prestigous programs and ranked as top 10 picks by the masses. Your comparing them with a QB from a 1-AA school who many said was a reach even at 17, yea I get the whole "he's a franchise QB so take him" but there not the same situation even if Flacco turned out to be that franchise guy. You can't compare the two when they are totally different.

NGSeiler
02-17-2010, 08:56 PM
This brings me to why the Rams should get either Clausen or Bradford.

I appreciate the depth of your explantaion. But what's interesting to me is that, unless I've missed something in your response, nothing that followed this statement actually argued why the Rams should get either Clausen or Bradford specifically. What you seem to have argued is why the Rams need to get a franchise QB. There didn't appear to be much about these two prospects in particular in your explanation, except saying, "it could be argued that neither Clausen nor Bradford are even top 5." Again, maybe I missed it though.

I don't think anyone who follows the Rams is arguing that they don't need a franchise QB or a QB of the future. You don't have to convince anyone that the Rams have a big need at the position. The question becomes whether or not either of these two guys are worth spending the first overall pick on. There are more than a few, myself included, that have doubts in that regard.

There is a big difference between the Baltimore situation and the Rams one that your missing. The Rams have the #1 pick in the draft, the Ravens had the 8th. It's much easier to trade back at that spot then it is the #1 spot for alot of different reasons.


Also, at that time everyone said Baltimore got ripped off and didn't get enough for moving back. Nobody wants to trade into the #1 spot, it always sounds great for the team wanting to move back, but I doubt that anyone wants to pay that price even for Suh.


If you were picking anywhere else then yea maybe, but your not going to trade out of the #1 spot, and still your talking about QB's who are rated highly from prestigous programs and ranked as top 10 picks by the masses. Your comparing them with a QB from a 1-AA school who many said was a reach even at 17, yea I get the whole "he's a franchise QB so take him" but there not the same situation even if Flacco turned out to be that franchise guy. You can't compare the two when they are totally different.

I don't believe I said it would be easy for the Rams to trade back, just preferable/ideal. I'd also point out again that the Bucs GM has stated he's open to the idea of moving up, so while the chances may be slim, they're not hopeless. But I think if that's what you're focused on, you're missing the point of my response.

What I was mainly pointing out was that, IMO, there's more to the process than simply identifying a franchise QB and then taking him, throwing everything else out the window in the process. I think what the Ravens did in 2008 demonstrates that. Because in my opinion, if it was simply about taking a franchise QB once you've identified him, then I think the Ravens would have just taken Flacco @ 8. But they didn't, because there are other factors to consider - Flacco's grade and draft value, for instance.

LizardState
02-18-2010, 02:48 PM
10.9 points per game.

I have more than a little doubt that run defense was their biggest problem. Even if Suh pans out and the Rams have a mediocre run D, they still have a bad pass D and can't score enough points to beat anybody.

The anemic offense is their biggest problem. 10.9 points per game. The 2006 Raiders and 2000 Browns are the only teams worse in the entire decade - 10.5 and 10.1, respectively.

Yeah their offense is abysmal, near the top in turnovers given up & TOP too which explains their point total was so low per game. Most of their losses followed the same pattern: get behind early, Bulger has to take chances & that's when the INTs started, teams had DB pick parties vs. the Rams.

Trying to determine the worst aspect of the Rams & what to fix with the 1st overall pick is kind of like ER doctors looking at a patient who has taken a 12-gauge buckshot blast in the chest at close range & trying to determine through which hole or which artery the patient will bleed to death 1st. The Rams are bleeding out on both sides of the ball & on STs too, hence my comment earlier on throwing a dart a draftboard list of players by position & you'll fill a Rams need, that's why the BPA approach might not be wrong one for them, & Suh seems to be the consensus BPA or can't miss impact rookie in the whole draft.

FlyingElvis
02-18-2010, 03:13 PM
lol. A damn fine analogy.


But you'll never sell me on Suh being the better choice. Getting some life into the franchise has to be factored in, especially with a new owner. Though, to be fair, that mustache of his could certainly be the "face of the franchise" for a year or two.

Getting fans back in the seats has to be a priority as well, and a QB does that. A DT does not. They need to rely on Spags to pull together a decent D with the talent they already have. A Dlineman in the second could still get them a good player - QB doesn't have the same depth.

FUNBUNCHER
02-18-2010, 03:39 PM
Here's something to keep in mind about Suh/Mccoy vs Bradford/Clausen:

Suh and Mccoy had 5 and 4 years, respectively, of college to learn positions with smaller learning curves. Bradford and Clausen each played 3 years of college. If Bradford and Clausen had 5 years to work on their games, they might be significantly better prospects.

Bradford was in OU's football program for 4 years, he redshirted his true freshman year. McCoy was also a RS senior for the Longhorns, and spent five years in the program, just like Suh did at Nebraska.

Clausen is a true junior, having spent only 3 years at ND.

Halsey
02-18-2010, 04:09 PM
Bradford was in OU's football program for 4 years, he redshirted his true freshman year. McCoy was also a RS senior for the Longhorns, and spent five years in the program, just like Suh did at Nebraska.

Clausen is a true junior, having spent only 3 years at ND.

If Bradford didn't play his 4th year we can't really draw any conclusions about how he developed in his 4th year.

aheineken
02-19-2010, 06:20 AM
As a Rams fan, I really hope they take Suh. At the very worst he's going to be an above average starter. Drafting a QB number 1 overall is a huge risk, especially when there isn't a consensus #1 QB or one worth the pick. Reaching for a QB who doesn't pan out could set the franchise back another 5-6 years. I think they find someone servicable in FA or via a trade, then go with Suh. If it doesn't work out, and they're picking at the top next year...Jake Locker is a much better prospect than Bradford or Clausen.

AntoinCD
02-19-2010, 06:44 AM
As a Rams fan, I really hope they take Suh. At the very worst he's going to be an above average starter. Drafting a QB number 1 overall is a huge risk, especially when there isn't a consensus #1 QB or one worth the pick. Reaching for a QB who doesn't pan out could set the franchise back another 5-6 years. I think they find someone servicable in FA or via a trade, then go with Suh. If it doesn't work out, and they're picking at the top next year...Jake Locker is a much better prospect than Bradford or Clausen.

A few points here. How do you know Suh will be an above average starter? Like all other prospects he has a chance to bust. He seems like a hardworking, level headed guy but only he knows how he will react to that massive contract. What if he gets injured etc. No prospect is a sure thing.

As for Locker, as we recently seen with Ryan Mallett anyone can get injured at anytime. This time last year people where saying Bradford was maybe a better prospect than Stafford. What if Locker is badly hurt next year or what if Suh helps the Rams win a few extra games and they are taken out of the running for either Locker or Mallett

FlyingElvis
02-19-2010, 09:01 AM
^ exactly.

I think Clausen has everything a QB needs to be at least and above average starter. If Bradford's shoulder is 100% I will feel the same way about him. But nobody is ever a sure thing, regardless of position.

3pac
02-19-2010, 01:01 PM
you must be kinda new here not to remember the major JR love on the boards 'round those days. Anyone not on the JR bandwagon was on the Quinn bandwagon, what happened to those bandwagons, you ask?

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1941.article.jpg

I was on the Quinn bandwagon. I still have hope for him.

rockio42
02-19-2010, 01:14 PM
I will only be content with Clausen as out 1st rounder if we are picking him at #3 or lower, considering the want/need of Suh on the Lions or Bucs taking Clausen at #1 makes no sense, trade down to #3 if you want Clausen...if they stay at one I would rather have Suh, but Clausen at #3 and a few extra picks wouldn't piss me off all that much

HawkeyeFan
02-19-2010, 01:17 PM
I will only be content with Clausen as out 1st rounder if we are picking him at #3 or lower, considering the want/need of Suh on the Lions or Bucs taking Clausen at #1 makes no sense, trade down to #3 if you want Clausen...if they stay at one I would rather have Suh, but Clausen at #3 and a few extra picks wouldn't piss me off all that much
If the other teams aren't biting, then you can't trade down. Devaney and Spagnuolo play a very good smokescreen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them make it work.

However, if the Rams stay at #1 and don't trade down, I still want Jimmy Clausen.

rockio42
02-19-2010, 01:19 PM
If the other teams aren't biting, then you can't trade down. Devaney and Spagnuolo play a very good smokescreen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them make it work.

However, if the Rams stay at #1 and don't trade down, I still want Jimmy Clausen.

Fair enough, but not taking a DL in the 2nd round (or more importantly a DE) if we don't take Suh will be a mistake...

MATTYxICE
02-23-2010, 07:15 AM
KEITH NULL

HawkeyeFan
02-23-2010, 08:13 AM
Fair enough, but not taking a DL in the 2nd round (or more importantly a DE) if we don't take Suh will be a mistake...
Who knows, maybe the Rams acquire someone prior to the draft that would make us not draft a DT that high? Dorsey, Coefield? It's hard to say.

I like the scenario of 1) Clausen, 2) Hardy/Price/Dan Williams/Odrick or Jahvid Best/Golden Tate/Gilyard.

rockio42
02-23-2010, 11:07 AM
Who knows, maybe the Rams acquire someone prior to the draft that would make us not draft a DT that high? Dorsey, Coefield? It's hard to say.

I like the scenario of 1) Clausen, 2) Hardy/Price/Dan Williams/Odrick or Jahvid Best/Golden Tate/Gilyard.

I think a more pure RE is the best at the top of the 2nd, because the depth at WR should stretch to the 3rd round and a RE would allow Long to kick over to LE easier and more efficiently for the entire team

Thread Killer
02-23-2010, 08:39 PM
Chris Long was a safe pick.
Jason Smith was a safe pick.
Adam Cariker was supposed to be a safe pick.

Rams 1-15

CC.SD
02-23-2010, 08:43 PM
Chris Long was a safe pick.
Jason Smith was a safe pick.
Adam Cariker was supposed to be a safe pick.

Rams 1-15

Good post.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 08:46 PM
Chris Long was a safe pick.
Jason Smith was a safe pick.
Adam Cariker was supposed to be a safe pick.

Rams 1-15

You want to get dangerous...

https://admin.xosn.com/pics21/0/RJ/RJKIBRPCHBIZLMZ.20091209220825.jpg

That's right! Thread...Killer. I am dangerous.

http://www.giantsfootballblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/spags-300x276.jpg

Mr.Regular
02-23-2010, 09:20 PM
The Rams need a QB over anything else. Nowadays if you don't have a franchise QB, you have no chance. Period.
How important are QB's? Lets take a look at the 2007 draft.

Oakland obviously missed on the #1 pick, but at least they took a shot on the QB.
Detroit and Cleveland scooped up Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas right after Oakland...both amazing picks....both are legit talents, potential probowlers, and in Thomas' case probably the best player in the league at his position... and where did that get them? Barely anywhere. Why? Those teams aren't set at QB yet. It is impossible to be successful without a QB. It is the main ingredient in winning.

Now if St.Louis passes on Clausen or Bradford at #1 I will understand it. I have serious questions about both of these players and I feel Suh is a Reggie White type of prospect. But they better have a backup plan. They better love a free agent, or they better love a round 2 quality QB, or they better have a trade in place... because they need to solve the QB problem. Even with a player of Suh's quality that team will go nowhere without that position solved.

GoRavens
02-24-2010, 05:28 AM
Exactly.. A team feeds off of their QB.
The QB touches the ball every play, and makes game winning decisions.
Suh and McCoy would help the D-Line, not win games. Unless St. Louis is sold on Mallet, or Locker, they need their franchise QB now.. Now is it Clausen #1, or Bradford? I'd go Clausen. Bradford has health concerns, so drafting him #1 is shaky. Jimmy Clausen has an NFL arm, and is experienced enough to lead the Rams as a rookie.
ROUND 1: 1st Pick: Saint Louis Rams - QB, Jimmy Clausen

thatguy
02-24-2010, 05:59 AM
u have to give your coach some talent to work with and the rams d-line has a lot of potential but they aren't getting results because the lack of a good DT. Spags can't work with o.j. atogwe, luarinitis, and chris long because thats all the talent on the D. Suh can improve all those players and it would give a reason for o.j to stay when is contract is up. But guessing the pick just depends on if your a offensive type of person or defensive type. Either way who ever the rams pick you gotta be happy because qb and dt are the worst position for the rams and and anyone coming in is a lot better when who they have now.

descendency
02-24-2010, 09:09 AM
https://admin.xosn.com/pics21/0/RJ/RJKIBRPCHBIZLMZ.20091209220825.jpg

a pass rusher DE like JPP could be a nightmare in the NFL. I'm not suggesting he goes #1 overall, but his position has more value than a DT and his upside is through the roof. I wouldn't be completely shocked if it happened. Although Rams fans would go insane.

Mr.Regular
02-24-2010, 09:11 AM
a pass rusher DE like JPP could be a nightmare in the NFL. I'm not suggesting he goes #1 overall, but his position has more value than a DT and his upside is through the roof. I wouldn't be completely shocked if it happened. Although Rams fans would go insane.
You wouldn't be completely shocked?
I'd **** my pants if that happened. JPP over 2 of the best DT prospects we have ever seen... and 2 potential franchise QB's?

GoRavens
02-24-2010, 09:28 AM
If JPP is the #1 draft pick, I'm turning off my TV, and hanging myself. And I'm not even a Rams fan

FUNBUNCHER
02-24-2010, 10:46 AM
u have to give your coach some talent to work with and the rams d-line has a lot of potential but they aren't getting results because the lack of a good DT. Spags can't work with o.j. atogwe, luarinitis, and chris long because thats all the talent on the D. Suh can improve all those players and it would give a reason for o.j to stay when is contract is up. But guessing the pick just depends on if your a offensive type of person or defensive type. Either way who ever the rams pick you gotta be happy because qb and dt are the worst position for the rams and and anyone coming in is a lot better when who they have now.

Totally agree that the presence of Suh alone will cause a catalytic reaction throughout the entire Rams D; Chris Long will finally look more like his father, Carriker and Suh already have the Husker thing going on so maybe Suh helps Adam rediscover his inner beast, the LBs are able to pursue unblocked to the football, the DBs benefit from hurried QBs making rushed or bad throws.

You can't overestimate the worth of a potential franchise QB, but a top 10 D will go a long way towards putting up Ws too.